Jump to content


School For Scandal

Park Theatre

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 armadillo

armadillo

    Advanced Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 2740 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 14 June 2013 - 11:15 PM

View PostEpicoene, on 14 June 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Mr Rumbold was an actor though wasn't he ? Or was it a documentary ?
  Have you not seen the rather Weskeresque b/w pilot episode in which Mr Lucas arrives for his first day at Grace Brothers?. Gritty isn't the word...

#22 Epicoene

Epicoene

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1239 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 03:26 PM

View Postarmadillo, on 14 June 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:


  Have you not seen the rather Weskeresque b/w pilot episode in which Mr Lucas arrives for his first day at Grace Brothers?. Gritty isn't the word...

I haven't. Sounds good. Over in another part of the Internet I was recommended to watch this sitcom effort. Jaw-dropping doesn't do it justice.

http://www.youtube.c...9jJx0NSjw#t=19s

#23 Epicoene

Epicoene

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1239 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 10:35 AM

I see that miserable old sourpuss Lyn Gardner didn't like this much. I wonder quite how she justifies to herself panning a fringe production in a new theatre that in general is probably trying to make the most of very limited resources and build a local audience. I'm not saying what she says is wrong, but it maybe would have been better on this occasion just to say nothing - the Guardian is supposedly a national newspaper and really doesn't need to review very small London fringe productions that turn out not to be of National Theatre standard.

#24 wickedgrin

wickedgrin

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1223 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 12:21 PM

It's good critics criticise. I for one am tired of reading rave reviews from critics of quite frankly mediocre productions. I always think that the critics must take a more positive view of a show not having paid to see it like me.

#25 Epicoene

Epicoene

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1239 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 12:59 PM

View Postwickedgrin, on 17 June 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

It's good critics criticise. I for one am tired of reading rave reviews from critics of quite frankly mediocre productions. I always think that the critics must take a more positive view of a show not having paid to see it like me.
In this particular case though, the first production at a new local theatre ?

#26 armadillo

armadillo

    Advanced Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 2740 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:01 PM

View Postwickedgrin, on 17 June 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

It's good critics criticise. I for one am tired of reading rave reviews from critics of quite frankly mediocre productions. I always think that the critics must take a more positive view of a show not having paid to see it like me.
Indeed. Michael Billington *never* criticises anything put on at the National and there is no way anyone could like them all, even Damned by Despair and Mother Courage.

#27 Latecomer

Latecomer

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1666 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Oxford

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:02 PM

View PostEpicoene, on 17 June 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

I see that miserable old sourpuss Lyn Gardner didn't like this much. I wonder quite how she justifies to herself panning a fringe production in a new theatre that in general is probably trying to make the most of very limited resources and build a local audience. I'm not saying what she says is wrong, but it maybe would have been better on this occasion just to say nothing - the Guardian is supposedly a national newspaper and really doesn't need to review very small London fringe productions that turn out not to be of National Theatre standard.

I think critics need to be honest, no matter what the situation. As someone who reviews for a website I always feel rather bad giving a negative review but that's what we are there for....to review! All theatres, new or not, need to take the rough with the smooth. If all reviews are good you lose faith in them!

#28 armadillo

armadillo

    Advanced Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 2740 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:29 PM

View PostEpicoene, on 17 June 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

In this particular case though, the first production at a new local theatre ?
It's not actually their first production though, is it? She gave four stars to that.

#29 Honoured Guest

Honoured Guest

    Dis Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2522 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:37 PM

View PostEpicoene, on 17 June 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

- the Guardian is supposedly a national newspaper and really doesn't need to review very small London fringe productions that turn out not to be of National Theatre standard.

Lyn Gardner fairly reviews all shapes, sizes and types of theatre all over the UK, so this show falls within her usual remit. Dominic Cavendish of the Daily Telegraph is another such critic who reviews from everywhere. I value their reviews more than those of the first-string critics, who cherry-pick the most prominent and well-resourced productions. The wide-rangers, led by Lyn and Dominic, create a record of the totality of theatre activity throughout the UK, which doesn't all excel at every level.





Also tagged with Park Theatre

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users