Friday, December 26, 2008

Dissent of the day

(Comment left by a reader, posted here verbatim. We can all take a bit of vinegar with the Christmas sugar, right? I can. In any case, know any prestigious academic journal that would want to publish an untutored, gut-feel newspaper reviewer like me? Promise I'd make liberal use of words like “liminal” and “post-poststructuralist” from now on, grin. h/t for the title: Andrew Sullivan. Happy New Year, folks!)

Anonymous said...

The idea of having a report card or a year end or a quarterly report on the best of the best, or sa iba worst , ay ok lang. kaya lang, sino ba ang nagrereview? sino ang nagcricriticize? hindi naman mga aral ang mga "ciritics" natin. ni hindi published. paano mauuplift ang theater. review kayo ng review on plays, eh iyong style of writing naman hindi napepeer review? ni hindi nagpupublish. problem iyong mga may karapatan naman na magsulat on theater, hindi na nagsusulat (paging doc nick). or kaya involved naman sa theater productions din (paging doc abad or doc anton).

we are left with gut-feel reviewers like you (na ok lang din naman). or mga pa-critic like that person from FEU with publications locally. ano ba, ok lang naman sa mga theater artists ma-review. pero sana naman they should get credible reviews. iyung may theoretical know-how . kailangan kasi iyon. hirap na hirap sila magput up ng production, eh tapos iyong mga magrereview naman either hindi talaga maalam magreview, or may personal ek magsulat!!!!!!!

mag aral naman sana din ang mga reviewers! puro na lang tapping each other on the shoulder kayo


Louie Jon Sanchez said...

Sino ba yang nagmamaasim na yan, Gibbs? Hahaha. As if naman, pag may alam ka na sa mga isms (from the Classics to Postmodernism ek) e mas huhusay kang magreview. I know some who have these "theoretical know how", pero ano ba nasasabi nila, haber? While there's some grain of truth in the suggestion, I think what matters most is the pluralistic approach to taste. Que se hodang "gut feel" siya. :D

anijun said...

so gut-feel is the word of the day. hehehe. well, it's better to have gut-feel reviewers than an absent "critic". theoritical gibberish is just useful for tickling the brain (of the academe of course)anyway. hehe.

Kurt said...

hmm..he actually contradicts himself in criticizing the critics for not having credentials because he (or she) was not able to present any proof that he or she is worthy of making such statements (whether via having a phd on contemporary criticism or not is beyond me). it's basically just a circular argument from someone who doesn't have a better use for his time. sad.

in other news, kamusta ka na, gut-feel critic? let's meet up one of these days :P

Andy Briones said...

Three words: freedom of expression.

More power, Gibbs! :-)

missingpoints said...

I think the commenter needs to learn the difference between a critique and a review. He's looking for the former while newspapers and websites publish the latter.

But who the hell wants formal criticism? The fans and regular viewers want to know if the play is any good, meaning the story/plot is interesting, the actors are competent, and the lights and sounds work properly. The people involved in the production on the other hand need feedback on what needs to be improved.

None of which are supplied by formal criticism.

The idea that theater will "improve" if formal criticism is present is mistaken. It's plain old wanking, which is fun, but isn't very useful.

thebaklareview said...

if it's good writing, it's good writing. it speaks for itself.

this reliance on "credentials" seems to me like an offshoot of colonial thinking or the old meritocracy. like we need a "higher" institution to tell us what (or who) is important before we can think for ourseleves. it's naive and dangerous. the most powerful ideas can come from anywhere.

and just because you don't post your diplomas on the walls of your blog doesn't mean you're not qualified to participate in discourse.

erasmusa said...

even the most objective of reviewers are entitled to opinions. a PhD is lovely, but it is possible to be credible and authoritative without it. great if you can be up the ivory tower and still have a broad view of the theater scene. but gibbs, your immersion in the theater scene and skill as a writer are just what the readers need. even if i don't always share your thoughts, i believe you if you say a show is worth seeing. it's that simple.

anonymity is one of the great things about the internet. it should be used responsibly.

happy holidays! :)

waltzang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I agree. Magkaiba ang reviewer at critic. I don't what Gibbs' credentials are, but I forget all about the possible lack of "credentials" when i read his reviews.

Dennis N. Marasigan said...


I do wish we have theater critics.

At the same time, not knowing how a tasty dish is cooked or how a movie (specially the special-effects laden ones) is put together does not deprive me of my prerpgative or right to tell other people how much I liked it (and for what reason, if i can put my finger on it, which sometimes doesn't come easily -- we sometimes like without really having a logical reason for it), doesn't it? If anyone disagrees, he or she has the same right to shout to the world why, and I will fight for his or her right to do so, though he/she and i will have to be accountable for whatever we say.

I would rather have a thousand voices speak up about what they think or feel about what they experienced rather than wait for the critics to publish their works.


waltzang said...

it's good to discuss these things in an open, critical, happy, and passionate (not necessarily emotional) manner.

sabi nga ni danton remoto, (paraphrase na po ito): "now now, let us not be bitter."

the hows and whys and whos and whats ... and also, it's good to take action after discussion. para may output and discussion.

or something like dat! hihihi!

hindi lahat ng productions, maganda ang pagtatanghal. hindi lahat ng reviews, maganda ang pagusulat. hindi lahat ng tao, maganda ang face.

at sabi nga nila, you cannot face the problem if the problem is your face. because if your hair is not becoming to you, you should be coming to the hair salon. ano daw?

kyla said...

i say.. isn't it enough that the likes of lea salonga and joanna ampil (she did came across WSS auditions in this blog, right?) does actually read this blog to vouch for its credibility? if i'm not mistaken lea salonga wrote on her first backstory article that gibbs cadiz is "more eloquent" in writing theater reviews.

waltzang said...

just for the sake of argument/discussion:

in some ways, "peer reading" can be construed as the blind leading the blind ... diba? hihihi.

Elizabeth said...

In as much as I appreciate Gibbs Cadiz’ article entitled “Bravo! Best of Theater 2008” in the Inquirer which listed his personal preferences of theatre productions for 2008; it would have been truly enlightening if he shared with his readers his criteria/basis for rating the various productions as such. Doing so would have allowed the readers to see the performances from his perspective and ultimately decide in their minds whether to agree or not agree with his view.
Writing an annual review of plays for a major broadsheet is not an easy task, let alone citing what one considers as the best performances for the year. What Gibbs does towards this endeavour is quite commendable as it takes time and effort to do so. However, corollary to that effort is a journalistic responsibility to ensure that whatever he writes down is reliable since it can easily be construed as gospel truth especially for those not familiar with the theatre world.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Search this blog or the Web