Cheap laughs at Death’s expense
Terry Pratchett’s ‘Mort’ by Collingwood’s Woodplayers’ Society at Collingwood College, 19th-21st June 2009.
Director Leo Smith’s interpretation of Stephen Briggs’ interpretation of Terry Pratchett’s Mort was small, cheap, cheerful and unambitious. Was there a large cast? Nope. A big budget? No way. Was there even a stage? Dream on. No, we were in a hastily converted gym in Collingwood. With a total of two sound effects, two sets, a tiny crew and a line in the programme saying ‘I’ve had a lot of fun guys’, clearly this play was a bunch of mates having fun, with the hope that this fun would rub off onto the audience. By and large, it did.
The play wisely favoured simple narration over tediously expositional scenes, using members of the cast to simply relate the plot to the audience, in the hope of clearing the stage of plot to make way for the gags, this was largely a clumsy device, but it worked fine. Equally the stage hands’ twirling of the set to give us scene changes, without even bothering to dim the lights, and using small A4 pictures to signify location was clumsy but it worked, just like the rest of the play.
The highlight of the show was undoubtedly Phil Davies as Death, drawing most of the laughs that the play had to offer. The brash nature of his costume (complete with robes, a scythe, a full skull mask and skeletal hands) combined with his booming voice to give us a dominating seven foot scene-stealer, efficiently upstaging everyone else in the performance. This wonderfully OTT appearance carried the humour of Pratchett’s much loved character easily, whether he was being socially awkward ‘Who is this fun?’, a depressed drunk clutching a comedy-teddy-bear ‘They all hate me you know’, or (most creepily) attempting to set his daughter up with a potential mate, Davies gave an excellent performance.
The other main actors were not likely to win Oscars, but provided solid performances, Mort (Phill Manley), wondered around the play with a permanently confused expression, frequently acting as a straight man, while Death pinched all of the laughs. Though he was not convincing as a tortured soul descending into inner conflict in the second act, he sustained his role (as the glue holding the play together). Particular highlights of the cast included Sarah Shephard as Ysabell, who gave a pleasingly indignant and self righteous performance, though her trim figure made nonsense of the play’s ‘fat joke’ (not that I’m pedantic or anything). Equally good was Cutwell (Gareth Davies) who took a relatively minor character and made him memorable. As for the really minor appearances, Mohan Kyle gave a great contribution as the job advisor, providing my favourite joke of the play ‘it seems that you have no useful skills or talents whatsoever, have you considered going into teaching?’ The rest of the cast gave steady performances, which were perfectly adequate for a play that does not as such require characters, but is content with caricatures.
The play was, however, clearly geared towards Pratchett fans above and beyond those who might have missed out on the books. The classic ‘million to one chances pop up nine times out of ten’, as well as the brief cameo appearance of Rincewind and The Librarian (with a full, and impressive, orang-utan outfit) was obviously a special treat for those members of the audience who’d grown up with the population of Discworld on their bedside cabinets. This would, of course, not be a problem, were it not for the fact that sometimes the plot relied on the audience having read the novel, I doubt whether anyone who had not read the book would have followed the idea of ‘reality closing’ in on the Princess (a suitably snotty Danni Reece-Greenhalgh). Mind you, maybe the non-fans deserved it, after all, they probably got bullied less in school. Not only this, but we also got to see Sam Shone in a tight pink corset, which gave the play two big attributes that anyone could enjoy.
The play did fall down in its attempted profundity. Whilst Pratchett is known for being able to swing between comedy, action and tragedy with ease, the play’s attempts at copying the novel’s existential unease did not really come off, since it could not help but be cheerful. In the same vein, the swordfight was not gripping, as there was little if any attempt at choreography evinced in the bumbling presentation.
All in all, the play delivered exactly what it said on a not-massively-impressive tin. It would be cruel to see this performance as anything more than an unambitious but fun play, and in this the play succeeded, though it did little else.
Henry Taylor
I feel obliged to correct several errors in this (hastily written?) review.
The job advisor was played (brilliantly) by Rob Old, not Mohan. Similarly, the witch in the corset was played by Dannie Garner, not Sam.
I find it staggering that this review would think the play was unambitious, the costumes alone were of the highest quality. As for complaints about the dining hall (not the gym), the play was supposed to be located outside so, obviously the sets were simple with ‘no stage’.
As for appealing to Pratchett fans, sure, there were a few in-jokes. But talking to people who have never read Pratchett and some who even, dare I say it, find him unfunny, I found that they thoroughly enjoyed Mort.
All said, it was one of the most successful plays in the history of the Woodplayers, so obviously we did something right.
I wouldn’t say the reviewer was complaining about the location. If anything the fact that it was enjoyable and fun inspire of this was a compliment.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to break my self-imposed ban on commenting on productions I’m involved in.
Firstly, thank you for writing a review which is critical – narrative reviews are pretty annoying! And also commenting on my ‘trim’ figure :P
However, this was a play produced in 10 days, and so alot of the limititations of this production come from that. This is something which you seem to have missed.
The costumes were made from scratch in that period and generally I found well received (although I will admit, people were unlikely to be wholely objective to my face). I don’t understand Perplexed’s comment – clearly the reviewer IS suggesting that performing in the dining hall was a bad choice. I don’t understand how having a small cast is a bad thing, which you clearly suggest in your derisive opening paragraph. Given we were also doing Othello, with both plays cast entirely from Collingwood students I would say that was a necessity to ensure a quality production. I would also like to remind you (as treasurer of the woodplayers) that we do not get the audiences of Durhamwide productions, so we have limited money available to us.
Also, suggesting all Terry Pratchett fans were bullied at school is hugely pompous (I am not a fan, fyi).
And I must say one last thing. When Collingwood has done more ambitious projects, reviewers have suggested that college shows should be good fun instead of brain-stretchers. When we have done more fun productions, it has been suggested that we are not capable of doing something more difficult. As Phil said, Mort broke records for the most well attended play we’ve had, which tells us something – sometimes people want to see a production that is just good fun and unpretentious. We will continue to do what people enjoy.
Thanks again for the review and for putting it up speedily.
I am not a part of the Woodplayers, but I did see the play, and I also saw the work that was put in. Everyone who I have spoken to have told me they enjoyed it, as did I.
Also there was a huge amount of work put in to this production which, as previously mentioned, was meant to be outside but was moved inside due to adverse weather conditions.
The cast was small, yes, but in some ways I believe that it added to the performance. It showed the actors being able to play multiple roles in the same play (some of the characters having different, and believable, accents too) and did not have any massive detrimental effect.
Not being a fan of Discworld myself, I still enjoyed the play. I have never read a book before, but I still understood the jokes, as did the others laughing in the audience by the sounds of things.
The budget of the play should not come into the reviewing process as it has. A small budget production can be just as good as a bigger budget production as the cost only affects a small portion of the overall performance. They worked well to the tight budget they had, and this is shown by the record attendance, and I believe an overall steadily rising attendance of all of the Woodplayers productions so far.
All in all well done to the Woodplayers for a much enjoyed, and well done production. I look forward to next term’s production(s).
I was afraid that Durham 21 had long given on intelligent and engaging reviews. This doesn’t do much to settle my fears.
I find it amazing that a review so verbose, grammatically inept and factually incorrect would be published. It is unashamedly damning of a play put together by just over 10 people in the same number of days. The pretence of praise barely hides the curt remarks of this careless reviewer, who seems to value gaining a laugh for himself more than writing with sense. The reviewer says himself at the beginning of the review that it was an interpretation, so doesn’t this fact in itself render many of the comments void?
Perhaps a little less haste in posting next time.
Whilst I’m sure your ‘two big attributes’ comment was meant innocuously and very much tongue-in-cheek, the fact you didn’t even get the name of the girl in question right makes you seem like a slobbering pervert.
Reading your review it would guess your notes would consist of “it’s in a gym and there’s no lighting this is rubbish the budget most be small because its in a gym and theres no WAIT THERES SOME TITS.”
“Not only this, but we also got to see Sam Shone in a tight pink corset, which gave the play two big attributes that anyone could enjoy.”
I just thought I would comment on the absolute professionalism you have shown in the writing of this article… I’m glad you “enjoyed” my attributes, even if you deemed any acting skill I displayed unworthy of your comment…I only advise that in future you keep such male-chauvenistic remarks to yourself – as it added nothing to the review and was just petty resort to vulgarity. All in all, you crossed a serious boundary, and even if the comment was meant tongue in cheek – it was completely unnecessary.
So, well done on the review…and just a thought, in future, you might like to read the programme before writing the review…
I wonder if the reviewer was jealous about the obvious amount of fun we all had and the audience seemed to have.
Other than that, I’m highly disappointed that after doing two shows in Durham, I have yet to find a proper review for either (please note, the review for Oklahoma on D21 was even poorer than this one, if that’s possible. At least this reviewer bothered to critically analyse the show in some way, even if he couldn’t restrain from resorting to vulgarity and displaying little understanding of the resources available to a college drama society.)
Well it could be worse. I could’ve been mentioned in the review by name (or by someone else’s as seems to be the trend.)
I did not go to see this play.
I did however, hear from a handful of sources (of varying reliability) that the Mort production was ‘not bad’, ‘all right’, and ‘vaguely entertaining’.
Perhaps then, the reviewer should carefully consider his viewpoint, bringing it more in line with that of the overwhelming majority, before he allows his poisonous fingers to stroke the keys of eternal woe, spreading his hate-filled misery like a tidal wave enveloping our plains of innocence.
It’s been said already but…
GET YOUR FACTS AND NAMES RIGHT.
Rob did an amazing job at turning what could have just been a bit-part into something very amusing and i am going to take no credit for it. A simple look into the programme could have old you everything you got wrong in this play.
Far from just having ‘a nice pair’, Danni (aka Sam Shone…) made, with much labor and stress, a wonderful set of costumes for the cast.
I feel the reviewer felt like being a snob and looking down his nose at college productions, shown by lack of care in even getting simple facts right. If you can’t be bothered to even read the programme, then what right do you have to write a review?
As it happens, i did read the programme (after i managed to steal one from a member of the audience, since they had run out of them at the show). The programme did not tell me who played what, though i did look through it. I apologise for getting the names wrong, but there was no indication as to who played the smaller parts. Also, many of you seem to think i’m a snob who looks down on smaller productions, but that’s not the case, i know this was small and low budget, but it’s not fair to praise other productions for their grandeur and scope and yet not at least mention the low cost of other productions. As for me being pompous towards Pratchett, i am myself a Pratchett fan, and have read Mort about 4 or 5 times at least, and still i thought the play was geared toward the fans more than anything else. As for getting cheap laughs using vulgarity, the review at least needs to be funny to some extent, otherwise no one will read it, and i think it’s unfair to attack me for making a tits joke when the joke in the play was clearly of the same ilk, it was meant to be tongue in cheek, and without comments like that the review would be little more than a dreary list. I’m not jealous of the fun that you all clearly had in making the play and i don’t enjoy giving bad reviews (of which this is not one); I appreciate how much effort you put into the play, but you all seem to forget that the review is itself largely a positive one; the overall thrust of the review is basically in line with the sorts of comments that Alan H advised me to listen to, which i entirely agree with.
I think this was a positive review and fairly accurate. The play was fun, as acknowledged by the reviewer and at length by the cast.
If however a cast is not willing to take criticism then, in truth, they shouldn’t be involved with theatre productions as it is a sad truth that criticism comes with the territory.
Alan H, if you really believe critics should not write how they feel about a piece but instead bow down to the masses then you, sir, are an idiot.
I agree that the reviewer should know who was who, if it wasn’t in the programme asking would have been easy enough.
People keep mentioning the budget constraints of a college play. Again, of no consequence. A low budget is not an excuse for a poor production or set design (note: im not accusing Mort of either) and it is a shame you feel the need to hide behind this. Take, for example, Microcomedy. They have next to no money, putting on shows for free and yet are producing innovative and provactive theatre.
You can’t make a tits joke in the play (Mort most definately stares uncontrollably, audience laugh – so don’t deny you did) then shout down the reviewer for doing the same.
“I wonder if the reviewer was jealous” – grow up. Please.
THIS WAS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT FULLY ACKNOWLEDGED HOW MUCH FUN WAS HAD BY BOTH CAST AND AUDIENCE. HE EVEN DESCRIBES ONE COSTUME AS IMPRESSIVE. Just because he didn’t love it, it does not make the review bad.
That said: Facts should really be checked, both by reviewer and editorial staff.
Otherwise I would conclude by saying I enjoyed Mort, but am thoroughly disappointed by the reaction to this review. Its tainted what was a highly enjoyable evening.
Hi again,
Firstly, Henry I apologise for saying that your Pratchett remark was pompous. Clearly I took the remark out of context given you are a Pratchett fan, although please note I did not say you yourself were pompous.
Secondly, Perplexed I take a bit of a slight at the insinuation we cannot take criticism. I have, as I previously said, never commented on a review before because I DO think it is bad form for a cast to comment on a review – however I have to defend myself and the rest of the cast. I think most of these comments are in shock at how much the tone of this review appears to be a bit of a pot shot at the cheapness of the show. I would also say at least they were brave enough to all put they were in the cast – I have seen many times before cast members or friends of the cast comment on reviews pretending to be objective. It would be interesting to know who you are Perplexed for this reason.
And also, none of the cast have actually tried to defend any criticisms of acting.
If you read my comment again, you will see that my issue is mainly with the first paragraph which suggests small cast + small budget = bad play. I will agree with you that the middle of the review about the majority of individual actors is positive, but don’t suggest the opening paragraph would give anyone the opinion this was a show worth the money!
Henry I would appreciate your opinion much more if you just stuck by it, don’t try and backtrack to find positives! You say that this is a good review because you say it is fun. But suggesting it is cruel to see us as anything more than a bit of fun is honestly a damning indictment of any play (Please note I’m not suggesting your opinion is wrong, just that you accept this is not a positive opinion).
And you also appear to have misunderstood our comments, and believe we are hiding behind budget constraints to justify a poor show. Again, that could not be more against what I believe and I would like to point out we won best college show at the d’oscars this year with a show on a £150 budget!
‘As for getting cheap laughs using vulgarity, the review at least needs to be funny to some extent, otherwise no one will read it’ –
Henry, this is your opinion. I will only say that is not mine. I would think most people can read serious reviews without getting bored – we are after all uni students not mindless drones!
Again, thank you for writing the review.
p.s. Perplexed, telling someone to ‘grow up’ on an internet forum whilst hiding behind a pseudonym is a little hypocritical, even if the initial comment was childish.
Sarah,
Thanks for your comment, but i did not backtrack on my opinion, i only apologised for getting names wrong, which is of course my fault. I was not taking potshots at the budget of the production, I have given very positive reviews to performances with a much lower budget than this one (see my review of Micorcomedy on this site), but I stand by my opinion that this was an ‘unambitious but fun play’, I think that this is positive, if you don’t, or you think it’s patronising, fair enough, but everything in the review (apart from getting the names worng) i still stand by. I also still think that reviews should be funny, otherwise they will not be read for pleasure, they need to appeal to people beyond those that were involved in the play, and if they’re not funny and engaging, then people will give up on them, and i think making cheeky jokes when the play itself made similar jokes should be allowed without being tagged as a male chauvinist.
I feel that that was a very harsh for a critique of a student production on which I know for a fact many people worked hard. Its utterly shambolic that such a set of cheap shots could be made. I also cannot believe the comment of ‘Not only this, but we also got to see Sam Shone in a tight pink corset, which gave the play two big attributes that anyone could enjoy’ could be made, which in itself is very sexist and inappropriate but, the fact you got the wrong name is utterly stupid bordering on the ridiculous! This review is ludicrous, out of order and over critical of a student performance.
>Not being a fan of Discworld myself, I still enjoyed the play. I have never read a book before, but I still understood the jokes
>I have never read a book before, but I still understood the jokes
>I have never read a book before
> never read a book
Enough said.
As may be clear, through publicity and another review for Othello, I was cast in the other play. I did, however, watch Mort and spent a decent amount of my time watching, continuing to wish I had been involved in what was not simply a fun piece of theatre, but an exceptionally ambitious production. Here are the reasons it was ambitious:
-To attempt to convey the many preconceived notions people have on characters and stories of an author so beloved as Pratchett is a genuine challenge, which requires real thought to accomplish.
-The set was purpose built for the production, and set on wheels so as to revolve in a coordinated fashion, a task which took scores of man-hours to complete and was done alongside rehearsals.
-Costumes were also – in many cases, and markedly for the impressive wizard robes – created from scratch for the performance to try and better convey the fantasy of Pratchett’s world.
-All of this was done in 10 days, alongside a Shakespearian tragedy, which removed half of the College’s acting talent from the casting pool.
I would invite you to correct me if any of that strikes you as unambitious.
Furthermore, I was shocked to see (in proverbial print) the remarks on someone’s physical attributes here. Of course you made the remark with intended jest, and while holding the belief that this could only be viewed as positive. However, the more sensitive and sensible amongst us are capable of seeing how any given person may have a complex regarding their ‘features’ to the point where having them singled out ahead of the actual performance in a review that is supposed to be chiefly based on acting, might cause more harm than you care to appreciate. I hope that the various objections to this comment might make you think about such things in future reviews.
I do apologise for some of the comments on here, as there seems to be an unwelcome degree of mud-slinging from both sides of the coin as it were, which really isn’t good form. I am also grateful you got the review up so promptly. However, I must re-iterate that the show was not simply a bit of fun, it was a fantastic amount of fun, and was a fairly tight execution of what was – if anything – too much ambition in bringing one of Pratchett’s most loved works to life. The cast and crew have every reason to be proud of their work and achievements (which have already been stated), and frankly, I remain jealous I was not a part of it.
Of course i am aware some people are sensitive about their appearance, but i still say that it’s not fair for someone to be involved in a production which had at least one joke based around their breasts, and then become indignant when the reviewer attempts to liven up his review by making a similar joke. It strikes me as entirely hypocritical to do so.
Actually, ignore everything I’ve said – I’m just in a difficult place right now.
That last one was posted by a moronic housemate of mine.
Hi,
I’ve held off commenting on this review (and indeed every other review I’ve ever been linked to) as I always get sick of people just slagging off the reviewer for having an opinion. I agree with most of the comments posted by my cast although some of them are unnecessary.
Firstly, thank-you for putting the review up so fast – it was published before the Palatinate review of Oklahoma! which we put on last term!
However, I wish you’d taken a little more time over it. As has been mentioned, getting quite so many facts wrong (I’ll add that there were 5 sound effects not 2) does nothing for the credibility of the review and simply asking someone for a cast list would have done wonders. My email is also plastered over the posters and I was sitting a few feet away from you in a t-shirt marked ‘Director’ so it could easily have been rectified.
You say that this is a positive review. Well, after reading it several times I can see where you’re coming from. The middle section about the acting is positive and, whilst some might disagree with your opinions it is certainly a fair comment. However, this only became apparent after reading your review several times, something which very few people will do. Most will read it once and come away with an opinion like many of the cast who have posted above.
The tone of the opening and closing paragraphs is quite patronising and certainly not negative. It sounds as though you dismissed the play before you even saw it (which I’m assuming wasn’t the case). In particular, the opening line of “Director Leo Smith’s interpretation of Stephen Briggs’ interpretation of Terry Pratchett’s Mort was small, cheap, cheerful and unambitious” is particularly damning and sets the tone for the whole review. Obviously as the director I disagree with the assertion that my production was unambitious for the reasons which RobbieC has already put forwards. Likewise that it was small. This is however your opinion and so I must respect it.
Now, the play was indeed put together on a small budget and was quite happy in tone, but the phrase “cheap and cheerful” suggests tacky and unimpressive rather than simply that ‘limited funds were available’. There are far better ways of putting things than you generally did throughout the review which lends the whole thing a fairly derisory tone.
If you read reviews of past Woodplayers productions there are a plethora of reviewers who have clearly sat down and thought “I can’t wait to give this a bad review” before laying into our limited set and tech and so given the manner in which you dismiss the idea that this production was in any way ‘big’, I hope you can see how the suggestion that you are one of these types of reviewers arose.
The dismissive tone of “Was there a large cast? Nope. A big budget? No way. Was there even a stage? Dream on.” also seems as though you are ‘looking down’ on us, whether you meant it or not.
You say you’ve read the program, although you’ve clearly taken my ‘it’s been a lot of fun guys’ comment completely out of context. Sure the production was a bunch of mates having fun, but by the end isn’t every Durham production like this? Half the cast were new, as they are in most of our productions (as we make a point of doing, although some Durham publications try to suggest the opposite!). In any case, this was my 12th and final production with a society I have been president of for 3 years so I don’t think it unreasonable to say goodbye in my final program notes and that I had a lot of fun over the last 4 years.
I would say at this point that the play is an adaptation by Stephen Briggs and so our hands were tied when it came to play structure. I sent him a whole raft of adjustments but he only allowed a few which meant that some aspects of the plot of the play (such as reality closing in) were only briefly touched on as you rightly point out. Some aspects of the plot therefore remain ambiguous and whilst it was beyond our control, it is fair to point this out.
The point about the lights was unfair I feel. As has already been pointed out the production was due to be performed outside but due to adverse weather had to be moved inside. We have no permanent tech setup in Collingwood as college won’t allow it and so there was no way we could put up lights or a stage at such short notice. We could have switched off the ‘tube lights’ between each scene but this would almost certainly have looked worse. Besides, for a play with 27 scene changes I though that the rotating set (built from scratch) was an excellent way around this problem and certainly would have been outside. The simple pictures and icons were meant to be a simple and easy way of avoiding lengthy scene changes and indicating where the action was taking place, but again you are obviously entitled to your opinion.
The paragraph about Phil he will obviously be happy with and (positivity aside) I thought it was well written. The next paragraph however, despite making some good (and fair) points, again fell foul of poorly chosen language. By starting with “the other actors were unlikely to win any Oscars” you come across instantly as dismissive and every comment afterwards seems almost an afterthought. Also, for someone who’s read Mort 4-5 times, I’m surprised you think he’s a “tortured soul descending into inner conflict”. To me this seems a rather OTT description of the character. Sure, he changes character into Death, but certainly not like that. Tortured soul he is not. I agree though that he is the glue holding the play together (and unfortunately for him has all the jokes around him!).
Given your previous comments, the phrase “not that I’m pedantic or anything” seems highly amusing and I hope is meant tongue in cheek.
To say that this is ‘clearly geared towards Pratchett fans’ I think is unfair. It is indeed a Pratchett book and I use characters from the book (as does every adaptation of anything, surely?). Rincewind, the Librarian and the ‘classic’ line are all in the book and made the transition to the stage, just like every other line and character in the play. It almost seems like saying that we only put Death in as a treat for the Pratchett fans. Besides, these ‘in-jokes’ were few and far between and unless all of the (record) 88-strong audience were Pratchett fans it seems that there were easily enough jokes for the non fans to enjoy.
Sarah has already said that the ‘bullied in school’ comments are a little unnecessary and I would agree to an extent (having been bullied myself) but I know that this is meant as a joke, albeit a slightly edgy one.
The breasts thing. Now, the joke in the play actually called for a ‘stunning white dress’ which we didn’t have, so Dannie suggested a corset, which achieved the same effect. We’re not having a go at you for just mentioning breasts, just the manner in which you did, which did have a slightly dodgy tone to it. As you haven’t mentioned Dannie’s acting at all it does come across as though you were simply looking at her chest which is what she has taken offence to. This was (I hope!) not the case and the line was clearly meant in jest but as she has taken offence there is no harm in simply apologising for any offence caused.
As I have already said, Stephen Briggs blocked some of my attempts to add in some of the more profound elements of the novel (Mort’s speech about remembering the loneliness was my addition) so again, fair comment, but out of our hands!
The fight scene was a tricky one. We had an actual scythe which was pretty damn sharp and so we decided to take the line of safe rather than sorry given Death’s limited vision. Equally, college health and safety probably wouldn’t have allowed anything more anyway! Still, fair comment, just explaining it. I think the word ‘bumbling’ is unnecessary but that’s probably just me defending my play!
“All in all, the play delivered exactly what it said on a not-massively-impressive tin. It would be cruel to see this performance as anything more than an unambitious but fun play, and in this the play succeeded, though it did little else.”
The not-massively-impressive-tin comment is completely and utterly unnecessary, as is the word cruel. It totally negates any other positive comments you’ve given and lends the end of the review a deeply negative tone. The final comment in particular of “though it did little else” almost seems like you’re afraid you’ve praised us too much and need to put us in our place. Again, not saying you are but given past reviews we’ve had I hope you can see how it comes across.
So, I can see that you’ve generally tried to give us a positive review and for that I thank you, but I feel some careless choice of phrasing means that the general populous who read your review will think that the play was pretty poor.
As mentioned, we have small budgets (and aren’t hiding behind them) but I like to think we put on pretty decent shows considering. Sure we’re never gonna have the glamour of the Gala show (which should be praised for its lavishness) but I don’t think it’s fair to praise the rich and then ridicule the poor. We’re not hiding behind our budgets, but it appears that some reviewers are, who simply write small budget=poor play without thinking and get away with it as in many cases it seems a reasonable suggestion.
I’d like to think that Mort was a good play but some people won’t have done and that’s fine. I don’t mind being criticised at all – it’s helpful in the long run – but I object to reviewers mindlessly slagging off shows just because they’re “college”.
We have a very fragile reputation which has just been enhanced considerably by us winning a D’Oscar for Best College Play and our recent (Guys & Dolls equaling!) 4-star review in Palatinate. However, this reputation can easily be shattered by a carelessly damning review and so whilst I appreciate that this was not your intention I urge you to take a little more time in future.
Thanks again for the speedy upload and all the best for the future,
Leo
I find it interesting that the latest comment defending the play is two and a half times as long as the review was. Just saying.
My comment was long as a lot of issues have been misunderstood and I wanted to be absolutely clear in what I was saying. I also quoted large chunks of the review.
Also, whilst bits of my comment are indeed defending the play, you will note that I always state that this is simply my opinion and not the “The reviewer is clearly wrong!!!11!1!” style which sometimes crops up on other reviews.
It is not a crime to reasonably defend a play in any case, and the purpose of the comment was simply to try to encourage some healthy discussion with the reviewer rather than bait him.
Leo
Leave your response!