This mentor feedback is part of the LitNet | STAND theatre review workshop. The ten participants each submit a review to the workshop mentors for feedback. The participants will then be able to edit their submissions, receive additional feedback from the mentors and finalise their reviews.
This is the final feedback on version 2 of Jane Mpholo’s review.
Feedback from Tracy Saunders
This review has undergone a rigorous edit, and Jane’s attention to improved coherence in style is notable. Reviewing is always a balancing act between being totally present and referencing the experience from one’s own personal viewpoint, and equally standing back and presenting the piece absent of ego. In this version, Jane has managed the balance well, with enough of her personal insight woven into substantive opinion. Her personal connection to the institution and role players does provide an additional dimension to the review. The review is still silent with regard to the context of Miss Rondo and Mr Oliver, what their roles are and how they relate to the production. Is Miss Rondo, Rondo Mpiti? If so, then consistency within the review is important. Everyone has their own style preference, but it should be used consistently. The use of titles is not necessary unless they have a bearing on the content. When afforded the opportunity to edit, pay close attention to spelling, standardising it by using either British or US English.
I look forward to reading more of Jane’s reviews.
Feedback from Nkgopoleng Moloi
Mpholo-Mehlape took into consideration suggestions from the last feedback cycle, and this is reflected through a tighter and clearer piece. The author paid attention to describing the play, the cast and the production set. This is reflected in language that allows the reader access to the work. The addition of key details – names of cast members, their level of skill, etc – is also useful.
The review is less subjective and more analytical in its tone. The balance between description and analysis is always a difficult one to get right. Typically, a rule of thumb is that each point/idea that is raised and described should be “justified” through explication, ie, the “so what” principle. This means that each time the author points out something in the play, it needs to be explained to the reader why that thing is considered, eg, “This production was site-specific, making use of the space and elements found there.” The author could follow up by detailing their reading of the implication of a site-specific play: “This production was site-specific, making use of the space and elements found there. This allowed the cast to seamlessly blend the conceptual threads into the visual experience of the work, for instance, the metaphorical use of the sun to gesture towards an ‘ending’ blended with the actual setting of the sun ...”
Overall, the text was a massive improvement from the original text. The ideas flowed better, and clarity was gained.
Mentor feedback: First version
Theatre review: First version
LitNet | STAND: Theatre review of Ijoloba: The prophecy (version 1)
Theatre review: Second version
LitNet | STAND: Theatre review of Ijoloba: The prophecy (version 2)
Also read:
LitNet | STAND: Teaterresensieslypskool 2023 | Theatre review workshop 2023