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 first feedback on version 1 of Alberto Smit’s review.
Feedback from Tracy Saunders
Alberto succeeds in encapsulating the storyline of the play, but with perhaps a bit too much detail. Audiences do not always want the entire plot detailed in a review. The manner in which the storyline is described mirrors the rhythm of the piece beautifully, and in many ways this review echoes the play, the storyline structure and the sparse, almost staccato unfolding of the tragedy. Alberto’s knowledge of the work of both Viljoen and Daniels allows him the added insight of locating this production in their respective oeuvres, which is always an item of added interest in a review. His appreciation of Kanya’s directorial style and her placement in a broader context also show a wider understanding of the theatre landscape beyond just this production. The narrative has been broken down and relayed in some detail, but what I would appreciate is a deeper understanding of Jessie. Was that available from the production? If not, that is another aspect of the play that would be worth mentioning. Is there an emotional resonance to any of the other characters, and if so, how is that achieved? The paragraph detailing Carlo’s performance is a thoughtful one and conveys the essence and style of his performance. The review is written with a clear structure and attention to detail, but it would benefit from some rephrasing and streamlining. I particularly enjoyed the closing sentence of the review, which echoes the metaphor of the production. This is a review that would pique my interest and entice me to watch the performance.
Feedback from Nkgopoleng Moloi
Aspects of Alberto Smit’s review were refreshing in how they attempted to experiment with form and arrangement. The second paragraph, in its disjointed nature, is a good approach to breaking linearity because it is fragmented and lyrical. However, because its meaning is not clear from the outset, it might be useful to think of it as an enticing opener to hook the reader as opposed to a key paragraph in the middle of the text.
Smit’s description of the set is effective. In this section of the review, the reader gains a good sense of the layout that influences how the production is staged.
Cliches and common sayings are easy ways to let the reader know exactly what you are referencing; however, they also present a trap when used to present “truths” without proper clarification. For instance, the line A special mention must be made to the technical team and composer that never miss a beat could be expounded on much more clearly. Which aspects of the technical team elicit a special mention – is it light, sound or stage management? You can go further and tease these out by describing and reflecting; how does the composer never miss a beat? How would you describe the score and the sonic landscape? How was the tempo, what was it inspired by, what did it inspire, and how did it affect the actors on stage?
Smit’s review can benefit from a more defined structure to allow a more efficient organisation of ideas. Of course, the structure can be broken, as mentioned above (with the second paragraph); however, a clear outline of what the review aims to achieve before beginning the writing process would give the text more clarity. Such an outline could consider the following aspects (and how much time the reviewer will spend on each): the conceptual thread, the technical aspects of the production, and the cast. This structure, when laid out in advance, makes it difficult for the author to repeat themselves. For instance, the two paragraphs beginning with The moon has been a source of fascination and The moon plays an integral role contain similar and adjacent ideas that would flow better when read together.
A key critique of Smit’s review is the assumption that the reader knows what is being spoken about. It is important to assume the reader is intelligent (they can make key connections by themselves), but they still need to be presented with some facts. For instance, Smit alludes to actor Carlo Daniels, noting, There is no working actor more physically capable than Carlo Daniels. At this point, the reviewer should present the reader with relevant information that will qualify Daniel’s capabilities. It is helpful to be explicit about how we see that Daniels is “physically capable”. This point is demonstrated well in the next few lines, which speak to the actor’s emotional range; here, Smit offers good evidence from the production (the laughter, the grief, etc). The author should also consider how best to incorporate additional information that allows for a richer analysis. For example, a sentence such as Carlo Daniels, an award-winning actor from Cape Town with x amount years of acting experience provides the reader with information that allows them to judge the observations. This is also a good way to add researched aspects that are not included in the production programme but that are relevant in reading the work.
Not all reviews need to be academic; however, to add rigour to the criticism, it is often helpful to show the reader that you are reading the work within a particular tradition or context by adding references that corroborate the ideas in the text. For instance, with the opening line, The moon has been a source of fascination for centuries, there are many literary and artistic references that could have been used as examples of this point.
In its entirety, this is an interesting review. With a little more rigorous research and ironing out of the details described above, it has the potential to be turned into a thoughtful, informative and entertaining piece of writing.
Mentor feedback (Version 1)
Also read:
LitNet | STAND: Theatre review of Jessie, die man en die maan (version 1)
LitNet | STAND: Teaterresensieslypskool 2023 | Theatre review workshop 2023