The Gown Student Newspaper at Queen's University Belfast

Well then, next time, you make sure you write the review. And if you think the play is bad, justify your opinion, and you will see people attack you for it. Then you will know how it feels and how immature other people are being.

I'd be more likely to respect the opinion of someone who has a proven track-record of good theatrical work and knowledge. To my knowledge, Swann has neither.

The fact that the review is shockingly clumsy from a journalistic point of view is also a concern.

What qualifies anyone to comment on a play? Experience and an opinion. Do you think a West End or Broadway critic would've given it 5 stars? Probably not. This is review - a review written by someone who justified why he thought the play was bad. Now just get over it!

Maybe if you spent more time watching the play instead of audibly sighing throughout you would have picked up on more than the shallow, poorly written details you have communicated online.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but what exactly qualifies you to comment on any play Brian?

I was an actor in the play that is causing the debate. I'm sorry but I cant comment, I was so involved in my character that opinions outside my characterisation made no sense to me.
I wish I could say whether it was a good play or not, and I wish I could comment on ISDA...but frankly I acted a priest and for 4 weeks was only concerned about things like the Holy Ghost and the Pope's recent announcements.
Hope it all went well! God Bless!

Guys, there are loads of important things that have come out of this.

1. Brian has to be honest. And proper criticism will at the end of the day, help all student drama improve and move forward.
2. A reviewer also has a responsibility to consider his audience. I'm sure Brian realises that some drama he may review from the Players will be written by someone who has had little or no experience of writing/directing/acting, or from a student who will never produce effective work. Perhaps in those cases, purely constructive criticism is more fitting.

I am not judging the plays that were presented, I did not see them all as I was ill. But I hope that none of the teams get put off. And I hope that some day the society has better frameworks to help support new writing processes. This is something we are working on. Its not a quick process.

Finally, in reference to ISDA. I feel the society can help itself by making information on the process more available. We will therefore be updating our website.

I wish we could have taken all of the plays produced this year. Unfortunately we had no control over the slots allocated to us, and therefore, Screwtape could not go. I understand that this is frustrating for those who worked so hard. I think that pursuing ISDA over changes to this process is also key. I will encourage our current and next years ISDA reps to do this.

"Players Week is about supporting the talent at Queen’s and having fun."

So the first comment made at the very top of a particular actor's performance, which was originally thumbed-up by 4 people, is supportive? Isn't that hurtful, especially since there was no basis for the argument and no real analysis of that actor's performance? By your standards, it's surely unacceptable to say something like that because it's not 'encouraging', it's 'putting down'. But by my standards, that person had the right to express an opinion.

Brian wrote what he thought and was honest. He provided a direct analysis of what he thought was wrong with the script, i.e. he JUSTIFIED his opinion. A review would be useless if it were full of lies.

I think everyone just needs to grow up and realise we're not children at school any more, we're adults. A damning review is of course awful, but writers learn from it and it separates the weak from the strong. If someone wants to be a writer, they will get criticised worse than this in the future all the time, so they'd better get used to it. Better to start now than be faced with a terrible review in a public newspaper for millions to read. If a writer can't hack the criticism, they clearly don't have what it takes to persist and succeed in the harsh world of the arts.

Bottom line - Players Week is about supporting the talent at Queen's and having fun. This review isn't supportive to all the students involved this year and has tainted the event. Think how hurtful it is for Catherine, A FIRST YEAR STUDENT to read this? Brian, I sincerely urge you to apologise to her as students should be encouraging each other rather than putting each other down. I dont care if it's a review - it doesn't excuse the rudeness.

Wow..pedantic.

And it wasn't well-written..

First of all, let me just clarify something - it was not the 'best' play that was sent to ISDA, only that which managed to get the best slot.

Secondly, Brian, you are completely within your rights to write this review and I salute you. It was honest and well-written. For others reading this, chill out; a review is one person's opinion. It is not 'slanderous' to write what you think. Does that mean that any review of the arts given in a paper is 'slanderous' just because it's honest? No. Besides, that's not even the right word - slander is spoken, you might mean libelous. In any case, it's not. This was a proper review, end of.

Brian, the 'confusion' over ISDA is yours, and if the website only 'seems to refer' to something, perhaps you should actually do some research before writing such a slanderous and ill-informed article. I sincerely hope next years' Arts Editor is aware of the incompetence you've displayed in this review, and (for the good of both The Gown and Drama at Queen's) thinks very carefully before allowing you to comment in your typically envious and harsh tone again.

Miau! Hell hath no fury like an actor turned down for a role! Be honest Brian, this was a fantastic first play and you are just jealous not to have got a part. It was a rich and resonant text and a thought provoking interpretation of a challenging subject. Well done Catherine Lambert - I look forward to hearing more from you in the future!

With respect everyone is entitled to their own opinion particularly when the subject is intended to affect an objective viewer but considering Red Dress was a piece of new writing from a student I fail to see how your comments in any way promote or encourage student drama within queens. The script obviously had something worthwhile within it as I doubt the committee would have let it been produced otherwise. It takes alot of nerve to put new writing forward and the scipt was not "terrible" for a first time author. How can you compare a first time piece to works by Bennett and C.S Lewis? Apologies for the rant but quite frankly I find this review ridulous and detrimental to a really exciting drama society who put on a great week of shows. This review says more about the state of student journalism (which in the main I fully support) than a reflection of new drama at queens.

Thank you for the comments to this article.

It would've been unfair if this Players Week article was scrapped in favour of a review to The History Boys as another reviewer wrote a good review on 'The Screwtape Letters'.

But all three plays needed to be discussed to give credit to the hard work the cast and crew gave in rehearsals and in the weeks leading up to Players Week. I would have received complaints anyway if we didn’t talk about ‘The Woman in the Red Dress’, but I strongly stand by what I said.

I admit there is confusion over ISDA as Queen’s University Players state on their website “so make sure you send in your performance proposal for a chance to perform at ISDA” which seems to refer to the shows produced for Players Week but doesn’t say much more than that. It doesn’t say how many shows each university can put through to ISDA and if 3rd year Independent Project Shows are also allowed to be submitted too.

But I would like to remind people this is a review. After each show I did conduct audience feedback and ask for peoples' views of what they have just seen. With 'The Woman in the Red Dress' and 'The Screwtape Letters', what I highlighted in my review was all my opinion with a small sample of what stood out to the audience members that I asked about the production.

I want to be proven wrong about ‘The Woman in the Red Dress’ and believe it can be a better play when the playwright revisits the script, so please prove me wrong.

Anyway...I will look forward to next year’s Players Week with great excitement.

Alex - The proposal from Lambert was accepted based on the synopsis; she has not yet completed a definitive script. Secondly, in cold reading certain problems with the script would not have been immediately noticable. For instance, it reads more like a television script or a screenplay than it does a theatrical text - a flaw that cannot be spotted until the production is being rehearsed.

well lamberts script wouldnt have been chosen in the first place if it really was a shit as you seem to think it was.

With regards Woman In the Red Dress, at the end of the day we need to remember that the Players exists to create opportunities for new writers and people new to acting as well as those more experienced. I was proud to be apart of supporting Catherine's new write, regardless of the flaws which are inevitable in a piece of new and inexperienced writing.

I would strongly encourage anyone reading not to be put off by criticism, and rather see it as an encouragement to strive to improve their work :)

I don't think so. If anything it will make new writers want to prove students can create good original plays.
I don't doubt 'The Woman in the Red Dress' will become a better play with future script rewrites, but we should've been shown the end result than a preview performance of a play still to be finished.

Well-intentioned but flawed effort from Lambert.

I only hope this doesn't alienate other new writers from developing their work in Queen's.

To be Honest I wasn't that impressed with Shiraz's performance, she seemed to scream the lines rather than act them.