6792 replies to this topic

[Azincat]

tsxmitw, on 04 August 2011 - 12:42 AM, said:

Without mixed, balanced and thoughtul reviews, this place would be awfully dull.

I'll agree with you there Tsxmitw!

Reactions to individual performers and shows can be very subjective but I find it interesting to hear differing views. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer in responding to a performance, only different opinions! The only posts I don't enjoy is where the poster seems to have some kind of personal axe to grind which is usually all too apparent.

I enjoyed your detailed review of Act 1 of last night's performance of Wicked and hope you will continue with Act 2. I was a bit concerned about your comments on Rachel possibly needing some time off. Elphaba is a 'big sing' and, I know it has been discussed before, but I don't understand why they don't have an alternate for role (as they do for Christine in POTO).

[tsxmitw]

Double post.

[tsxmitw]

Well I'm horrified to think that my crtique of Rachel bordered on insulting- I didn't intend that at all, I was actually quite positive about her time in the role but thought that, as always with these things, she sub-standard last night in terms of my experience seeing the show. She IS a phenomenal West End performer, there is no denying that and even on her off-nights she's leagues ahead of other actresses I've seen in the role elsewhere.

poster J, on 04 August 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

I think you're focusing far too much on little bits rather than the overall picture, and to add in a comment like the very end of your review is a little unnecessary in my opinion, especially when it could have happened for any number of reasons rather than your implication that the performers were not good.

Quote

but why are we reviewing them like that? with a fine comb? dissecting  their performance like that? i understand that we, as the consumer, want  certain things from our performers.. but to literally break down the  entire show and nit pick like that is imho not constructive.
Ah but these little things are what adds up to a broader critique of the show - I could have just cut the crap and said 'Rachel was sub-standard', 'She strained' etc. but I thought it prudent to draw up examples to give my argument more weight. I think too many people review the show in non-specific terms and thought you might appreciate something more thorough and grounded.

Because giving a detailed review is much better than saying 'She looked bored,' 'She strained' etc. These finer details add up to a grander picture and give my argument more integrity. Thanks for saying that though, it's not as if that review took 2 minutes to write...

Quote

Similarly, you can say you don't like Chloe's performance as Glinda, but  she's clearly not been miscast. Many people (myself included) love her,  and if she was 'miscast' as Glinda, she wouldn't have been asked back  as Standby, let alone have her contract renewed for a second year.

I understand that, it's just my opinion.. if it goes in the face of salient facts, then so be it. Other reviews have picked up on similar comments regarding Chloe though, so I don't think I hold a particularly exceptional interpretation.

  

Quote

However I think some of your comments about Rachel fly a little too  close to the line of personal insult, given the amount of time you spend  negatively critiquing her voice in detail, which you don't do with any  of the others (in fact I don't think you mentioned Madame Morrible, the  Wizard, Nessa or Boq?)

The review is half finished, I'm commenting on the supporting cast later today in my review of Act 2. I did mention Madam Morrible, though.

[tsxmitw]

Azincat, on 04 August 2011 - 12:33 PM, said:

I enjoyed your detailed review of Act 1 of last night's performance of Wicked and hope you will continue with Act 2.  I was a bit concerned about your comments on Rachel possibly needing some time off.  Elphaba is a 'big sing' and, I know it has been discussed before, but I don't understand why they don't have an alternate for role (as they do for Christine in POTO).

Thanks Azincat.

Yes of course: Elphaba needs an alternate. The system works very well in the German production and I think it needs to be adopted internationally.

[*Beatrice*]

tsxmitw, on 04 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Well I'm horrified to think that my crtique of Rachel bordered on insulting- I didn't intend that at all, I was actually quite positive about her time in the role but thought that, as always with these things, she sub-standard last night in terms of my experience seeing the show. She IS a phenomenal West End performer, there is no denying that and even on her off-nights she's leagues ahead of other actresses I've seen in the role elsewhere.

Your critique was not insulting. I look forward to reading part 2 and many thanks for it.

But WOSers(!)  let us all appreciate that not everyone has the skill, time or even wants to write a detailed review.

[johartuk]

*Beatrice*, on 04 August 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

Your critique was not insulting. I look forward to reading part 2 and many thanks for it.

But WOSers(!)  let us all appreciate that not everyone has the skill, time or even wants to write a detailed review.

No-one said that reviews should be detailed - just that it's nice to read reviews that actually say more than "She seemed bored" and that aren't an excuse to slag off performers because they've taken over from your favourite or they're married to someone you don't like.

[poster J]

tsxmitw, on 04 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Well I'm horrified to think that my crtique of Rachel bordered on insulting- I didn't intend that at all, I was actually quite positive about her time in the role but thought that, as always with these things, she sub-standard last night in terms of my experience seeing the show. She IS a phenomenal West End performer, there is no denying that and even on her off-nights she's leagues ahead of other actresses I've seen in the role elsewhere.

That's just my opinion of your review, that's all, and obviously people have different opinions of where the line is drawn.  I certainly don't think you were rude, I just think that you focused a little too much on the negatives of a single night, and that jars with your overall positive impression of her in the role - it seems odd to be so specific about negatives in a single performance when the overall positive view makes it seem increasingly like you saw an off-night.   I have no problem with people discussing finer details as such, I do it myself, but I don't personally see any point in being so negative in detail about one particular night if you generally like her - is it not enough in that case to say that you didn't enjoy her performance as much as the previous times, with a few general comments rather than the detailed negatives? Why do you need to give an argument against a show you clearly enjoy more integrity, especially as many aspects you were critical of you seem to have enjoyed on previous visits, so they don't seem to be permanent problems?   I guess what I'm trying to say is that in my opinion it was a slightly superfluous detailed critique as, as you admit, you've seen the show many times and generally had a positive experience, and thus to be so negative in detail over one show seems a little odd when the number of good shows you've seen overwhelmingly outnumber the bad.  I don't understand really why you feel it necessary to have an 'argument', when you're only stating an opinion on a single performance.  But that's solely my opinion, and I do appreciate the detail you put into the review, it's always nice to read such long ones even when I disagree with comments in them

Quote

The review is half finished, I'm commenting on the supporting cast later today in my review of Act 2. I did mention Madam Morrible, though.

My apologies, I must have missed that reference.  I had just wondered why you hadn't commented on the supporting characters in Act 1 specifically seeing as they all appear, but if you're going to talk about their entire performance at once that makes sense, I look forward to reading it.

[poster J]

tsxmitw, on 04 August 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

Yes of course: Elphaba needs an alternate. The system works very well in the German production and I think it needs to be adopted internationally.

I agree with you on that, I think even regardless of the vocal preservation reasons it's a much more fair system than having a standby!


There's probably an argument for having an alternate Glinda as well, albeit that the role isn't as big in terms of the sung part, it's still quite vocally demanding!



Who would be a good alternate Elphaba or Glinda?

[DanielWhit]

poster J, on 04 August 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

Who would be a good alternate Elphaba or Glinda?

The same question is really "who would be a good standby?", I guess - I can't see Wicked hiring someone to alternate and having a different standby for the rest of the week.

[danf90]

poster J, on 04 August 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

I agree with you on that, I think even regardless of the vocal preservation reasons it's a much more fair system than having a standby!


There's probably an argument for having an alternate Glinda as well, albeit that the role isn't as big in terms of the sung part, it's still quite vocally demanding!



Who would be a good alternate Elphaba or Glinda?

why is it 'more fair' to have an alternate than a standby? Fair for who? The standbys get very good money for what they do.