Rant: Performers who don't want criticism
So this is something that's always blown me away. Lots and lots of performers (and thereby lots of performing groups) want to hear how neat they are, but they are ridiculously uninterested in hearing any form of criticism.
I learned about performing arts from my theater & music professor at Utah State University. Prior to professing he was trained on Broadway as a vocalist and performance pianist. He put on all kinds of college & community theater projects when my mom was in college and I was between 15 and 18, and then when I was in college for a few years after that. He was an excellent director who always listened closely to audience feedback in order to identify the weak points of the show.
By contrast, it often feels like a great many of the performers I work with in Portland are highly resistant to any form of critical feedback. They don't seem to want to hear anything "bad". Even worse, they often believe wholeheartedly in the "good" stuff that's more or less mandatory response after a performance. "That was so awesome!" "Wow, that's amazing!" "You guys are so incredible!" That's all very much appreciated... but it tells next to nothing about was done well or what can be improved. Beyond that, it tempts the performer to believe their own pizazz... which leads to arrogant, underskilled performers who have glaring Johari windows in their routines that everyone else can clearly see but they're blind to.
So, I try to recruit critical feedback. Our producer/director team are pretty good about succinctly listing positive & negative aspects of each new routine we present in their shows. But I have to keep them secret; if the other Kazumites knew where I was getting my info they'd be upset at 'em. *boggle* I've not found too many other open critics, but I'm still looking. Problem is, nobody really believes that a performer honestly wants critical feedback, so nobody's willing to offer any.
Strike that... Leapin' Louie Lichtenstein and Tommy Twimble both gave me some constructive criticism after I asked them, during the Alice in Wonderland show. They suggested trying to involve the audience more, and create stronger connections across the boundary between stage and crowd. I really appreciated that, and tried to incorporate it into the routines.
But that's about it, other than past members. Past members of Kazum are generally awesome about providing critical feedback. But often, they provide stuff we're already aware of. Technical points, mostly: the High Chair wobbled, Uli looks terrified during the throws, timing was off on the Stripper Pole synchronization, that sort of thing. Stuff we are putting attention into already. That's useful... but the "uneducated" viewpoint is usually much more helpful.
The flipside of this is that when I see other performers, I invariably see a bjillion things that they could probably clean up or try or improve or cut. But nobody wants to hear that... they want the sunshine blown up the tailpipe. *sigh* I'm going to what promises to be an awesome amateur theater show, but I get the clear impression that the people in charge are spectacularly uninterested in any feedback I might have after their show. So, I'll join the line of smiling handshakers, give my (genuine) praise and compliments, swallow anything potentially critical, and watch as easy-to-fix problems join easy-to-create missing opportunities, both swirling away.
The show is Bogville. It's on Friday at Mount Tabor Theater. The webpage surely has a link to the theater, showtimes, tickets, etc... but it's all so cluttered that I can't find any links. I'd like to give feedback to that effect... but see the title of this post for why that doesn't pan out so well. :)
Anyway, I keep trying to recruit critical advice from people who see Kazum perform, but it's like pulling teeth with a spoon. People keep smiling fiercely and insisting with nearly-convincing vehemence that "your-show-is-perfect-omygosh-nothing-could-be-improved!" *grinding teeth* Why is it so hard for so many to believe that I honestly wanna hear what's wrong instead of being pacified about what's right?
Okay, done ranting. I highly recommend Bogville! Should be a helluva show!
Post-show addendum:
It was a helluva show. But they needed to communicate a few things clearly to the audience:
Backstory - What is Bogville, how big, why does it exist?
Who is who - Identity & role was very vague for all but a few characters
Plot - What the hell is going on?
Clarity - Both dialogue and lyrics were almost unintelligable. Even if this is the fault of the sound system, it still cripples the plot.
I'd suggest a handbill with a paragraph of backstory and a one-line blurb of each main character. Either that, or more of Jay's illuminating poetic dialogue, which contains most of the more clearly-enunciated words in the production.
The costumes, acting, and music were spectacular! A bit slow at times, perhaps even boring here and there, but that was part of the ambiance of the performance style.
Okay, done with the unheard soapboxing. :)
I learned about performing arts from my theater & music professor at Utah State University. Prior to professing he was trained on Broadway as a vocalist and performance pianist. He put on all kinds of college & community theater projects when my mom was in college and I was between 15 and 18, and then when I was in college for a few years after that. He was an excellent director who always listened closely to audience feedback in order to identify the weak points of the show.
By contrast, it often feels like a great many of the performers I work with in Portland are highly resistant to any form of critical feedback. They don't seem to want to hear anything "bad". Even worse, they often believe wholeheartedly in the "good" stuff that's more or less mandatory response after a performance. "That was so awesome!" "Wow, that's amazing!" "You guys are so incredible!" That's all very much appreciated... but it tells next to nothing about was done well or what can be improved. Beyond that, it tempts the performer to believe their own pizazz... which leads to arrogant, underskilled performers who have glaring Johari windows in their routines that everyone else can clearly see but they're blind to.
So, I try to recruit critical feedback. Our producer/director team are pretty good about succinctly listing positive & negative aspects of each new routine we present in their shows. But I have to keep them secret; if the other Kazumites knew where I was getting my info they'd be upset at 'em. *boggle* I've not found too many other open critics, but I'm still looking. Problem is, nobody really believes that a performer honestly wants critical feedback, so nobody's willing to offer any.
Strike that... Leapin' Louie Lichtenstein and Tommy Twimble both gave me some constructive criticism after I asked them, during the Alice in Wonderland show. They suggested trying to involve the audience more, and create stronger connections across the boundary between stage and crowd. I really appreciated that, and tried to incorporate it into the routines.
But that's about it, other than past members. Past members of Kazum are generally awesome about providing critical feedback. But often, they provide stuff we're already aware of. Technical points, mostly: the High Chair wobbled, Uli looks terrified during the throws, timing was off on the Stripper Pole synchronization, that sort of thing. Stuff we are putting attention into already. That's useful... but the "uneducated" viewpoint is usually much more helpful.
The flipside of this is that when I see other performers, I invariably see a bjillion things that they could probably clean up or try or improve or cut. But nobody wants to hear that... they want the sunshine blown up the tailpipe. *sigh* I'm going to what promises to be an awesome amateur theater show, but I get the clear impression that the people in charge are spectacularly uninterested in any feedback I might have after their show. So, I'll join the line of smiling handshakers, give my (genuine) praise and compliments, swallow anything potentially critical, and watch as easy-to-fix problems join easy-to-create missing opportunities, both swirling away.
The show is Bogville. It's on Friday at Mount Tabor Theater. The webpage surely has a link to the theater, showtimes, tickets, etc... but it's all so cluttered that I can't find any links. I'd like to give feedback to that effect... but see the title of this post for why that doesn't pan out so well. :)
Anyway, I keep trying to recruit critical advice from people who see Kazum perform, but it's like pulling teeth with a spoon. People keep smiling fiercely and insisting with nearly-convincing vehemence that "your-show-is-perfect-omygosh-nothing-could-be-improved!" *grinding teeth* Why is it so hard for so many to believe that I honestly wanna hear what's wrong instead of being pacified about what's right?
Okay, done ranting. I highly recommend Bogville! Should be a helluva show!
Post-show addendum:
It was a helluva show. But they needed to communicate a few things clearly to the audience:
Backstory - What is Bogville, how big, why does it exist?
Who is who - Identity & role was very vague for all but a few characters
Plot - What the hell is going on?
Clarity - Both dialogue and lyrics were almost unintelligable. Even if this is the fault of the sound system, it still cripples the plot.
I'd suggest a handbill with a paragraph of backstory and a one-line blurb of each main character. Either that, or more of Jay's illuminating poetic dialogue, which contains most of the more clearly-enunciated words in the production.
The costumes, acting, and music were spectacular! A bit slow at times, perhaps even boring here and there, but that was part of the ambiance of the performance style.
Okay, done with the unheard soapboxing. :)
posted by Scott | 3:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home