There has been a lot of talk in other topics about an official Amdram Review section, I am sure that if the idea proved popular then Jane would consider adding this facility to the main site.

I don't personally think that the forum is a good place to post the review of a production because topics on here do not last too long.

The question is however, how do you propose such reviews take place and how do you think they should be displayed on the amdram site.

If you could post constructive ideas then I am sure that we can persuade Jane to create such an area.

Thanks

I'd be delighted to add reviews to the main part of the amdram.co.uk website. It would be very simple to add a link to the productions database and link the review from there.

I would be interested to hear what people think.

Jane

Hi

The actual thread in question is hereReviewing each other's shows The original suggestion was always for it to be held within the main site, and maybe even linked into the list of productions etc. There were a number of valid points which I'll summarise

The reviews should be in addition to and not to replace reviews from other sources

The reviews could be formatted as positive crits maybe with suggested improvements as well as a show review. The group should get the review and decide whether they want it published probably not the improvement suggestions)

There was a suggestion that a reviewing format could be devised to ensure that reviews by different people are comparable and to also act as an aide memoir

There has been a lot of positive comment combined with plenty of discussion as well as some reservations but I'm sure given the right opportunity this could be a valuable asset towards productions

A good idea - we have a review section our theatre site - But there are no guide lines as to what or how the format that a review is posted. Which is open to shows cast to use & post as many as they want! - Not ?what it is all about?. As this - the space becomes a publicity board - Instead of honest reviews. Hard to administer - that is - If it needs to be!
As for getting the groups approval first! Your pushing ?IT? up hill with your nose & it misses the point of reviewing in the first place.
Theatre "Lives by the sward & dies by the sward!" should be the ?battle Cry? "St Trin-ians?.St Trin-ians" Oooops my gym-slip is showing!

Chookas
Joe

Has anyone got a layout in mind, e.g how these should look and what different fields there should be?

That might help a design idea!

I think a reviews section is a good idea. We all rely on feedback to see how we can improve ourselves. Most of our feedback comes after the show when we all go out into the audience and talk to people but most of it is from family, friends and regular audience members. It would be good to have an independant review.
Maybe the layout could be split into sections, like Brief Synopsis, Positive Comments, Negative comments and Suggestions For Improvement. then Marks out of 10 or whatever.

But...I do have certain reservations...would a reviewer want to put their name to a review, or remain anonymous? Especially if the production is not very good and you want to be honest. Would it cause bad feeling if the reviewer is known to the group in question or known via the forum? Also would each submission be 'reviewed' itself to wheedle out those of spitful intent? Unfortunately that sort of thing could happen!

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Thats a very good point!

How can you ensure that the reviewing of performances is consistent?

Do you have some form of criterion for your review? How do you amend that criterion based on the limits of the Society?

There are obviously a considerable number of Societies, each of different sizes, performing on different scales and at larger and smaller venues.

If you don't have consistent reviews then they are not going to be considered good reviews!

Therefore they wouldn't be worthwhile!

You can't Simon. But that's part of it. No one can do a play that is going to be everyone's perfect show. Remember, you can't please all the people all the time.

It's only going to be consistent (ever) if the reviews are all done by the same person who is in the same frame of mind (tired/had a bad day/lively) every time.

But that doesn't stop us giving our honest opionions of a show. And it's worthwhile finding out what others think.

Constructive criticism is good, destructive criticism is bad.

Me thinks that Simon worries too much- in a bid to introduce something that will work first time & be the best he can devise. However no matter how it?s designed IT will eventually find its own level "Like water?! IT won?t work right the first time it?s set up - by the very nature of the beast it will be modified as it grows.
On the subject of 'De or Con Structive'. I have always found it does not matter -as most will tend to either accept or reject reviewers based on what they write. I feel that in the case of bad & destructive crits, the others on the forum would have ago & inturn review the reviewer openly. Those who have an axe to grind are quickly weeded out by their own ego being criticised by othose who may have seen the same production. If nothing else - they do create publicity & help in promoting the show by exposure.
With having sections - not knowing what was meant in the posting. I assume this would be to cover the Set, Props,Lights, Sound, Effects, Costume, Design &/or Direction of all the other production aspects that should be considered.
Most reviews I see are mainly about the warm props & only sparingly mention these. I?m sure it?s because most reviewers are afraid to air their lack of knowledge or don?t understand the technical side.
Fire it up Simon & see how it goes. If it gets out of control - extinguish it.
Chookas
Joe

Thats a fair point Joe and well done for getting this topic going again.
I think the main consideration of any review should be honesty, but as you mentioned, I wouldn't be able to comment on technical attributes or set design as I know nothing about them, but I would know if I enjoy a show or not or which aspects of it I admired.
For example, I went to see an Amateur production of Chess. I didn't like the show and all but two of the songs, but I could not fault the performances of the acting and the singing of ALL the cast, and the costumes and sets were brilliant. That was my opinion.
I think you're right, go ahead and see what develops. Any group would be very pleased to have their good points highlighted, and any good group should accept constructive criticism as it is, give it consideration and act upon it as they see fit. In the end it would be down to the group wouldn't it?
Perhaps a review could include a response from the group in question too? What does everyone else think?

G'D ONYA Janice.
I had a crit once - in a review of ?Man of La Mancha? about the next one I was Directing ?A Chorus Line? - which was virtually back to back & rehearsing at the same time ?MOLM? was performing. He blasted the hell out of me for having the audacity to try & Direct such a large show on a postage stamp stage area. Also he suggested I should think about ACL being performed in the carpark behind the Theatre.
I took no notice of it, in fact it was his wife that had pulled the pin on the lead role of Aldonza a few weeks before MOLM went on the boards. He also had a go at the young lass who stepped in & took over the role & who developed a throat infection & couldn?t sing on opening night. (We put a radio mike on her & another cast member sang the songs off stage thru a hand held mike - it worked fantastically well & she did a brilliant job being able to carry on & perform) Neither did he mention the set or lighting of ?Molm? & how I was able to engineer & design to fly in & out the large staircase without the aid of a Fly system. From underneath a gable roof a few Metres above the stage. Also we were able to get the actors to enter & exit - as though they were doing so thru the roof. I think that was too mind boggling for him & his one brain cell. One other Reviewer stated I must have accomplished it by removing the roof. Strangest thing is it was raining heavily the night he came & the rain could be heard hitting the corrugated iron roof in the auditorium. I was determined to make sure ACL worked within the space.

It might possibly was not thru the publicity given to the productions that both played to packed houses. These reviews could have been the reason?
Chookas {May you all play to full houses}
Joe McCabe

Perhaps people could sign off with their name and experienced position.

e.g. Anne-Marie, Director and Actor.

or something similar? Then people would know from what sort of angle it was being reviewed.

good criticism is harder than it looks - personalities apart joe's story is a fine example of what happens when an amateur tries his hand.

Peer review yes, opinion yes, but I'd suggest keeping it in the "family" and offering it in an atmosphere where it can be queried and discussed in a friendly manner.

I agree with all of the above. The only way I can see you acheiving consistency in answers obtained is to setup a two part review.

First part being of a survey format - lights, sound, costume etc against each - good to bad
There by each review having a basis to be founded on.

Second part general comments on the performance.

The crit then has to submitt thier contact details which are held privately unless they wish it to be publicly displayed. This way an unbiased administrator can check for dubious posts.

I think everyone may be getting a bit bogged down with rules and regulations and not wanting to "upset" the group being reviewed.
In my eyes a review is just that - somebody's review through their eyes. We are all responsible adults and OK some of us have bigger ego's than others but ultimately we all want to improve and help the cause of amateur theatre and promote it as much as we can.
I don't think anyone that is going along to any of our fellow amdramers performances is going to cause distress by saying something that is going to hurt others. We all know how to turn something that could be hurtful into a constuctive comment ie; "the leading lady's singing was weak" into "The leading lady had a promising if underdeveloped voice and with more confidence and strength blah blah blah"
That is what we would all be trying to do - promote not destroy.
I think maybe for the reviews to be posted here the reviewer should be a member of the site (to stop people posting shining reviews of their own shows!! - who would do a thing like that I hear you all cry!!)
But, I also think that you should let people have their say - I would trust any of the virtual friends I have made through this site come and review any of the shows that my group does, because I appreciate their opinion - I would hate it if they felt that they couldn't speak their mind because there are so many restrictions on what they can say.
Maybe have categories for each aspect of the performance which the reviewer could comment on (and it doesn't matter if we don't know much about lighting/ dancing etc- we can tell if it works or doesn't)
And then have one overall comment section.
I think letting the group involved have the final say as to whether the review is put up on the site is also a good idea.
Sorry for the epic but feel quite strongly - oh would welcome the opportunity to be the first group reviewed as a trial - our next show is in October.

I admire your optimism...... <_<

I'll go along with Fishy and Aims here. Yes, lets have a set of guildlines towards the review - not as rules, but to try to get reviews from different people into a general format so that they can be compared.

Aims is right - you want a reviewer to give you constructive advice on how to improve, either as an individule or as a group. If it offend you when someone tells the truth, doesn't massage you ego and highlights you weaknesses (in a constructive way) then I guess this isn't for you and you should go on living in the reality of being wonderful yet undiscovered.

I agree that only members should review, they shouldn't be part of the reviewed group not should thy have ever participated in the euro vision song contest. By agreeing to a review you should also agree to it being published with the cavet that you see it first and that if you find it offensive you write to Jane who will have the final descision.

Like Aims - I've got a show in Oct. I'll take all comers if they want to review (no freebie ticket though....)

sacrilege! there'd better be free plonk....

Don't let this be forgotten - who's got a play/show on in the next month or so - that they would like a review from? If its in the South (London, Kent, Essex or Surrey area) I will go - don't mind buying my own tickets either!!

Should be able to find current productions here:>>

http://www.amdram.co.uk/currentproductions.htm

You can select one to review from there!

I think a review section would be a great idea but there has been quite a lot of discussion regarding this but not a lot has been determined.

If you are interested in reviewing a production for whomever then I suggest that you read through the whole of this topic and then submit a review to amdram in the format you think suits best.

If several people do this then a comparison of reviews can be displayed on the Amdram site and we can all have a vote to decide which is the best.

I propose the best format for these reviews would be in a Word Document format. The layout can be copied and a structure decided?

I cannot do this because I am not good enough to review someones production!

I would prefer someone to say that they would like their show reviewed, as an unwanted review could just stir up all the things we are trying not to do. (See earlier post)
P.s I am going to see Chicago in the west end on Wednesday so could do a trial on that!!

Right - grasping the nettle - ouch

As we need a format for this how about this then;

1. What was the name of the theatre you visited
2. Was this the first time you visited this theatre
3. What was the name of the performance you viewed
4. When was this performance (date & time)
5. How would you rate the production on the following
( Very Good - Good - Satisfactory - Fair - Poor )
- Acting
- Lighting
- Sound
- Total Exsperiamce

6. What were your views on the production
7. Do you feel that the performance represented value for money
8. As a result of this exsperiance would you visit this theatre again
9. If you answered no to the last question please give us more details here.

Think thats a good start.......

What do you guys think?

Yep sounds great - just need the name of the society

ooh good point as various groups use some theatres

Make it a free for all! - give it a go!!!
A lot of adjudicators/Reviewers have a check list - good idea Fishy!
However I think after a while it will become less formulated & be what it should be - with no restrictions beyond that of the Amdram boards policy.
Why worry about it?
Try your hand at 'IT' Aims!!!
Chookas
Joe

Joe,

We would need to setup a database to store the information therefore we cannot have a "free for all", as discussed previously we need a definite template on which all reviews should be based.

This template can then be used to construct the database, Fishy has the right idea but we need approval and comments from more members!

Thanks Simon - Ill pull my head in from now on - but first may I ask why a special database? Why not as a special interest discussions that are set up now? I would imagine there was no member approval when the 'backstage-lights or prop' sections was set up - mind you I wasn?t around at the beginning! So I don?t know? Or have I missed the point!
Sorry for taking up the space!
Chookas
Joe

I have been using this tool for a while now - they are based in the usa but very nifty for a survey or the lilke.

The link below takes you to a dummy review section.

Sample Review

It's not going to be part of the forum, it would more than likely be in the main site or member's area.

It will be similar to the production database etc...

That's how I forsee it happening!

G?donya Simon
Now I understand???
Great idea as part of the Members resource area!
Bewdy bluey!
Chookas
Joe

I went to see something last night which I would love to review - can we get this up and running??? Or does it need more support?

I think this sounds a good idea. Not sure that I would be much good at contributing though, as I would find it difficult to collate my thoughts into words of more than "I liked it" or not.

Why not just set up a Review Forum within this discussion board? The you could post directly without the overhead of administration.

Now that's a very good idea - what does everyone else think?

Jane

Sounds an excellent idea to me.

Yep, sounds good to me. And far less official and stuffy!

Great idea Jane. Go for it.

P.S. Went to see a Leicestershire Youth Arts production of Bouncers by John Godber on Saturday - and as some of you on here will know I was a bit sniffy about it because it was kids (urgh). I take it all back. One of the slickest things I have seen in many a month. And the poor souls only had an audience of about thirty. What a waste!

Hasn?t this topic gone on a world trip for threepence?
Wasn?t this how 'IT' started off! - as just a section on the disscusion board orignally?
Or am I as thick as 2 short planks!

Joe

Joe - 2 short planks? Nah - four at least! (sniggers)

Actually the thread started with Simon saying he DIDN'T think it was a good idea having it as a thread on the discussion board because threads don't last that long. (Well, they don't when he gets a chance to sneak them from under our noses!)

Then the rest of the discussion revolved around what fields there should be and people getting very nervous about reviewing generally.

I guess we could always try it as a discussion thread - as the cheapest and easiest alternative - and then progress to a database if we feel it necessary.

I like the idea of an informal method for reviews - however I still feel that you at least need a format to follow even if it's a series of numberd points - that way each review would be simply comarable and people coud scan to the part they're interested in - if not all of it. for instance (these are suggestions and in no particular order)

1. brief production overview (what it is, type of venue held in)
2. Initial impressions (after all if the audience get bored in the 1st 30 sec s it's a poor performance)
3. Overall performance - name naes and parts if you wish
4. Lighting
5. Set
6.Sound
7 Overall impression and conclusion
8. name of reviewer and caviet i.e. Martin - Lighting designer who knows nothing about acting) just so yo can see the reviewers bias and experience

i like marin's forma. don' noda follow a se srucure for all heir reviews/ perhaps we could adop ha, alhough what Martin suggests sounds like a good start.

Can someone send me Zorro's code book so's I can translate...??

Sorry, keyboard got broke. Insert 't' where you think it fits and see if it makes more sense.

Aha! Now I see. Good code!

Please keep to the topic, straying from the topic only makes it hard to follow for people that genuinely want to make comments on the topic!

Thanks Maureen for the topics overview!
I believe -'Bliss' is measured by the extent of it?s density!
- Which will be most helpful!
As it seems we are taking another trip?
I think I?ll wait on for the next bus thanks!
- As IT is going to the same place.
Except this time -
"could I have a return ticket to the ?Never Never? for a Zak (6d) please!"
Chookas
Joe

Sooo anyway.........

HAve we reached a descision on this yet? Shall we open a thread in a particular forum and get this one running?

Yup. I like it.

Yup Martin, this sounds like a goer. We can open it in a forum and if it's successful I'll transfer it to the main site.

Any suggestions anyone as to which forum?