a month ago
i wrote what amounted to
an ode to milwaukee theatre critic damien jaques, ending with this:
jaques couldn't do it. he couldn't bring himself to write that scathing, awful review.
because he cared too much about those actors.
and you know what i thought?
i thought, "i like this guy."
today, there's this from
the guardian's theatre blog:
A question that comes up time and again in the theatre world is how critics and practitioners should relate to one another. The rise of theatre blogging has done a great deal to blur the lines between these two camps, due to the fact that more directors, actors and designers are taking to their keyboards to air their opinions, and that the internet allows artists and reviewers to talk more directly than ever before.
and it gets more, well...
complicated.
It's complicated, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI see no reason why cordial relationships via the blogosphere or other social networking should impact the job of reviewers assuming that fair (if not impartial) reviews are still written.
Despite that one example, I think Damien writes comprehensive and fair reviews.
ReplyDeleteI had dinner last week with somebody whom Damien reviewed quite some time ago. Damien said this person was "annoying and distracting" and was guilty of "egregious over-acting". My dinner companion could quote the review by heart - he probably had a plaque of it in the trunk of his car!