Mark Shenton moans about going to the theatre... again

I was going to add to this thread. But pretty much, what Ryan said. 

This is a continuation of what it means to be a Critic thread.

Mark Shelton was/is a ‘Fleet Street’ critic who is now predominantly freelance and trying to continue his career in the Wild West where anyone with a computer and internet access is a critic. (when people discover how many plays I see the first thing they say is why don’t you blog, my reply is always I am a consumer, in the same way nobody would ask Mark to blog about any of our careers)

This is a blunt way to differentiate and explains the continuation of his strop with Baz and his desperation to cling to his peer group still employed in ‘Fleet Street’.

I admire his drive to support new musicals, an anathema for me, and his reviews are wholly consistent.

All I can say is that I am fortunate like most of us on here to work in a profession which is not immediately challenged by amateurs on the internet.

I’m not going to engage with some of the frankly Shenton-Esque comments above, life is too short after all.

The point here however is that Shenton was incredibly rude “to someone’s face” (in the sense of what he said to Jonathan Baz) and that also he’s a hypocrite- happy to have his mug (literally!) all over “My Theatre Mates” whose very model is “unpaid critics” and also aligning himself with new BFF Carl Woodward.

Meanwhile, other “professionals” such as the otherwise controversial Baz, David Jays, Lyn Gardener to name 3 off the top of my head, manage to go about their business without tearing down so-called “unprofessionally” right and left.

AND it’s not just “bloggers” though why that term has to be derogatory I don’t know, it’s also people who write for publications who can’t or won’t pay.

I am sometimes paid to write reviews, sometimes not. Depends on the publication. But my writing is still the same writing (obviously tailored to publication) and mostly nobody else knows which ones I’m paid for...so how is one less “worthy” to the reader?

Over on the Finborough thread someone has commented that Phil Wilmott should start paying his actors, which sort of seems right. But is it the same argument to say that publications should start paying their contributors ? I'm not sure. 

Mark Shenton finds himself swimming against the tide on the side of "professional newspaper reviews against internet bloggers/forums etc. Everyone is entitled to their subjective opinion of a show especially if they have paid for a ticket!

I have no issue with opinions being subjective but I do have an issue with biased "fan" based reviews. Clearly you have to be passionate about theatre to attend and review it but if you are reviewing especially in a "professional" capacity a certain distance had to be maintained between artist and critic. Mark clearly enjoys meeting actors and interviewing them prior to appearing in a show when they are charming and professional. He would claim to be personal friends with them. This clearly influences the "review". With the best will in the world it is extremely difficult to meet delightful Actor A for a coffee and a chat about the show and then give Actor A less than rave review!

I have found reviews and comments from board members here far more useful. We have paid our money, don't have personal friends in the cast and regardless of how nice (or not) they may or may not be off stage, just comment on their work on stage.

The comments Shenton made were to Jonathan Baz, not Baz Daily Fail just for clarity! 

While I'm here, I agree. And when I review I tend to not review shows I have close personal friends in. Locally, it's harder as Cardiff is a small theatre town and I do tend to know at least one person involved in productions, but I tend to make what I hope are sound judgement calls about what constitutes too close a friendship to review their things. 

Obviously in such an incestuous industry we can't expect reviewers (paid or not!) to have zero personal connections to shows, but obviously some seem to favour the cocktails and smoozing over the review element...

He’s qualified his statement and suggested that people stop making “value judgements” about it 🙂.

This is exactly it. He is one or two jobs away from having to do a Libby Purvis and start paying for it out of his own pocket. His connection to Fleet Street is what keeps him on The Stage and other small publications he writes/reviews for.

The issue is Mark has decided who he needs to keep on side (the established and some up and comers that fawn over his past connections) and those he doesn't (the bloggers that barely remember his Fleet Street days and may not value his criticism over their peers)

I blog because free tickets and it has genuinely opened up doors to me in terms of seeing shows that wouldn't have been on my radar and meeting new people (as has this board) Shenton's going against the grain of professionals suggests he has more in common with bloggers than he likes to think

I recently found out how little one publication pays for reviews and it made me question (along with the clear commercials interests some sites/publication) whether that is something I even bother aiming for. I value my freedom and dare I say it control. I very much view my experience as someone who has paid and give a fair opinion in response. I may not be a professional but I have a professional relationship with PRs, creatives to ensure their show is covered fairly.

Now complaining that a venue he didn't have a ticket for didn't let him in...

Ridiculous!

Professional (i.e. paid) reviewer slums it with the rest of the proletariat. Shock.