This is the blog of the Arts Reviewing and Reporting Class Spring 2018 at the University of San Francisco. As Oscar Wilde wrote, “To the critic, the work of art is simply a suggestion for a new work of his own.”
Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Review
Our Class Blogs
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Sullivan's Travels
J. Michael Robertson directs the journalism program in the Department of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco. He was an editor/staff writer at the San Francisco Chronicle, 1980-1991, and Atlanta Magazine, 1976-1980. He received a Ph.D. in English Literature from Duke University in 1972.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
What the Coen Brothers Missed
Labels:
Carmen Miranda,
Coen brothers
J. Michael Robertson directs the journalism program in the Department of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco. He was an editor/staff writer at the San Francisco Chronicle, 1980-1991, and Atlanta Magazine, 1976-1980. He received a Ph.D. in English Literature from Duke University in 1972.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
All the Videolicious Tips Most of Us Will Ever Need
from Videolicious Academy
Labels:
videolicious
J. Michael Robertson directs the journalism program in the Department of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco. He was an editor/staff writer at the San Francisco Chronicle, 1980-1991, and Atlanta Magazine, 1976-1980. He received a Ph.D. in English Literature from Duke University in 1972.
A Music Review I Liked
Community comes to
show at Blackbeard’s Delight
(nice *specific* lead – good scene)The speakers were
breaking with ear crunching distortion, my feet stuck to a grimy glazed with
spilt beer, the room was hot and moist, the vocals were overpowered by a
constant sound of feedback , and the only thing that ran through my head was
how good the show was.
Yeah, that’s right - I was actually impressed.
Snuggled in between a bar and an apartment, SubMission Art
Space is located at 18the and
Mission in the Mission district. It’s (nice) quiet in size but loud in color and the
events that usually take place there. (an insight based on experience which builds credibility)It
is home usually to punk and hardcore shows that require less elegance and more
room for the audience and the band. It wasn’t a surprise that on May 1, WAG, Hibbity Dibbity, Native and Plastic
Villains decided to take over the space for a show titled Blackbeard’s Delight.
(nice) The show started late due with the usual, “band isn’t
ready quite yet,” explanation. Crowds of college-aged students flooded the
entrance of SubMission showing (a cynic would change this to “tickets and
IDs, not all of them fake”) their ID’s
and tickets, he usual scenario that usually takes place at shows as small as
these.
It wasn’t until the first band, WAG, came onto stage that I realized I had just stepped into a
downward spiral of lo-fi music. The band consisted of four members who came
onto stage playing a combined flavor of blues mixed with twangy folk –
immediately recognized as a very odd genre for a space such as SubMission.
Regardless of the odd combination of music against setting, the crowd chanted
along with the ballad-sounding songs that Wag
brought to the stage. Again, I was mildly impressed though more anxious for
some harder music than really enjoying what Wag
had to offer.
(I love the next two grafs. It is rich in detail. Among other things, it builds credibility. It takes the stale notion of 'been to a lot of shows' and justifies its inclusion.) However, something interesting (let the 'interesting' be implicit in the detail) caught my attention during
their set, and it wasn’t what was happening on stage Everyone in the audience was
captivated. Every. Single. Person. Including the bands that were playing the
rest of the night.
Now, I have to add that I’ve been a fair number of shows in
my time. I have seen very different sights while looking around during bands’
sets; There have been people texting, people crowding at the bar, few watching and the others talking amongst
themselves, and so on. However, I have never seen such connection betweeen the
band and the audience and – it became clear – the camaraderie between each of
the bands that were playing that night.
Throughout each of the sets, there was a spark of genuine
interest in???? for each person playing that night. After WAG’s set, Natives came
on. Natives has a louder grunge
sound. Distorted guitars and acid-rock vocals bring together a very swiftly
moving sound that has enough rhythm to get people dancing, but enough vocals to
still keep the lyrics relevant.
Right after, Hibbity
Dibbity, a psychedelic garage rock group, went up to the stage and got
people dancing and singing along to their 60’s style music. The crowd went
wild, and I found myself dancing as well. Continuing with the same grungy feel,
Hibbity Dibbity played through the horrible sound quality of SubMission with
funk and ease.
However, the best part was seeing the audience so captivated and
so involved with their music: the mass of heads bobbing and swaying to the
sound of music, the heat (‘heat resonating’ - do I like your moving a ‘sound’
word into another context? You know, I think I do)resonating from bodies in the
crowd, and the chorus of voices singing along to verses from each band. At one
point, the singer for Hibbity Dibbity
announced that it was May Day and to remember the importance of its meaning –
(I’d love it if you right here included your interpretation of its meaning. To
me May Day is international worker’s day, a *socialist* holiday. Same for you???). Immediately,
people yelled in celebration and rounds of drinks were ordered for everyone in
the space.
This show embodied the communal value that the San Francisco
Bay Area has (says who??? maybe you need to reiterate your experience) that does not exist in most places. These are the
tight-knit scenes that begin to (you mean afterwards in memory???)fray in most
people’s minds.
(A judgment a confident, well-informed reviewer who knows ‘the
scene’ is entitled to make. You write with authority and you support most of
your judgments with detail. Thus, when you make a Big Statement, I figure you
have been out and about enough to make it. Also, it comes late in the review after you have established such authority. You have 'earned' the right to say this.)This was a prime example that
residents of the Bay Area like to keep things local and community based – including
their music.
Hibbity Dibbity
finished their set, and the clock showed the time where most people would be
ready to head on home and call it a night.
But of course, this wasn’t an option for the attendees of Blackbeard’s Delight.
Plastic Villains, the
final and most renowned band of the night, came on stage to the roar of
applause and screams from the crowd.
“Don’t stop making music!” someone screamed from my right.
And like clockwork, the band started playing while the eyes
of each and every (too much? First time I read this I intended to write, ‘Oh
come on. Each one?’ But next graf shows you know exactly what you are up to) audience member glistened
while watching the band.
That was the beauty of this show. Each person was there in his
or her (the old grammarian in me) entirety. Texting was at a minimum, people
weren’t walled off into groups or standing by themselves. The crowd was engaged
in the show to their full ability. And it felt like a community. It felt as if
everyone knew each other before coming into SubMission and was spending time
together as they usually do.
(Notice that I’m tightening this just a little. The fewer
words, the stronger the point, I think)The best part of this show may not have
been the venue, the music (dash for ‘haha’ emphasis)- or the alcohol. It was the
people who took the time to make it out to the show and create an experience consisting
of numerous conversations, indelible engagement, and lots of group singing.
I really like the way you give me the experience, the
effect. Detailing the music is fine, but I like your taking me into the
experience of the live show, which is so much more than just the music. It's mostly chronological, but your two-graf lead makes a strong general point before you 'start the clock.' Your point seemed to be that the evening worked as a whole, every part contributing to a total experience. I'll buy that.)
Labels:
reviewing music
J. Michael Robertson directs the journalism program in the Department of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco. He was an editor/staff writer at the San Francisco Chronicle, 1980-1991, and Atlanta Magazine, 1976-1980. He received a Ph.D. in English Literature from Duke University in 1972.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Some random thoughts about plays versus movies and TV
Movies are "hyper real" - generally speaking.
* close ups
* cuts that tell us where to look
* tracking shots that maintain the illusion we are watching reality from the most advantageous vantage point
* with the huge exception of CGI, set in the real world but a framed - and thus idealized - world in that almost every shot is composed
* a performance can be discovered on the cutting room floor
Plays are actually real - except obviously not (though 'fourth-wall' theater aims at that illusion - I assume Echo Brown will break the fourth wall)
* live and thus unique performance - play is created by actor and audience combined
* we have to decide what to pay attention to, though careful staging and acting can control our attention
* plays have a stronger sense of the now- though some jumping around is possible
* plays have a stronger sense of place - though some jumping around is possible as in the case of Shakespeare
* sets are clearly artificial, no matter how well done - the proscenium arch is a frame and a thrust stage drastically limits what can be done with setting
* for stage acting - as for daring circus acts - the possibility of error and thus disaster is always there
The goal of both (mostly) - to some degree a willing suspension of disbelief in which one becomes invested in the reality of the characters.
Some thoughts from playwriting class:
Dramatic writing is fundamentally about people. It is a way to understand people.
* Dramatic characters are people who WANT things. Consider: 1) What they want; 2) Who they want them from; 3) How badly they want them; 4) When they want them, which in a play is most often Right Now; 5) Their use of words as ammunition to achieve these ends. 6) We pay attention not primarily to what the character says but what the character is trying to do, to the subtext, to the motives, to the manipulations of others - or of self..
*Remember that desire leads to action. Find the action to reveal the desire
*People are in relationships: with whom and how strong to what end, to what desire. How do you show relationships? Plays are about "word acts," BUT actors use their entire body. Writers work from the neck up.
*You have to decide how much to trust characters. They can twist facts, distort, lack reliability.
*Show motivation. Let the audience discover. When the character "tells," we can choose to disbelieve.
In the case of one-person shows with multiple characters, it is always about virtuosity.
Here's the best review of a one-person show I could find. It deals with the power of one actor doing several parts.
This is where the show’s solo nature proves so crucial to its appeal. Watching Jones demands a kind of triple vision: We’re aware of her as a performer, the character she’s playing, and, most important, all the other characters that have come before. By allowing so much difference to share the same space—the same body—she comes to personify her theme of peaceful coexistence.
* close ups
* cuts that tell us where to look
* tracking shots that maintain the illusion we are watching reality from the most advantageous vantage point
* with the huge exception of CGI, set in the real world but a framed - and thus idealized - world in that almost every shot is composed
* a performance can be discovered on the cutting room floor
Plays are actually real - except obviously not (though 'fourth-wall' theater aims at that illusion - I assume Echo Brown will break the fourth wall)
* live and thus unique performance - play is created by actor and audience combined
* we have to decide what to pay attention to, though careful staging and acting can control our attention
* plays have a stronger sense of the now- though some jumping around is possible
* plays have a stronger sense of place - though some jumping around is possible as in the case of Shakespeare
* sets are clearly artificial, no matter how well done - the proscenium arch is a frame and a thrust stage drastically limits what can be done with setting
* for stage acting - as for daring circus acts - the possibility of error and thus disaster is always there
The goal of both (mostly) - to some degree a willing suspension of disbelief in which one becomes invested in the reality of the characters.
Some thoughts from playwriting class:
Dramatic writing is fundamentally about people. It is a way to understand people.
* Dramatic characters are people who WANT things. Consider: 1) What they want; 2) Who they want them from; 3) How badly they want them; 4) When they want them, which in a play is most often Right Now; 5) Their use of words as ammunition to achieve these ends. 6) We pay attention not primarily to what the character says but what the character is trying to do, to the subtext, to the motives, to the manipulations of others - or of self..
*Remember that desire leads to action. Find the action to reveal the desire
*People are in relationships: with whom and how strong to what end, to what desire. How do you show relationships? Plays are about "word acts," BUT actors use their entire body. Writers work from the neck up.
*You have to decide how much to trust characters. They can twist facts, distort, lack reliability.
*Show motivation. Let the audience discover. When the character "tells," we can choose to disbelieve.
In the case of one-person shows with multiple characters, it is always about virtuosity.
Here's the best review of a one-person show I could find. It deals with the power of one actor doing several parts.
This is where the show’s solo nature proves so crucial to its appeal. Watching Jones demands a kind of triple vision: We’re aware of her as a performer, the character she’s playing, and, most important, all the other characters that have come before. By allowing so much difference to share the same space—the same body—she comes to personify her theme of peaceful coexistence.
Labels:
movies vs. TV,
one-person shows,
theater
J. Michael Robertson directs the journalism program in the Department of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco. He was an editor/staff writer at the San Francisco Chronicle, 1980-1991, and Atlanta Magazine, 1976-1980. He received a Ph.D. in English Literature from Duke University in 1972.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)