When performers respond to reviews - RashDash and 'Never Enough'

It's always interesting when someone you've reviewed talks to you about said review. Partly, it's the knowledge that, actually, the stuff we people write does get read...that's reassuring. But partly, it's the knowledge that someone has read what you've said and thought about it – probably because it applies so much to them.

Now, I've been in trouble over reviews in the past (when a company objected to their work being referred to as 'physical theatre'), but today I found it seems to have happened on a bigger scale than before. What makes this amusing – rather like the last time this happened – is that the company in question seems to have misunderstood the review in question. In fairness, that makes it sound like I've not been clear enough, but performers don't usually have problems with 'getting' what I say.

One of the companies performing at this year's NSDF claim that I wrote their worst review...which surprised me because I thought mine was pretty positive. In fact, I really enjoyed their show, rather like I enjoyed the show they'd entered the year before. The fact that RashDash Theatre Company is from my own University is irrelevant. Still, if my review was the worst thing written about them, they must have done pretty well on the whole – and let's not overlook their joint award for most popular show at the Festival.

But it's interesting that the company of Never Enough should take such objection to what I wrote.
My first comment about the company itself is:

'what is worth noting – and commending – is the fact that RashDash have been
selected for NSDF in a second consecutive year.'

I draw special attention to the word 'commending'.

RashDash might then have taken issue with my point that their energetic show borrows from different dance styles. Possibly. But at no point have I said that it's a bad thing, as I think it's quite a good thing.

Then, a few lines later:

'This is a company that has invested time and effort in perfecting their
physical technique; they gel together beautifully, moving fluidly and easily
around each other'.

I'm struggling to see how this is their worst review, when some people really didn't like Never Enough.

Apparently, they don't like the idea that I've claimed their acting wasn't very good. This response to the review surprised me, as I was pretty sure I hadn't said it; there's not much to fault in their acting. So, I re-read said review.

'as is so often the case, these dancers aren't so hot on acting. None of the
trio can quite hold their own when delivering monologues [...] It's not that
Graham's description of his dream house isn't interesting, it just pales away
when compared with the drive and passion of his dance work.'

By which I mean that their dance work is better than their acting. That doesn't mean their acting is bad. It's just not their strongest point.

'it's a testament to the strength of the ensemble that no individual is able to
stand out.'

is also no bad thing.

But thinking about it, I gather the cast aren't keen on being referred to as 'dancers', for some reason. I don't know why, as all three excel in that field, and much of their work has a distinctly 'dancey' feel to it. Maybe they objected to my comparing their show – loosely – to the BBC's Mistresses in the way it balanced several stories at once. Once again, that's no bad thing; it's what I love about Mistresses.

Still, Never Enough is being performed again at the University of Hull tonight and tomorrow – so I'm told. Hopefully, when I turn up, they won't throw me the seemingly angry looks they threw me at NSDF. Personally, I look forward to seeing how they've changed the show in the month or so since NSDF.