Within my circle of friends I am often amazed by our widely different appraisals of the productions of the state theatre company. One man's meat is another man's poison. Maybe the other critic, whom you criticise, really saw merits that escaped you.

What a pity that you initally decided not to do a review. Surely a bad review would be as informative to prospective theatre goers as a good review.

Is there a better way of harnessing the variety of opinions? Maybe critics instead of being rivals should put their heads together and provide a combined pro-and-con review that gives evidence based comment rather than expresses opinions that we may or may not trust.

I've been quietly keeping my opinion to myself but the vast majority of big production numbers with big bugets I've seen were absolutely horrible - compared to the performance and writing and creativiy of small theatre companies. Surely there must be a way in which quality is retained and the corporatisation of performing arts kept on a short leash. Where are all the purists?

For what its worth: had a similar experience overseas - with the added outrage that in an intimate theatre space the musical numbers were lip-synched.I had exactly the same thoughts as you regarding what the inflated and undeserved review (which specifically mentioned the "up-tempo musical talent" as well)would bode for the entire theatre genre.

What eventuated was that the company had a great run, and while not perhaps flourishing, came together for the next couple of seasons (and probably still are, for all I know) to churn out slightly modified re-runs which continued to attract the same audiences each year.

Whether or not it became a sort of hideous kinky cult thing or whether its patrons were honestly convinced of its worth, I have no idea.

However my point is that I don't think legitimate theatre suffered in any way from this fiasco; none of the actors went on to undeserved fame and stardom; and the returning bums in seats were obviously not serious theatre-goers in any case.

Most importantly of all though: I kept my own integrity. In the intervening time I have never woken at 4 in the morning in a heavy sweat, desperate that somewhere a critique proving me to be an utter tool lies in wait on some micro-fiche file to strip me of my credibility.

You did good, girl.

What you're essentially saying is that your assessment is right and the published critic is wrong. Everything else in your article proceeds from that assumption. You appear to be judging the show (and the other critic's failure to agree with you) as if your own aesthetic values are some kind of objective yardstick by which work can be judged. This is your opinion. No more. No less. You state that "one man's meat is another man's poison" then completely ignore your own maxim.

BTW I haven't seen the show and have no association with the company and for all i know the show was a turkey.

By all means critique the show. But don't sit in judgement of others because they saw the show in different terms to you.

Im disappointed that this topic didn't arouse more widespread interest. I said my bit earlier, and so I would like to broaden the issue to the "criticism" implicit in the applause after a performance. Mainly with musical concerts I have often applauded even though I haven't enjoyed the experience one bit. I admit to being a bit of a philistine, nothing composed after about 1900 is much good ;-) but I am torn between expressing appreciation of the performers, even though I don't like the music, and showing my dislike of the programme by not applauding. Audiences should be given a more structured opportunity for feedback. I have nothing against avant guarde productions - if they are done in private for consenting adults.