|
Post by FrontroverPaul on Mar 24, 2019 13:26:53 GMT
I'm not sure what the board policy is on such things, but I for one find reviews like these very interesting and useful to find here so thanks ceebee for locating and posting them.
|
|
806 posts
|
Post by duncan on Mar 24, 2019 13:53:26 GMT
I look forward to reading more positive reviews over coming days, as Duncan's erudite but 'glacial' review seems to miss alot of the essence of "Local Hero". I'm sure Mark Knopfler won't lose any sleep over an online critic not knowing more than four of his songs. Absolutely no need to be snidey.
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 24, 2019 19:47:26 GMT
I look forward to reading more positive reviews over coming days, as Duncan's erudite but 'glacial' review seems to miss alot of the essence of "Local Hero". I'm sure Mark Knopfler won't lose any sleep over an online critic not knowing more than four of his songs. Absolutely no need to be snidey. Maybe re-read your review, which was pretty snidey and disrespectful towards Mark Knopfler. Turns out the professional critics found a little more merit in this very good piece of theatre which you were unable to appreciate. I saw the show on Tuesday and Friday and it had tightened up a lot by the Friday, so perhaps you didn't catch a good preview. I feel it is important to note too that when a production is in preview it is unusual to offer a critique, so I felt that you review was a little unfair as it was pre-press night. I want to see shows like this succeed, not get strangled at birth due to an off-key preview. Anyway, let's not fall out over this Duncan - life if far too short for such nonsense.
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 24, 2019 19:49:36 GMT
I'm not sure what the board policy is on such things, but I for one find reviews like these very interesting and useful to find here so thanks ceebee for locating and posting them. Thank you Paul. I hope I haven't breached any policies - I just wanted to share the reviews that have been published so far.
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 24, 2019 19:52:19 GMT
ceebee , good to see positive reviews for a production that could have been torn to pieces due to the warmth the original film is held, glad I took a punt. Too right Neil. I was actually very concerned on the Tuesday that I went that a film that I love might end up being completely ruined. Thankfully, it hasn't been. The plot is slightly different and characters have been adapted, but I think that this is a great show and by the time I saw it again on Friday, it had tightened up significantly and the audience laughs/applause was blending in nicely (where on Tuesday things were a little staccato). I write this reply sitting on the Isle of Skye longing for the aurora to appear, but sadly it is overcast this evening!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 20:11:55 GMT
As stated elsewhere on the board,I always welcome new musicals in general and love it when a new home-grown show is launched so will definitely support this when it hits the glittering WE.From those who have seen it up in Scotland,what target audience is this aimed at and do you think it will be an immediate smash or a grower or more of a niche show?Just interested to see what you guys think.
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 24, 2019 23:09:06 GMT
As stated elsewhere on the board,I always welcome new musicals in general and love it when a new home-grown show is launched so will definitely support this when it hits the glittering WE.From those who have seen it up in Scotland,what target audience is this aimed at and do you think it will be an immediate smash or a grower or more of a niche show?Just interested to see what you guys think. My heart hopes it will be a smash, but my head says that it's a particular kind of humour. Compared to most shows it is slow-paced and subtle. Fans of the film should probably like it, but actually it is a good standalone piece of theatre regardless of the film. It's playing to a "home" audience, and I think tweaks will be made once the run is completed in Edinburgh. As co-producers, I'd hope the Old Vic would want to explore every opportunity to improve on the show where possible. Compared to other shows, "Local Hero" isn't high maintenance, and therefore the chance of recouping costs and being profitable are probably quite high. I'd see it again in a heartbeat, but I am somewhat biased as a fan of the film. The target audience is adult - I think kids would be bored. The show should appeal to adults across the board - young and old. Where I think it will stand out is that it is not likely to be pigeonholed. Like the film it is funny but also can leave you yearning to have the unanswered questions answered - I actually think the stage version provokes more questions than the film, and it has cleverly been set in the same era as the film but the characters and narrative are very relevant to today's world. The only comparison I have is "Groundhog Day", which I thought was excellent and caught on via word of mouth and reviews. To me "Local Hero" is a smash, but I think to most it will be a grower, and to some it won't hit the mark because they won't be able to cope with the unnaturally slow pace in places. It's not "Hairspray"... (Thank heavens.) One things for sure - high quality new musicals are few and far between, and I'd rather see more attempts at genuinely new musicals rather than jukebox musicals. It is notable that Mark Knopfler only chose to include one sung song from the film. The "Going Home" theme IS Local Hero, so obviously is included. Some of the folk tunes for the ceilidh are from the film, but the bulk of the show comprises brand new songs specifically written from scratch. This is what impresses me with the stage version: the writers have been brave enough to cut the cord with the film and dare to try new and different angles on a well-known and well-loved story. This is to be commended in my view.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 23:25:18 GMT
I feel it is important to note too that when a production is in preview it is unusual to offer a critique, so I felt that you review was a little unfair as it was pre-press night. If it's open to the paying public, then people are allowed to offer their opinion, good, bad or indifferent.
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 24, 2019 23:31:46 GMT
I feel it is important to note too that when a production is in preview it is unusual to offer a critique, so I felt that you review was a little unfair as it was pre-press night. If it's open to the paying public, then people are allowed to offer their opinion, good, bad or indifferent. You are indeed right 'tbfl'. (It's just bad form to do so in previews.
|
|
3,480 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 25, 2019 5:09:22 GMT
It's actually quite normal, especially here, to post opinions during previews, but acknowledging that the production is still previewing. Bloggers do the same. I find these opinions really helpful if I've yet to book something but have it on my radar as a possibility, especially if early comments suggest it will definitely be worth seeing - or the reverse. When it's neither one nor the other, I wait for more views.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 7:33:13 GMT
Thank you ceebee for your insight and your enthusiasm.Much appreciated,Sir.I sincerely wish this show well and hope it is a big success for all concerned.
|
|
18,861 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 25, 2019 7:54:31 GMT
I'm not sure what the board policy is on such things, but I for one find reviews like these very interesting and useful to find here so thanks ceebee for locating and posting them. Thank you Paul. I hope I haven't breached any policies - I just wanted to share the reviews that have been published so far. Generally speaking we would prefer members to post links to reviews rather than copy/paste them onto the forum in their entirety, just to avoid any possible issues with copyright. If you just wanted to post a comment from a review that’s different of course, we’d just ask that you say what the source is.
|
|
4,598 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Mar 25, 2019 8:09:17 GMT
If it's open to the paying public, then people are allowed to offer their opinion, good, bad or indifferent. You are indeed right 'tbfl'. (It's just bad form to do so in previews. I disagree. If they are charging then why can't you comment? And as others say mark it as Preview.
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 25, 2019 9:19:45 GMT
You are indeed right 'tbfl'. (It's just bad form to do so in previews. I disagree. If they are charging then why can't you comment? And as others say mark it as Preview. Comments are fine. However what was posted earlier was a review complete with a mark out of ten and a full summary. And since when did we start quantifying our appreciation of any arts on the basis of "they're charging, I'm paying, what's the problem"? To me this shows disregard for the creative process, the need to test work (particularly new work) beyond workshopping in front of a live (and paying) audience. Personally, I'd prefer a little respect for why previews are offered to the paying punter: it gives the curious and the early adopters the opportunity to see near-on the finished article, with the caveat that as a preview it's open to being reworked, pace changes etc. The preview I saw on Friday was pacier, more cohesive, and had a far closer connection with the audience than the preview I saw on Tuesday. Judging by the reviews from the press night, it appears that Saturday's performance went down very well. The danger of reviewing theatre per se in preview is that somebody can experience an off-key performance and award 6/10 for a show that by press night is being awarded 8/10. There lies my point. For the record, if anybody cares, my own scores would have been 7/10 for Tuesday's performance and 9/10 for Friday's.
|
|
1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on Mar 25, 2019 9:34:58 GMT
This is a larger conversation than Local Hero but reviewing previews has felt more and more acceptable to me as producers charge more and more for preview performances, and deliberately open themselves up more and more during workshops and rehearsals to public scrutiny. Even more so when the common practice is for professional reviewers to see a preview performance then release their review on opening night. I don't know if any of that applies to Local Hero, but I don't feel bad anymore about fully reviewing a production in previews on a website like this, and don't criticise anyone who does so. Should a national newspaper review a first preview? Probably not. Can a theatre enthusiast post all their thoughts on an internet forum? Definitely.
|
|
18,861 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 25, 2019 9:49:30 GMT
There’s certainly no rule here about reviewing before press night. Whether it’s one of our brilliant and highly regarded reviewers, or someone who saw it and just wants to share a few thoughts it's all very much appreciated by those of us who want to hear feedback as soon as possible. Everyone’s capable of applying a common sense approach if the production is very new, indeed most people here who see things in preview will comment that certain issues will probably get tightened up before press.
And of course we have to take account of shows which have ridiculously long preview periods, as well as those who never had a press night at all for whatever reason *coughGhostcough* 😁
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 22:14:35 GMT
I used to moderate a food forum, back in the olden days before anyone had blogs, Tripadvisor or Instagram. One problem the site ran into was when people who contributed to the forum started to believe they were reviewers, or critics, and started making business cards with their forum user names to hand out at restaurants, usually in the hope of getting a freebie. Much like this forum, contributors were a mix of professionals and enthusiasts. Tony Bourdain was great fun, always up for a heated debate. Marina O’Loughlin used to come for group dinners, back when she was at the Metro and before anonymity became her thing. #goodtimes Where I think confusion enters, is when we enthusiasts use the term ‘reviewing’ or ‘review’ when we mean ‘writing a forum post’. Doesn’t matter how long, thoughtful, funny or erudite the post is. If you are not paid for it; it is not a review. We are humans sharing our experiences with other enthusiasts and it doesn’t matter if they were posted in preview, after press night or even before the show has opened. In fact, many of my favourite discussions on here are about shows that have closed (I love me a tonyloco remininiscence or a Cardinal Pirelli observation about Oliver Awards of years past.)
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 25, 2019 23:42:25 GMT
Happysooz, you've hit the nail on the head. Happily, the press night reviews have been very positive for Local Hero - the least favourable being the Telegraph, which didn't reference the female lead once and seemed more concerned with picking holes in the music.
|
|
18,861 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 25, 2019 23:48:17 GMT
Where I think confusion enters, is when we enthusiasts use the term ‘reviewing’ or ‘review’ when we mean ‘writing a forum post’. Doesn’t matter how long, thoughtful, funny or erudite the post is. If you are not paid for it; it is not a review. Well, that’s certainly a view. I’m not sure it’s a view lots of our bloggers would agree with though!
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 26, 2019 0:01:31 GMT
Further to earlier feedback, I shan't publish the other reviews I've read... suffice to say the FT awarded 5 stars, The Herald 5 stars, The Times 4 stars. And the FT found the pace of the first half "lively". Very interesting reviews all online but Times behind a paywall.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 0:26:57 GMT
Where I think confusion enters, is when we enthusiasts use the term ‘reviewing’ or ‘review’ when we mean ‘writing a forum post’. Doesn’t matter how long, thoughtful, funny or erudite the post is. If you are not paid for it; it is not a review. Well, that’s certainly a view. I’m not sure it’s a view lots of our bloggers would agree with though! Yes, that does come across a bit strong when bolded like that. They’d be welcome to disagree. I am open to changing my view. When I used to blog about food I eventually switched to describing what I wrote as a ‘write up’ rather than a review. I didn’t see myself as a critic, just an enthuasiastic amateur. I think that there’s a lot of blurred lines now with bloggers, certainly with food bloggers, where you don’t always know if they were invited, if the meal was comped or if they got a few extras. The well known ones are essentially performing the service of a critic, without the reader always knowing exactly what happened. They’re paid by the PRs or the restaurant, in better service, extra starters or a whole meal, rather than by the publication. It is different for theatre, of course. Doesn’t matter if the bloggers paid for their ticket or not, the performance is the same. But a blogger could write their thoughts three weeks after a performance, or the next day. You don’t know if they saw it in preview, or after press night. At least with a professional critic you know they are reviewing what you will go and see.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 1:11:26 GMT
At least with a professional critic you know they are reviewing what you will go and see. But do you though? As has been mentioned previously, some professional critics go to see the show during previews, but their opinions are just embargoed until the opening night, which is more of thing for the cameras and celebs to be seen at these days.
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 26, 2019 8:03:45 GMT
Having kicked off the debate, it's fascinating to read all the different views. For me, it has been interesting to note how the professional critics awarded universally positive reviews - regardless of embargoed copy. To evolve the discussion, when so much effort and cost goes in to a long creative process, is it fair that a wannabe online critic can potentially harm the future success of a production by openly reviewing and scoring a show that is previewing? As people who love theatre, shouldn't we respect the process and allow the company to complete the preview run before openly posting reviews? Particularly when one person's three star review is heavily outweighed by four and five star reviews (from some notable and highly respected critics).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 9:02:30 GMT
But what makes a review from that dreadful man at the Daily Hate Mail (presumably paid) more valuable than a review on here (presumably unpaid) from the likes of, say, Steve and Nicholas , who both post thoughtful, informative, interesting and considered reviews (yes, I would call them reviews) even when they don't like something?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 9:44:32 GMT
Because if Quentin Letts hates something then it's usually a good indicator that I'll get on with it, whereas Steve is SO thoughtful that sometimes he gives productions more credit than they've earned and I end up sitting in the audience rolling my eyes and wondering how anyone could like it? I agree that an unpaid review is as valuable as a paid review from a consumer perspective, often moreso because the unpaid reviewer tends to buy their own tickets and thus isn't as worried about staying on The List, and I agree that people shouldn't get carried away and consider themselves a reviewer just because they've scattered a few opinions across a message board and/or Twitter. But when you get people like Steve and Nicholas posting their reviews, hell, it's super easy to tell the difference between a review in a post and a post that's just an opinion without necessarily putting much critical thought behind it, right? The only problems are the people who think their opinion posts are as substantial as the review posts, and swaggering around the place because of it (like Happysooz's foodie friends, I don't know if we have any here so much). (Also didn't Quentin Letts leave the Fail?)
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 26, 2019 11:07:30 GMT
Letts (not) be having you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 14:35:22 GMT
But what makes a review from that dreadful man at the Daily Hate Mail (presumably paid) more valuable than a review on here (presumably unpaid) from the likes of, say, Steve and Nicholas , who both post thoughtful, informative, interesting and considered reviews (yes, I would call them reviews) even when they don't like something? I don't think that a professional review is more valuable, sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Far far from it! I was more chiming in that we need to be aware that we are not professional reviewers, so we can't be criticised for posting thoughts during previews. I'm often more interested in what people on here say than what most professional critics say. I can think of one recent example where a professional review shed light on a production (Holly Williams in the Independent made the BDSM angle of When We Have Sufficiently Tortured the Audience very clear, in a way that I thought posters on here hadn't.) The question of worth is a really interesting one. I have now calibrated my tastes to many professional reviewers and posters. I know that I don't care what Michael Billington says, for example, so I read his reviews in the same way I read the football results.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 14:37:21 GMT
Because if Quentin Letts hates something then it's usually a good indicator that I'll get on with it, whereas Steve is SO thoughtful that sometimes he gives productions more credit than they've earned and I end up sitting in the audience rolling my eyes and wondering how anyone could like it? Yes, I love it when you find someone diametrically opposed to you. Given there's always more stuff to see than we have time for, knowing what not to see is a useful filter.
|
|
1,848 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 3, 2019 21:42:08 GMT
Settling down with a single malt after the show and an eventful day.
Absolutely loved it, the pace and subtle changes to the plot were spot on and the musical score was as expected, having listened to the film soundtrack more times than I care to admit to, the new songs were riddled with subtle references and variations throughout and made me smile as they evoked the cinematography of the film.
Definitely will see it again when it transfers to the Old Vic, not sure it will appeal to everyone as knowing the film enhances the experience and may not have the same impact to someone coming to it fresh and with my limited musical theatre experience am the last person to understand what makes a good musical.
|
|
2,798 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 4, 2019 7:38:13 GMT
So glad you liked it Neil! I'm taking the kids on Saturday as despite the odd swear word I think they'll enjoy it.
|
|