# Interpreting Reviews



## Les (Dec 7, 2010)

So, just a general question for you guys. How do you generally interpret reviews by critics when they see your show, for better or worse? 

For example, I recently did a show in a tiny black box with par 38's and two reviewers saw the show. One said (in short) _"The lighting design by Les Deal was fantastic. The blizzard and game show sequences were bright, garish colors that indeed to bath a game show set. A dizzy array of colors and strobe lights really added a jolt of energy to the staging. The use to focus on just the actors in several key scenes with just a direct point of light at their faces gave emotional weight to the performer. The only hiccup in his lighting was there were a couple of patches of dark where actors stood that it made just a tad difficult to see their faces, particularly when they were far upstage against the wall, on far stage right, or way downstage. But let me say this about Deal's lighting design. Normally most lighting designers in plays (not musicals) tend to use just a sea of bland flesh color gels and/or lifeless lighting with no color. They would just have lights go up and down for blackouts. Deal worked hard in giving scene changes and moments great design of light."_

While another said:

_"Bailey and his cast make the most of the limited playing space in Theatre Too!, keeping a brisk pace from scene to scene. Locations are established using a sofa and chair, a bed and two rolling office chairs. An ever-present Christmas tree keeps us firmly planted in the holiday season. The only element that’s lacking in the production is Les Deal’s lighting design. Many times, the lighting is too dark on the actors’ faces, and critical facial expressions are lost."_ (this was the only technical note, and though rather vague, it was the only criticism the show received). Would have been nice to hear some positives, rather than an entire design being judged on 30% of the actual show, but to each his own. The lighting review, to me, seemed more like an afterthought, being the second to last paragraph.

I agree with parts of this. Some of it was lighting, while other issues I felt were more of blocking errors (actors not finding their light).

So, how do you deal with reviews like these? Do you allow them to sway you in either direction?

Full reviews here:
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2010/dec/06/theater-review-reckless-sideman-productions-dallas/ (top excerpt)

http://www.theaterjones.com/reviews/20101207071302/2010-12-07/Sideman-Productions/Reckless (bottom excerpt).


----------



## Van (Dec 7, 2010)

In this town, unless the designer is someone who knows the reviewer < in the biblical sense> the technical hardly eer get's mentioned. In this town I would never consider a reviewers opinion of technical matters valid.


----------



## shiben (Dec 7, 2010)

Same here. If the design elements get mentioned, its usually because they broke down severely or were way over the top. however, our only real reviewer is a pushover, anything that gets applause at the end will usually garner a decent review from her.


----------



## sk8rsdad (Dec 7, 2010)

The role of the reviewer is to tell the general public whether or not they think the show is entertaining, and to get a paycheck for having done so. A review is not intended to be an adjudication. Often a review spends more time on the quality of the script rather than the quality of the performance.

If the reviewer writes that they had issues with the tech, or really liked something, then accept it for what it is. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them but it may be honest feedback that points out a difference between what you hoped to convey and the impact it had on at least one audience member. Perhaps it will influence your choices next time.


----------



## DuckJordan (Dec 7, 2010)

I'm glad you didn't try to call them critics, I would take it with a grain of salt, Unlike a critic these two don't seem to be too highly educated in the field of lighting, this is noted on the fact that they focused more on intensity then positioning, colors and how it worked with the scene. They also both say it was too dark on the actors faces. I'm not familiar with the show you are doing and it may be part of the mood, but i know we had a critic come in for one of our Shakespeare shows, It ends tonight BTW, and tell us that the house lights should be completely off for the show. It was the directors decision to leave the house lights on, it brings in the sense of the audience isn't just watching the action but part of it. This is enhanced by the directors use of the isles with the actors. 

FWIW, reviews are nice, but they are just that, personal opinions about a show, now if they were critics and made valid points not just it was too dim on actors faces. then I would probably listen more carefully.


----------



## Footer (Dec 7, 2010)

DuckJordan said:


> I'm glad you didn't try to call them critics, I would take it with a grain of salt, Unlike a critic these two don't seem to be too highly educated in the field of lighting, this is noted on the fact that they focused more on intensity then positioning, colors and how it worked with the scene. They also both say it was too dark on the actors faces. I'm not familiar with the show you are doing and it may be part of the mood, but i know we had a critic come in for one of our Shakespeare shows, It ends tonight BTW, and tell us that the house lights should be completely off for the show. It was the directors decision to leave the house lights on, it brings in the sense of the audience isn't just watching the action but part of it. This is enhanced by the directors use of the isles with the actors.
> 
> FWIW, reviews are nice, but they are just that, personal opinions about a show, now if they were critics and made valid points not just it was too dim on actors faces. then I would probably listen more carefully.


 
Critics do sell tickets though. For us, a good review after the 1st weekend of shows can sell out the rest of the run. A bad review can sink the show. Occasionally, design elements will appear in one of the reviews of our shows and are usually either totally positive or totally negative as others have pointed out. Any press about your show be it in a random blog, on a facebook page, or in the regional and town papers should be looked at and considered. No, you can't change your show because of it but if one of your reviewers does not like it when you leave the houselights up, might want to considering lighting the isles if that comes up again. That one person screams louder then everyone else. If your design is the one negative thing about the entire show, it could speak poorly of you to a producer who wants a perfect review every time. 

So, as designers, you can forget about it. However, remember who is paying you. Also remember if the show goes under because of a bad review, it can lead to the theatre going under in todays economy.


----------



## mstaylor (Dec 7, 2010)

If a reviewer mentions the tech read it objectively, then decide if it has any validity or unfounded. You said some points were valid, if so put it in your memory and fix it next time. If it's actors not in the right place then just ignor and go on. The reviewer doesn't know if the actors are wrong or you were.


----------



## Esoteric (Dec 7, 2010)

Didn't know you designed in Theatre Too! I have designed in Theatre Three, but every since BC took over, I can't get a call back from them. Don't know what the guy has against me. Anyway, we used to do this exercise in my undergrad that has helped me deal with reviews. After we presented out moving light projects we had to sit in front of all of our colleagues (on a stool with about 6" cut off the legs so we were shorter than everyone else) while they picked apart our projects. We couldn't say anything to defend ourselves. Just process the critique and move on. That is all you can do. Of course you also have to know if the critic knows what they are talking about. I would say that 80% or more of theater reviewers have no credentials to actually be reviewing theater.

Mike


----------



## shiben (Dec 8, 2010)

Footer said:


> So, as designers, you can forget about it. However, remember who is paying you. Also remember if the show goes under because of a bad review, it can lead to the theatre going under in todays economy.


 
And this might be exampled with the poor reviews Spiderman is getting, and the high cost, we might see a short run and this entire production go under.


----------



## Footer (Dec 8, 2010)

Esoteric said:


> I would say that 80% or more of theater reviewers have no credentials to actually be reviewing theater.


They don't need any credentials to review a show and in my opinion should not have any. A good reviewer should be similar to your patrons. Your patrons do not have advanced theatre degrees or have spent years on stage. A good reviewer should be well versed in theatre by seeing plenty of shows, but they should not be a theatre person. They should be a man on the street who can tell the other men on the street if they would enjoy the show or not. You don't want a theatre person to do this. We all too often say that reviewers don't know what they are talking about because they don't have the same training we do... if that is the case, your audience does not know what they are talking about. If a reviewer does not understand it or like it, odds are 90% of your audience does not either.


----------



## Les (Dec 8, 2010)

Esoteric said:


> Didn't know you designed in Theatre Too! I have designed in Theatre Three, but every since BC took over, I can't get a call back from them. Don't know what the guy has against me. Anyway, we used to do this exercise in my undergrad that has helped me deal with reviews. After we presented out moving light projects we had to sit in front of all of our colleagues (on a stool with about 6" cut off the legs so we were shorter than everyone else) while they picked apart our projects. We couldn't say anything to defend ourselves. Just process the critique and move on. That is all you can do. Of course you also have to know if the critic knows what they are talking about. I would say that 80% or more of theater reviewers have no credentials to actually be reviewing theater.
> 
> Mike


 
Sorry to hear about your experience with Theatre 3, Mike! The only reason we are in the Theatre Too space is because we lost the contract in our previous performance space. We were going to do the show in an area high school's blackbox theatre, but apparently the theatre director didn't get the proper permission from administration before she said "sure, come on over!". We were going to also use it as a teaching experience for her students (letting them help with sets, run lights, etc) but the admin pulled the plug when they caught wind of it. 

Unfortunately, this is a volunteer gig. Which makes having your name drug through the mud that much worse. It was going to be paid originally, but we spent our budget money on renting Theatre Too at the last minute. I got $100, spent it on gels and just used their existing par 38's and 16ch of shoebox dimming. They also have some Elation LEDs which I used for the snowstorm and gameshow sequence (the first reviewer referred to them as "strobe light effects"), which is acurate to a degree. Unfortunately, that was about all they were good for. The dimming curve is too poor to use for any real color washing, thus I hung a couple of RGB washes to supplement.

My director confirmed via Facebook today that I gave them the light to play in, but the actors aren't hitting their marks. That makes me feel better, but it's too bad the review is out there. People tend to focus on the negative -- They can read a good review and a bad review. Which one will they believe? Usually the bad review. We tend to assume that the good reviewer was easily pleased and the bad reviewer had a good, discerning eye. Whether or not that's true -- well, that's up for _interpretation_.

Even the 'good' reviewer gave me some criticism, but I appreciated that he also highlighted my achievements. Were I reviewing a show, I would try my best to point out the potential issues, while striving to highlight some positives of the show and its designs. 99% of "bad" shows/designs have *some* good in them. Then, it can be up to the patrons to weigh the good vs bad.


----------



## Les (Dec 11, 2010)

Update:

I had missed last Sunday's performance (the one which had been reviewed) and the theatre was dark until last night). I decided to attend last night, and went ahead and did a lamp check before anyone got to the space. 
Turns out, my cool side par 38 on the far SR area had gone out. (the stage is tiny and divided in to 3 major areas with a few specials -- every instrument is very important). I replaced the lamp and noticed no shadows or dark faces. 

Looks like all this was over one bad lamp.


----------



## museav (Dec 13, 2010)

So it turns out you and the performance actually benefited from the critical review and that's generally a good thing.

To add to Kyle's comments, a review is not a grade or a technical assessment, it is a patron's perspective of one performance. And just like your audience, how educated the reviewer may be can vary.

While negative reviews may sometimes be difficult to accept they can also be great input toward improving what you do. And while also sometimes very difficult, remember that reviews are not personal, they are assessing the performance and not you as a person.


----------



## chausman (Dec 13, 2010)

> Looks like all this was over one bad lamp.


Don't you hate it when it all comes down to something so simple?

I would say that peoples opinions of shows (for sound, lights, and sets) can even depend on the place someone is sitting in the auditorium. In one space I am in a lot, there is a balcony and a lower section and we have had directors change things halfway through because they were sitting somewhere else.


----------



## Les (Dec 13, 2010)

I've also found that it can depend greatly on which performance the reviewer goes to. Some nights are just "off-nights". For example, there is a storm scene at the top of Reckless in which all the furniture is 'choreographed' in to place. Apparently, on top of the bad lamp, many furniture pieces somehow ended up off their mark slightly. The areas were fairly tight, and only about 15' in front of the instruments. "A little off" means a lot lighting-wise (in this show). 

All-in-all though, it was a very successful run and all design aspects were highly complimented by our more theatrically astute audience members!


----------

