tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post3274653069761377518..comments2023-09-20T14:34:21.102+02:00Comments on Postcards from the Gods: Blogland burnout spectacularAndrew Haydonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-3427937942478877872007-09-05T04:26:00.000+02:002007-09-05T04:26:00.000+02:00I had a correspondence on the subject of interval ...I had a correspondence on the subject of interval walkouts a while back with my esteemed FT predecessor Alastair Macaulay. <BR/><BR/>His view was that he had no qualms about writing a show up if he left at the interval, but would always be explicit on the point both in the text of his review and to the editorial desk so that they could arrange alternative coverage if they so wished. <BR/><BR/>I feel that walking out is a valid act of criticism in itself, but that it does pretty firmly disqualify one from undertaking another such act in print. Conversely, I have no problem (in theory, you understand, it never ever happens in practice) with the idea of a reviewer falling asleep during a show, since the possibility always exists of something compelling happening to rouse them. <BR/><BR/>Alastair's barbed riposte to this was that walking out suggests that one has a life elsewhere that one could usefully be getting on with, whereas staying and dozing suggests one hasn't.<BR/><BR/>Alastair is now the chief dance critic for the New York Times. I wonder whether he's had cause to exercise his views on early exit yet in this capacity, and if so, what the desk's view has been...<BR/><BR/>And all that said, I suffered slight culture-shock when one of the commenters to George's blog entry said that the fact of leaving early was as important as including the date of performance reviewed. Well, I don't consider the latter at all important in the ordinary run of things. <BR/><BR/>If a production contains a degree of spontaneity, topical response, whatever, then a case can be made out, but otherwise, for all that we bang on about the uniqueness of each live performance, the utter distinction of any given then-and-there experience, the fact is that in the normal run of things we expect all the salient points of a production to be reproducible from one perf to another. <BR/><BR/>Understudy performances, yes by all means ought to be remarked; also, in Britain with its culture of embargo until a specific single press performance, when one negotiates permission to attend a preview it is in practice always under the condition that not only is the print embargo still observed (naturally) but that the fact of preview-attendance be included in the review. And, to be exhaustive about these things, it would probably be helpful if the likes of the St Martin's Theatre made clear which of the glowing reviews of "The Mousetrap" posted up on the marquee come from which points in its half-century-plus run. <BR/><BR/>But other than that, where does it end? If the date on which one saw a show may determine one's response to it, why, so may the state of one's digestion on that day - should we publish Bridget Jones-style lists of our various intakes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com