I agree that the panto crew should not attack a reviewer just because their opinion is unfavourable - that would be childish and deserving of the patronising tone you adopt (particularly the comparison with other directors having “learnt to take reviews for what they are” – this seems to say more about the low value you place on critics), but I don’t believe that is what most of them, and any neutrals, are doing. Instead the majority are either disagreeing with the opinion, or attacking the quality of the review.

I’m sorry, but a review is not “just one person’s opinion”; by virtue of being printed in a newspaper and read by many it presumes some greater authority, and will be interpreted as having such. If a review seems (as alleged here) fundamentally to misunderstand what it is criticising, I think it is reasonable that there should be a right of reply, if only to try and explain to the reviewer what they may have missed. This may well not change (and certainly doesn’t invalidate) either person’s opinion in the least, but it should hopefully encourage reviewers to substantiate their comments more fully. Flinging inflammatory statements like “homophobic” around, unsubstantiated by anything elsewhere in the review seems pretty sloppy by any standard.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot that England was full of the prudish type. They should be more conservative next time, for those who can’t handle the “perverted” nature of these pantomimes.

Being from California, I had never been to a Pantomime until last year. These productions aren’t really something I’m used to, but even I understand what they’re supposed to be funny. Aren’t pantomimes supposed to be full of those kind of jokes that are exaggerated to a certain extent?

Anyway, I thought this year’s panto was AMAZING! I had such a great time.
To everyone that participated, well done! It was awesome.

Five stars from me! *****

I’d be very disappointed if i went to see a student panto next year that was 100% PC and without any crudeness or dodgy jokes.

Top effort guys, certainly deserving of more than the ‘official’ rating!

Lighten up beth. token gay stereotypes are not symbols of homophobia, they are token comedy characters in panto. which should Thanks to everyone who came with an open mind and a sense of humour and loved it. nic

The panto looked wonderful, it was clear a lot of hard work went into it, and there were some stellar performances (Catrin Jones, David Crosby, wonderful Will Seaward, Joe Peach and the fantorgasmic Nic Carter and Paul Young in particular).

It seems like you all had a great time producing it and a whole load of fun putting it on. Honestly, for me, parts certainly lagged; it became an overly-long experience in which even the cast sometimes didn’t look like they were enjoying themselves.

Just as much effort goes into producing the average DramaSoc production, which receive plenty of bad press (including in this year’s panto, and some of the comments below!) but directors have learnt to take reviews for what they are: one person’s opinion.

You’ve all had the fun of putting on the Panto, and this review can’t affect ticket sales - accept it as Beth’s personal take on the show, smile, and go on your jolly PantSoc ways!

I apologise if we have offended anyone in our review, this was not our intention.
I felt we gave a balanced response to the pantomime. We did highlight the excellent script, the staging and the audio-visual displays, as well as the acting on the part of the main characters.

On whether I have been to a pantomime before I guess this is a personal issue. However, yes I am a fan of pantomimes.

We did feel the pantomime was too long, and this is the response we gave. It was crude in places and we weren’t the only ones to believe it to be homophobic in certain areas.

However, I apoligise for any conflict we have caused and well done to the people involved in the pantomime as it was a success.

Finally as for the poor journalism i can’t exactly judge.

Regards,
Beth.
p.s. we did give it 3 and a half stars (not 2 as quoted) but we can’t give halves.

I saw the show twice and it was bloody fantastic and everyone else I spoke to in the audience loved it too.

I’m not sure how the show was bordering on homophobia? The point of panto is that it pokes fun lots of people and it has stock characters in its plot. One of these stock characters is the panto dame, who was for the record, fantastic. The fact that the dame is called a ’seedy transvestite wife’ shows that the reviewer doesn’t really get the concept of panto.

Pantsoc pantomime’s have pushed the boundaries for years now. It is student panto. If people get offended (which I am sure nobody was) then tough shit I say! Go and see the Theatre Royal panto or worse still, the Opera House panto with soap star rejects in it.

I’ve seen or been in every Panto in Pantsoc history and this was the best yet. An hillarious script, a hugely talented cast and an all round brilliant production.

How ironic that the Nouse’s review of the university pantomime was so obviously written by the only member of the audience who has no sense of humour!

Sorry Gandy. If you like, I’ll write an absurdist pantomime that has no jokes, characters with no satirical or realistic connotations, and no references to student culture or infringement upon contemporary taboos. I’m sure you’d love it.

p.s I hope the badgercorn eats your babies.

So I think the phrase “On your own” is appropraite here!

The reviewer makes no reference to the impressive feat that this was written by, directed by, choreographed by, acted by and had its set designed by the students; instead choosing to focus solely on any potential negative aspect she could think of.

To summarise. The Pantomime was a huge success. Hers is at best, very much a minority opinion. It does not reflect how almost everyone else received the panto. Also, Peter pan rolling down a hill was bloody hilarious!

I give my thumbs-up to the panto, although would agree that it was just ever so slightly too long. Perhaps this was because Badgercorn was operating on even more Dutch courage than his two clog-wearing, milkshake-chanting colleagues.

You are entitled to your own opinion, as indeed, that is what reviews generally are; a single person’s opinion. But reviews aren’t supposed to tell the reader exactly what happened in the show, which is pretty much the entirety of your writing. The only pieces of critic I could find were these:

“overwhelmed”
“a little too perverted”
“overstretched”
“homophobic”
“quite a clever script”
“memorable”

I think this production deserved at least one truly positive comment, if not more! The only borderline compliments you gave were, that the script was “quite” clever and that it was memorable, which is frankly a poor review of a production which has had such positive feedback from the majority who saw it! It was fantastically received by all audiences, and all those involved put their heart and soul into making sure it was so well received. If you are not a Panto fan, then fine, but you shouldn’t have been the one to write this review, as it is simply unfair to all of us who have put so much time and effort into creating something which was awesome!

Panto is SUPPOSED to be crude and to poke fun at exaggerated stereotypes. Its supposed to make you squirm with its rudeness! That’s what panto is all about and is to be expected with this performance’s target audience. I’ve been going to pantos since I was young and the Peter Pan-tomime was everything that I expected and more.

Well done to all of those who played a part in making it happen!

Last year’s reviewer certainly understood what was going on on stage…

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2007/02/13/robbin-hood-central-hall/

Bollocks! This year’s panto was the best I’ve seen in the last 3 years at this uni, and better than any Theatre Royal panto I’ve ever seen.
Have you ever actually seen a panto before?!

Giving this only 2 stars is an injustice!

Firstly, I’m not sure I agree with your comment that the production was ‘your average Jolly Roger vision’. I was in fact at the very first meeting where the wonder-in-a-waistcoat that is William Seaward outlined his inspired and frankly impassioned plans for this year’s pantomime, which, as you can expect from Will, were everything but average. I’ll tell you that for nothing. That’s free, that is.

Secondly, with the hours, weeks, months of work that was put into the detail of the set (Becca’s many, many trips to B&Q), the intricacies of the script (many thanks to the wonderful minds of Marc Vestey and David Crosby for that one) and the gruelling dance rehearsals (Hannah Naylor, you are an absolute legend), it is frankly demeaning to suggest that the panto was merely a set of porn-stars, transvestites and homophobes battling against an ‘overstretched’ production. I find it difficult to believe that a pantomime, out of all theatric forms, could be homophobic, and that we, the warmest, most wonderful and funniest of all societies, could be worthy of such a ridiculous critique. I suppose really this is a minor complaint, because technically you can’t sum up the efforts of so many people for such long periods of time in a mere paragraph, however much you try.

Many thanks for the positive comments but at the end of the day, pantomime is pantomime. The Badgercorn was in fact legend (a fact to which he will all too gladly testify), Mrs Hook was a graceful pantomime dame and Peter Pan was in fact acted with great humour. The characters were meant to be exagerrated and too surreal to believe; that’s the point. Perhaps I’m being biased but at the end of the day, if people in a pantomime can’t be crude, then who the hell can?

I’m joking, really. This is quite a harsh review, and I think it’s because the reviewer has made an error, which is quite easy to make. I think the reviewer has reviewed this panto, not as a panto- as a serious play, perhaps.

Peter Pan fails as a play, because it’s not a play. In a panto, the Dame is an essential character, and the perversity (or at least extreme oddness) of characters is a standard feature.

I think one should avoid asking ‘is this a good piece of drama?’ or ‘is this the kind of entertainment I enjoy?’ and just ask ‘is this a good pantomime?’ I must regretfully submit that if the reviewer simply does not like pantomime, then a fair review is going to be impossible, since a pantomime is all we sought to be.

I completely think that you are entitled to say whatever you like about the show, but that many of your comments are wrong, and perhaps the obvious talent of some of the actors, hilarious choreography, diverse humour and a brilliant script should been the basis of your review - not sweeping statements about “perverted characters” which often form the basis of pantomime, especially when it is written and performed, by and for, students.

Thanks for the positive comments we have received, both publicly and privately,

Becca

p.s. Yes, you have underestimated the power of panto.

You have clearly underestimated the POWER OF PANTO. You fail.

The Dreadhead