Jack and the Beanstalk
Production: Jack and the Beanstalk
Venue: Central Hall
Rating: **
An aggressively animated cast piggy-backed the confused and sometimes congested script of this term’s PantSoc installment, Jack and the Beanstalk. Flickers of ‘Mighty Boosh’-style comedy infiltrated, especially from the thoroughly deserving ‘Mad Alice’. There was an indisputable cohesion among central characters which saved the plot from altogether drowning in ‘contemporary’ slapstick gags and a stifled central narrative.
This parody of University life, however, found itself struggling under the pressure of the perverse pun. It became apparent that this panto’s parade of gags were ‘student orientated’ after the first overtly sexual caper, not five minutes into the production. Every imaginable taboo was accommodated; incest, prostitution and bestiality casually grafted onto domestic violence and drugs. Unfortunately such a combination desensitised the backlash of some genuinely amusing banter.
Catchy tunes merited some enjoyable audience participation. Welcome breaks were filled with well choreographed – if slightly counterfeit – dance routines from the likes of Michael Jackson’s Thriller. However, the culmination of Disney, CountDown and Mr Muscle allowed little support to an already jam-packed narrative.
The two and a half hour performance was too long. However, if you are in search of mindless entertainment this energetic panto has a worthy cast, but be prepared for the overbearing innuendo of ‘Jack and his Beanstalk’.
Loading ...
Just one question to the obviously oh so talented author……did you laugh?
I attended on two nights and can not remember an audience reaction from a Central Hall show such as the one I witnessed on both occasions.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I do respect yours but you seem (like last year’s reviewer) to totally miss the point of Panto. It’s a mixture of comedy, satire, surrealism and silliness (look I could be a journalist as well). It is not supposed to change the world (like we know ‘legitimate’ student theatre can do) merely put a smile on your face which I can say this pantomime achieved quite magnificently.
My favourite comment, amongst so many gems, is the claim that the dance routines were counterfeit. When it comes to ‘Thriller’ that is entirely the point. I would like to see if your claim the forthcoming ‘Full Monty’ production in Central Hall rips off the film or that the University Orchestra’s next performance was a bit too similar to the London Philharmonics.
You are obviously a very talented journalist and you have a bright career commenting on online forums ahead of you. I only ask before you embark on your journey into adulthood and beyond that you remove the thesaurus which is lodged about your person and loosen up.
Ah, the proud tradition of panto backlash begins.
All that needs to be said in response to this review, and to Mister O’Brian is this;
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA LOL!
Thank you and goodnight.
Liam I love it when you start talking filthy to me. All this talk of backlashs has got me worked up.
Anonymous – at least Mr O’Brien can spell
We are PANTO we live on the edge man, balls to your spelling and join the PANTO REVOLUTION!
It does seem rather ludicrous that a pantomime that parodies York University Students is performed at York University. For students. Next time I shall write about the elderly of Kent. In case you missed that, it was sarcasm.
Thank you for your psuedo-compliments about the cast – they have been truly dedicated and hard-working and definitely deserve the title of ‘worthy’. I am incredibly proud of each and every one of them, as I am of the production team and crew. I hope that they will remember hugely positive response we have received and how much the audience enjoyed themselves!
It’s a good thing “Nouse” – a highly respected student publication – don’t take themselves too seriously, otherwise they probably would have missed the point of “Jack and the Beanstalk”, or worse, would have held a grudge against Pantsoc for its uni-oriented humour!!
(Not?)
Liam, just because Nouse have decided to balance their review with some mediocre positives does not exculpate you from a ‘backlash’ against your pretentious artistic snobbery.
Once again, Nouse has managed to say exactly the things on everyone’s minds. Who in that audience was not considering how ‘counterfeit’ the dance routines were, how ‘stifled’ the central narrative felt and how they were subjected to some ‘overbearing innuendo’. Well done on creating four paragraphs that couldn’t relate less to what your readership are thinking and feeling.
It’s a pantomime. It’s designed to be fun. It’s a whimsical, perhaps even nonsensical. You don’t have to worry about it’s meaning. We’re not trying to change the world. We just want you to enjoy yourself, that’s all.
Next time, leave your notebook at home, come to a panto and just try to enjoy it. Go on! Have a laugh, you know you want to!
All the best,
Jellyman
Dear Beki,
I’m very sorry you apparently didn’t enjoy the Pantomime. I hope I’m not presuming too much by saying, on behalf of the cast, that we are always disappointed if anybody leaves the performance dissatisfied – though your reference to “genuinely amusing banter” is encouraging: we may have caused you to crack a smile once or twice, at least.
Pantomime is an acquired taste, I admit, and it is hard to please everybody. Clearly
PantSoc has yet to find a formula that appeals both to the vast majority of the audience, and to Nouse journalists.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. PantSoc will undertake to expunge all traces of student orientation, innuendo, counterfeit dancing, perversity, slap-stick (both contemporary and not) and jam-packed narrative. In return we hope Nouse will meet us half-way by abandoning smugness, pretension, uniformed opinion and the belief that it is somehow a cut above the rest of the student body (sorry, readership).
Actually, let’s not do that: there would be nothing left of either institution if we did.
Beki, I’m sure you’re extremely nice. So, sorry about this. It’s in no way personal – you just happen to have been unfortunate the person who’s been given the unenviable job of writing this year’s Nouse panto review…
I made a point of not commenting on reviews of shows I’d been involved in while I was still in York, but I’ve graduated now, so I’m afraid your review is now fair game…
So!
Now, as the old old saying goes, ‘the day Nouse gives a Pantsoc production more than two stars, will be a very lovely but extremely-unlikely-to-happen day’ (Confucius). I know slating panto is Nouse’s self proclaimed quest, but… OK, I know we say this every year, but would it kill you guys to review a Uni Panto on its own terms? By all means criticise aspects of the production – that’s one of the things reviews are for. We’re big and we can take it. BUT, criticising a student pantomime for being a student pantomime is like criticising a table for being a table. While it would be totally cool to have a go at a table for, say, being wonky, or having a massive hole in the middle, or being covered in acid or poo, criticising one for having four legs and a flat surface just isn’t. The aspects of the panto you’ve found fault with are the ones that make it a panto.
So the gags were “‘student orientated’”. Yes, they were! Surely, surely that’s a good thing? As you’ll no doubt have noted, the audience was made pretty much entirely of students. Who would you rather the jokes have been aimed at? Yes, gags and japes and exciting characters were packed in at the expense of plot – that’s what Panto is! And not only was Jack and the Beanstalk a real Panto, it was an amazing one. Let Pantos be judged on laughter! As far as I know and remember, it was pretty much constant, and at times would have drowned out a nuclear bomb.
Mad Alice was indeed fantastic! And your comment about the cast being ‘worthy’ is absolutely right. Of course, it’s also a massive, massive understatement. The cast were, in fact, universally brilliant. They are all also quite possibly the loveliest people in the universe. The choreography was indeed good – no, better than good, it was incredible, and Avisha Patel, the choreographer, is a genius. (by the by: ‘counterfeit’? Whu? Were the cast not actually dancing? I was in the front row and I could have sworn they were…).
And your much deserved praise of the production team (no doubt tragically edited out due to lack of space), is also spot on. They are indeed each and every one of them legends and geniuses and the upholders of all that’s right and good in this world, single handedly holding back the forces of pretension and darkness. Hurray!
To conclude, I’m afraid Pantsoc has every intention of continuing to make student pantos. Sorry!
Also… http://www.nouse.co.uk/2007/10/11/peter-pan/
“Pantomime is one of last great, mighty bastions of comedic genius in this oh-so-serious world. A refuge and ark for all that’s good and magical; a great twinkly beacon of fantastitude shining merrily through the thick smog of misery and cynicism, a greatsafe-house of Christmassy goodness where nowt is sacred.”
-The man, the legend, William Seaward
In the spirit of unprejudiced, open-minded debate:
While I accept that panto should perhaps be viewed (and reviewed) in a different context from ‘mainstream’ theatre, that certainly does not exempt it from criticism.
You seem to think that because people work hard they automatically deserve praise. When has this ever been the case? It certainly does not seem to apply to Nouse, also filled to the gunwales with hard-working, dedicated people, which, nevertheless, garners a very mixed critical reception!
I assume the Panto society has a YUSU grant (please put me right if I’m wrong) and that the audience paid for their tickets (again, a possibly uncharitable assumption…). Is it not right, then, that their performances are subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as a misleading or badly written Nouse article, an potentially offensive OTC pub crawl or a disreputable hedge-fund manager?
My only problem with this review, is that it has taken it all too seriously.
1) It was PantSoc, not DramaSoc
2) It was PantSoc, not DanceSoc
3) Pantomime, not theatre.
If you review a gig, you aren’t exactly going to review it as you would a restaurant. As far as pantomimes go, it ticked all of the boxes and more, and this is the first negative response that I have heard about it. If you want a good narrative, try some Chekov or Ibsen, not pantomime.
To anyone in this panto,
Keep enjoying what you’re doing, so will we.
Yours,
The Audience
James,
We aren’t saying that we’re above criticism, but – as Will said – the elements criticised in this review are those that make the show a pantomime. Each year it seems that the Nouse reviewer misses the point of pantomime.
Pantsoc gets by on profits of previous shows, not YUSU grants.
Ok. I’m a first year. I had a minor part in this year’s panto. I consider myself not especially stupid or ignorant or other such things.
However, I seem to have completely failed to grasp the reason why, despite the amazing audience reaction on all three nights (thank you very much, audience), Nouse have still given a bad review. Now tell me how that works…
Now, if it’s anything to do with the famous/infamous ‘Nouse don’t know anything about anything… ever’ line, then here’s what I have to say: if you cannot laugh at yourself, you deserved to be laughed at. Self criticism is one of the most important skills we can develop.
I do not apologise if the above sounded a little nasty, but that’s life.
On a slightly cheerier note, the comment about the cast was, for me, spot on. It was a tremendous honour for me to perform alongside such talented actors/comedians.
James,
I’m afraid PantSoc doesn’t get any money from YUSU, and never has. All the income is from joining fees and ticket sales. That the society keeps going at all says a lot for how many eager society and audience members we attract each year.
As for subjecting Nouse to rigourous scrutiny: I think you are witnessing it…
Sorry – “rigorous”
First of all, I would like to say, thank you for taking the time to review your own thoughts of student panto.
Secondly, I apologise for writing a student orientated panto and putting it on on A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS. I don’t really know what you were expecting, a panto for the milkmen of Surrey? The kids of Neverland?? Of course this panto was going to be student orientated, I fail to see how this is a bad thing for a University production.
This is just one of the things that suggest to me that you were paying no attention to where you were or to the show. The narrative itself is actually a very simple one. I don’t understand how you didn’t notice the NARRATOR and constant plot reminders.
Also, an animated cast, slapstick gags and sexual innuendo are central to any pantomime. I understand that panto is not for everyone (and evidently not for you), but if you are going to review one, at least do us the favour of learning the basics of what it involves. The cast worked amazingly hard on this show and I am proud of every single one of them. They deserve to hear some praise for their amazing performances, rather than your prejudices against student panto.
Yes, we made fun of Nouse. We made fun of many societies. But the central word there is FUN. It’s all FUN. That’s the point. That’s what we do.
Best wishes.
PANTOMIME OR DEATH?
Pantomime
PANTOMIME!!!!!
PANTOMIME!
It’s a massive shame that the Panto always seems to have a very rough deal at the hands of Nouse, regardless of the quality of the production. This year’s was far superior to last year’s and yet still receives a rubbishing review simply because the reviewer doesn’t actually appreciate Pantomime itself.
Maybe send someone along who can appreciate a good Panto, and then get them to review it based on how well the production works as a pantomime in itself.
Nouse, deservingly or otherwise, already has an image of being snooty towards the art froms that they regard as below them. Sadly, this is only reinforced by the above review.
That said, I thoroughly enjoyed today’s edition.
I travelled from a far away land to watch this pantomime, and am so glad that I made the journey. I was concerned that not being from the University about which this pantomime centralised, I would struggle to appreciate the kind of humour that is necessary in a student pantomime. In fact I appreciated all of it, the themes apply to all Universities; hall rivalry, the rich kids and all the crazy wenches(!?)to mention just a few. Anyway, now back in my native University environment, I only wish we could put on such a great show of solidarity amongst students, everyone being given a chance and enjoying being part of something larger than the politics of societal rivalry and bickering.
Becki, although I appreciate your review and accept your opinion of the Pantomime respectfully, I think you were watching so intently that you failed to see it for all that it was.
CONGRAULATIONS-to all the members of Pantsoc, and to one in particular.
I look forward to my next journey to York to see more quality performances!
thank you Beki for your comments. I’d just like to point out though that a ‘mindless’ piece of entertainment seems to be the primary definition of panto to my mind. I look forward to you correcting the number of stars you have awarded in light of this.
Hope you come back from your jaunt down your colon soon,
Alexxx
Astute, erudite, reasoned and coherent. Would that this were the case for the article, and not just the responses to it.
As has already been eloquently established by those who have posted before me, one would be able to accept the validity of the honourable reviewer’s opinions if only they did not betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the genre. Regrettably, the proliferations of such throwaway comments as “overbearing innuendo”, “aggressively animated”, and “jam-packed narrative” connot help but reveal an underlying distaste for panto as a whole. On a side-note, I cannot help but find it somewhat ironic that the paragraph critiquing the script, notably the use of wordplay (again, a dubious standpoint given the conventions of panto) should begin with the rather cringeworthy alliteration “the pressure of the perverse pun”. Perhaps before launching an assault on the use of cheap writing techniques, a little introspection would serve Ms Senior well for the future.
Like I said, I have no objection to Ms Senior’s being irritated by the various conventions of pantomime, specifically student pantomime. It is, as Matthew rightly says, an acquired taste after all – and yet it seems a puzzling decision on the part of the editors to dispatch her to review it, if this is the case. Were her criticisms highlighting flaws in the production in context while accepting that it is what it is, I and others would be able to address her points, evaluate them, explain our reasoning and quite possibly come to some form of agreement, even if this was merely that we have different tastes. As it is, however, the underlying thrust of her argument would not appear to be dissimilar to criticising “Oliver!” for featuring unrealistically well-choreographed street urchins, or ‘Othello’ for not having enough jokes. This, more than the fact we were criticised per se, is what aggravates us at PantSoc: Nouse’s unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that Panto is a genre in its own right, and should be treated as such.
I think Nouse deliberately put up an inflammatory article in order to get more hits and comments on their website.
It certainly seems to have worked.
Your screen name is evidently well-deserved, Cynic!
Counterfeit? What would you have preferred? For the dancers to enter the stage dressed as members of the un-dead ,to Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ no less, and then burst into a routine of the hokey-kokey!? Of course the dance wasn’t entirely original – that was the exact point! At the risk of sounding less than eloquent, ‘duh!’
As for the comment about this clearly being a ‘student orientated’ production… as opposed to what exactly? May I ask what your full-time occupation is? Are you not a student? I hate to break it to you darling, but you’re not writing for ‘The Guardian’.
The ‘aggressively animated’ cast as you call us were doing exactly what is expected of pantomime performers. That is, to bring energy and enthusiasm onto stage, which I feel is what this cast did in bucket-loads.
Of course anyone reviewing ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’ whilst expecting the ‘Royal Shakespeare Company’ is bound to be disappointed. As a member of Pantsoc, it is not the criticism that I object to, rather it is the clear misunderstanding of what Pantomime is. You come to Panto for ‘amusing banter‘, not spiritual nourishment.
As the Choreographer of this show, I would just like to thank all of the cast for putting their all into each of the dance routines. I personally find it amazing how well everyone did and wish closer attention had been paid by the reviewer to the talent that was shown.
In your endo,
Avisha Patel
I must concur with the fabulously named Mr McTavish that a biting critique of the Panto’s ‘confused’ plot would be more convincing if written in a less obtuse, nonsensical way. Your review doesn’t make sense in parts. Please enlighten us all as to how the production’s flagrant exploitation of every ‘imaginable taboo’ ‘desensitised the blacklash’, whatever on earth that means, of the ‘genuinely witty banter.’ If, in you’re use of the term ‘backlash’ you’re trying to describe a positive audience reaction, say laughter if you know what that is, you’re in need of a dictionary. A backlash is an antagonistic reaction to something. This is a backlash. Its not nice. And you have the audacity to call US ‘mindless’? At least that was our intention in part, being a light hearted PANTOMINE and all. Not exactly a highbrow piece of theatre I admit, but what were you expecting? You may as well describe a strip show as ‘erotic’, that’s how illuminating parts of you’re review were. Perhaps future reviewers should do a 101 on pantomime convention to save you from this kind of reaction in future. Try harder please, and write a review worthy of the productions we deliver.
Yours, a proudly superflous and pointless panto character!
Firstly, I’m so glad that Matthew Lacey and Will Seaward are having such productive post-University careers to have the free time to comment on (and in the latter case, I hear) take part in the pantomime.
Look – If you’re so proud of the work you did for the panto, why don’t you use your real names to criticise a review printed by an (equally hard-working, various Anonymouses) team?
In critiquing this, all you’re doing is justifying Nouse’s position as a high-profile campus reviewer – a position I assume you are attempting to contend.
And really – If you all couldn’t care less about a Nouse review, why on earth are you wasting your time commenting on it? Go read the Yorker’s and remind yourself how great and happy and wonderful the world is.
I didn’t see the panto and I don’t write for Nouse. But just look at the comments! One Nouse writer, one former Nouse writer; 30 panto-people defending themselves. If you love it so bloody much, then ignore it for God’s sake. Do you think Nouse doesn’t get critiqued all the time?
And let’s face it, you’re only giving Nouse lucrative advertising hits…
Firstly, one rather wonders why Mr Quassim, this great advocate of holding one’s peace in the face of adversity, is allowing himself to become so riled over this little debate. One wonders why he does not practice that very credo he preaches, and ignore it? Why does he not read the Yorker review instead (where there are no comments) and remind himself how great and happy and wonderful the world is? Indeed, one questions the very point of a ‘reply’ section to an article, if criticising it is as deplorable as our friend implies.
This curious incidence of self-contradiction aside, I rather feel that had we believed the review to be a valid, fair judgement – even if it had been negative toward the panto – then there would not have been such an outcry. What I (and I believe my colleagues also) object to is the very grounds on which the review is based. Thus, we wish to publically set the record straight, highlighting serious issues with the basis of the review rather than Ms Senior’s personal taste.
Finally, I would like to state that I for one do not contest in the slightest that Nouse reviewers are honest and hard-working, nor that Nouse does anything but its best to be a quality student newspaper. However, this does not mean that it is exempt from criticism, nor that its reporters are always correct. It is in the spirit of cordial edification as well as that of the (admittedly slightly indignant) apologist that my objection is set forth.
This article is one of the funniest and most pretentious things I’ve read in ages. Every time I read it I laugh more.
I mean, I don’t even like panto. I didn’t go. I’ve always thought that not going to pantos was a good tip for people who don’t like pantos. And it was quite clearly a panto. I don’t know anyone who went who had NOT realised that ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’ by PantoSoc was a panto. To be honest, the clue is in the title. It’s a double whammy of obviousness! No offence, but this article does nothing really but tell us that it was a panto.
Well done to the folks at PantSoc – I’m sure it was a great show! Maybe next year you’ll choose to arrange to be performed just before Vision is out for a hopefully fairer and considered review.
Mr Quassin,
Before I respond to you, let me express some congratulations and deep pride at what my fellow pantoers have written so elegantly.
To the matter of why we don’t use our real names, I can’t speak for others, but for myself I do so because it is exactly so people can identify me. I doubt many people reading this will recognise me as Matt Hawkins, but for those people who know something of the Pantomime, ‘Jellyman’ may conjure up my face or some vague memories. And it’s more fun.
We don’t wish to contend Nouse as a high-profile reviewer on campus! They are! Nor do we begrudge them some advertising revenue. If we’re helping Nouse get a bit of money by writing what we are, then good for them and we shall comment all the more!
Just because we have gotten a somewhat unfavorable review will not cause us to boycott Nouse or denounce its worth or purpose. We love Nouse! It has a proud tradition in York and we will happily continue to read its articles and appreciate deeply the time they took to review our production, and any future productions they choose to include in one of their issues.
We are all students of York, and we are all a part of it’s community. We have nothing but love and respect and wish good things for everyone in it and the organisations that comprise it. Nouse is one of those organisations. Indeed, you are one of those people!
These comments of ours, I hope, are just trying to impress upon Nouse, as we have done for the past few years, that Pantomime is an art form in its own right that is worth recognising, and we deserve a review in light of that.
If we have come across as angry, disrespectful or in any way mean-spirited then please don’t take it as such. We respect Nouse’s opinion and are grateful for them allowing us a forum (these comments) to express our own. We recognise that perhaps there is an irreconsilable difference of opinion as Mr Lacey described before me. But let’s get this clear: we are PantoSoc. This is Nouse. We are all different, but what we have in common unites us much greater than anything which divide us.
All the best,
Jellyman
Mr Quassim,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to get your surname wrong.
Please feel free to get mine wrong at any time in the future, it’s Hawkins.
Jellyman
Jacob,
Clearly the descent from the moral high ground was too treacherous to justify attending the Pantomime in question, or you would have known that I, too, appeared in a small role this year.
Would that it had been larger, but I was unfortunately detained at law school for sizable portions of the day, and had to make compromises. I consider they were worth making for the sake of helping my friends in their efforts to create a fun and escapist slice of entertainment for the campus.
You will, therefore, forgive me if I feel moved to comment on this article. Believe it or not, I have every respect for Nouse’s ambitions to be seen as a serious and respectable newspaper. What angers me is that they should undermine this aim by their seemingly wilful refusal to provide an informed critique of the Pantomime on its own merits, or even attempt to engage with a specialised form of theatre. No serious newspaper should rejoice in ignorance, yet that seems precisely the attitude adopted by Nouse towards our productions.
Of course there is a ritual element to this whole affair: just as Nouse was sharpening its reviewing pen, so the panto fraternity and sorority were flexing their typing fingers to respond. It’s a shame it should happen, but it does, and we might as well enjoy it in the meantime.
As for your concerns over the comments (though why you feel the need to voice them, I honestly can’t say): all I and my fellow pantomimers are doing is exercising a right of reply, which Nouse is good enough to accord us. We show respect for their way of doing things, perhaps one day they will choose to reciprocate.
I hope the hike back up to your high-horse isn’t too marred by the weather.
Has it occurred to anyone that if they had said it was absolutely fantastic and amazingly funny they wouldn’t have got so many comments on the review? And what do comments mean…?!
Oh, my! Look at the responses! Well, let me just say a few words.
To Henry, Liam, Beki and the Nouse Team,
Firstly, let me reiterate the sentiment that if you did not enjoy the pantomime then I am truly sorry. As co-Director, I hate to think anyone did not have a good time. It seems to me that this “backlash” is not at all due to the star rating you gave it. People are not moaning because you didn’t give us 5 stars! Think more of these lovely people than that.
Rather, I think they are as saddened and disappointed as I was that their effort and enthusiasm was met by a rather detached and obscure review that read more as a critique of pantomime than of the particular production. Once again, Nouse seems unable to deliver a pantomime review that appreciates the PantSoc ethos, but chooses rather to criticise a “table for being a table”. Pantsoc prides itself, as my cast will corroborate, in being one of the only societies on campus that offers a part to everyone who shows interest. We give people that have never walked the boards before, or have been turned away in the past by other companies, the opportunity to be part of a production. Moreover, by drawing together many elements of campus life – including of course, campus journalism – in a cheeky celebration of what makes York fun (and I stress, FUN), the yearly pantomime endeavours to give everyone that walks through those doors (both cast and audience) the opportunity to relax and have some fun. Unfortunately, the only group we seem to have been unable to appeal to is you.
This “backlash” is not, repeat, NOT because you didn’t give us a shining review – rather it is because you seem to have spectacularly missed the point, again.
To the cast and crew – I remain absolutely proud of you all for the enthusiasm with which you performed your parts, and the joy and banter you gave to the audience each night.
Right, what say we draw a final line under this.
PANTOMIME OR DEATH!
Entirely with the purpose of emphasising what has already been said, I would like to criticise Nouse in a similar fashion to how the pantomime has been criticised – you have written in words, with black writing on a white background, using the English language for the purpose of reviewing a staged production. Certainly this, in the parallel world in which you live, is simply incorrigible, just as the pantomime apparently was for being a pantomime.
I apologise for ruining Sami’s final line drawing, but the comment didn’t upload in time for me to see it. So I’m going to hijack it.
PANTOMIME OR DEATH!!!!!!
To add to the growing chorus of disapproval: Though some of the comments may have gone a little far, it has to be remembered that a good review scrutinises the production, not the medium, that being the chief fault with this article. Singling out Innuendo, Student based references and other long-standing pantsoc traditions is absurd especially in such a limited word count, instead criticise the performances, staging, direction etc.
An all to believable scene would be the Nouse “journalist” attending a Punch and Judy show and complaining
“Though Mr Crumpet’s innovative direction brings contemporary relevance to the play, the fact the actors are 6 inches tall and perform in a wooden box detracts from the deeper themes discussed. Furthermore the Play’s treatment of the taboo subjects of domestic violence and cruelty to animals was unnecessary”
Well, the panto people are certainly doing a great job of ‘drawing a line under it’. Encore!
Jack and the Beanstalk was absolutely, bloody, brilliant and the audience did not stop laughing for two and a half hours on the night I went! When that happens how can you criticise it?!!! How? How? HOW? HOW? HOW? I did not hear a single negative comment said in the bar afterwards. You must be on another planet or something? (Probably somewhere near uranus- WAHEY! 2 stars). How can you walk away from it, having seen and heard, everyone else in the room finding t so hysterical and write the drivel that you did.
It was so good that I’ve written a poem …
Jack and and the beanstalk
Was performed in York
And it was really funny!
Really, really, really, really funny!
There was a man with some beans
Who was covered in forks
But the funny thing was
That his name was Guy Forks!
And that sounds like the famous man
Who lived in the olden days who was called Guy Fawkes!
There was dancing lice
And a cow that talks
Or was it a camel?
Or was it a horse?
And there was more than one dancing corpse!
A DANCING CORPSE! A DANCING CORPSE!
WHAT COULD BE BETTER THAN A DANCING CORPSE?
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!
Beki can you please review my poem
)
Thanks, bye xxx
Does the pantomime get a prize for the most comments left on an article?
I hope it does.
I really do.
I find this review heartily amusing and entirely in-keeping with Nouse’s past pantomime reviews. But Pantsoc should not care about what reviewers say. They are all brilliant at what they do and put on an excellent show each year. Long live Panto!
But I can’t help but to put my two-penny worth in…
I have seen many a panto over the years. From village hall shows to uni productions and soap-star-filled shows. What was fantastic about this show was that it knew its audience very well, played to it and everyone I spoke to only had praise for it. To criticise the show for using for university jokes is absurd. I would agree that there can be too many and I think in the past, Pantsoc shows have had too many. But the balance was just right in this instance.
I am a York old-timer and helped form Pantsoc, something I’m very proud to say! This production was first class – the singing, dancing, script and acting was very, very professional.
Little do some people know that Pantsoc is a very new society and has come a long way in a very short space of time. If the reviewer thought that this was a poor version of a student pantomime I honestly invite them to watch videos of our early productions! Before 2004 there was no Pantsoc. These were dark times. Pantsoc people shouldn’t let a fishy review deter them from the great work they do.
But like Pantsoc has now become, Nouse is a very important university institution. Long may it reign, prosper and continue to stimulate debate like this. That is its purpose and it does it very well.
Until next year’s puzzling review, may both great societies keep up the good work! York would be a poorer place without them.
PANTOMIME!
Loving the facebook group.
Tempted to make a joke connecting the group’s title, Edinburgh, and it’s creator but I’ll leave it there.
To be fair I’ve seen Belt Up plays get low marks on this site – maybe they have too much class to engage in this sort of thing.
Just to everyone on the production team, don’t be disheartened you were awesome!
To all the cast you are fab and everyone I know who came to see it said it was brilliant and “the funniest thing I’ve seen since Uni”
As for Nouse, well we already know they “don’t know anything about anything….ever”
GIMP GIMP GIMP
When you go to a pantomime, you more or less know what to expect. So if you don’t like pantomimes (and I know people who don’t) then you simply avoid them.
The problem with Nouse’s review is that it’s unhelpful. People who did not go to the pantomime will not want to know how stifled the narrative was or how original the dance routines were. Instead, they will be asking such deep and academic questions as:
“Was it entertaining?”
“Was it funny?”
And, that profoundest but simplest of questions:
“Did the audience enjoy it?”
That’s all we really want to know, Nouse critics. That’s what you’re there for. To put it more fancily (courtesy of Wikipedia):
“Criticism in terms of expectations means democratic judgment over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes”
So, basically, what you should be telling us is: did the pantomime fulfill its “intended purposes”? Was it any good … AS A PANTOMIME?
And if you’re still not sure about the answer to that question, just think back to the audience’s reaction as they left Central Hall last weekend.
(By the way, I would be interested in seeing a response from you, Nouse, to these online comments…)
I am a panto soc member, and currently studying abroad. After missing the show this year, i really hoped to read a balanced and fair review of how my friends did. However after reading this article I am still clueless as to ANY of the content of the show! The only revelation i have gained from this article is that Pantsoc is Over the top, Big, Loud and Outragous. No Shit Sherlock. If you don’t like Panto, then why review it? What does “Indisputable cohesion” even mean? This article is so full of self-promoting and superfluous drivel, that i can almost hear the syntax -or lack there of- screaming in pain. (and i’m dyslexic so thats saying something) This is a University newspaper not the Daily Express. Do your job and stop trying to make a name for yourself.
Dartanyon… I’m curious what the joke would be? As far as I recall my behaviour was exemplary in Edinburgh…
Alexxx
I used to hate pantomimes, until I saw this performance!
The jokes were perfectly targeted and I laughed all the way through. Well done cast and crew etc. I thought it was brilliant.
However I’ve lost respect for Nouse; their unwavering prejudice against PantSoc seems unfair to me.
I know this is long since past, but I just felt the urge to ask the reviewer one last question:
Did you actually see the panto, or were you simply told by someone to give it a bad review?
This would explain the fact that the review criticises the production for being a pantomime, also the strange mention of the ‘overbearing innuendo of Jack and his Beanstalk’ which, as I recall, wasn’t actually mentioned once in the entire production. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Regards,
A puzzled person…
for god’s sake…
Of course the reviewer saw the panto. We don’t ask for reviews with a little document specifying what we would like to be said. There are lots of productions given reviews that myself and/or the arts editor disagree with but this doesn’t mean they get changed.
We await The Sword in the Stone…
i was attend the central hall show.Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I do respect yours but you seem (like last year’s reviewer) to totally miss the point of Panto. It’s a mixture of comedy, satire, surrealism and silliness.