Addendum: A Chorus Line, the commercial musical, and the review
by Jane
My piece on A Chorus Line and the thoughts I had surrounding reviewing such an existing entity had spawned a very interesting discussion on the role of the review and the reviewer (please join in if you have more to add).
But, what I’m asking from you now is what do you want from a review of an existing, commercial musical? If that’s a thirty-seven year old production of A Chorus Line or if that’s, say, a replica of a current mega-musical such as Wicked – what do you want a review to tell you about the locally playing production, when you can just as easily google dozens from NYC or around the world?
I want specific answers. In the comments on the first post Keith said:
pointing out sound problems is a big deal and mentioning current actors in the cast is important, too. (The cast will use ACL reviews like an indepedent theatre company would, for pull-quotes and to build their reputations.) But you’re just a different part of the conversation with a show like this; you’re speaking to people who will see this cast on that stage – and probably not to any future readers with interests in ACL.
So is it these things: execution of production qualities, more detail of individual performances? Is it more background and context, or is it less? Does it matter that it’s been running for forty-odd years?
What do you dear reader of this blog – you audience member, you artist, you marketer – read a review of such a show for? What didn’t I talk about in my first review which I should have? What did I talk about which you wish I’d left out? What do you want to know, or want to discuss with me, or discuss with anyone when you leave a show like this?
You help me, and I might learn to be a better writer. I might even try and write you another review.
No Plain Jane 
1. I really enjoyed reading the previous post. I think the issues you spoke about also plague music writing, and contribute to the rot at the core of many street press magazines. Some online outlets seem to be doing it better – Mess & Noise, while others seek to be a guide to the good stuff rather than an outlet for critical thinking (The Thousands). It really comes down to editors to find the good writers, but they are few and far between. Ultimately we have to rely on the integrity of editors and writers to really love and know the landscape they are playing in.
Writing in visual arts (in my experience) is a more complex beast, and perhaps a conversation for offline chats.
2. If I were to go to a play like this, which is extremely unlikely given the high ticket prices, I would basically like to know whether the performance itself would be of an excellent quality. Some background information would be excellent too. The kind of growth and development in the cultural meaning of a play that might happen over the lifespan of rich texts, is perhaps not present in more purely entertainment-based stuff like this. Something that might be interesting is some discussion of why productions like this have enduring appeal for audiences – and perhaps what that says about us as a society.
Hi Jane – I don’t live in Adelaide but I’m interested in what goes on there, as I am interested in what goes on all over Australia. Reviewing something like ACL is difficult, particularly when it is, as the Adelaide production sounds, a carbon copy of the ‘tried and true’. I think it is still worthwhile reviewing such productions though and for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as others have pointed out, because the actors, dancers, singers, musicians et al are in THIS production, not another long past and they deserve to have their current performances critiqued even if they are recreating some past choreography etc. Secondly, times and tastes change and it is the critics responsibility to report on whether the show itself is still relevant to the current audience, many of whom, no doubt, will never have actually seen it live. I’m sure there are people out there who think that everything as old as ACL is ripe for re-imagining and shouldn’t be presented as it was originally but that denies the many people who justifiably and legitimately want to see the show they’ve heard about presented in the way they’ve heard it was done. The critics job is to tell them if that was achieved and, on top of that, if the show is still worth seeing. If it isn’t, say so. If it is, say so. But don’t assume that it is passe because it is 30 odd years old. “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it!” comes to mind. There’s a place for innovation and re-imagining and there is an equal place for presenting what works and entertains. I for one am not particularly interested in ACL performed in a perspex box with ash falling from the sky. That’s not the show as written and the show as written works. The critic’s job is to let us know whether that old show as written is still worth seeing and experiencing (which it may or may not be) and whether those involved rise to the task.