THE EDITOR, Sir:
I'm sorry that your theatre critic Michael Reckord had to go to a funeral with a storytelling preacher to find real enjoyment (as articulated in his review in your edition of January 25).
Reviewers are free to vent whatever they think about a production, fair or otherwise. Your reviewer seemed determined not to get the joke in Skoolaz, the LTM National Pantomime at The Little Theatre. It remained for the young people in the audience to enjoy the production, as even the reviewer had to admit.
By his own admission, while he was left to continue mourning, others in the audience got along with enjoying what they'd come to see, uncomplicated as the story was. Contradictions abound. Even as he nitpicks, your reviewer admits that the characters in Skoolaz, all easily identifiable, are all lots of fun. (His words).
He seems disappointed that "a girl about 10 years old, sitting behind me, thoroughly enjoyed the spectacular but quite ridiculous climax to the storyline." He further surrendered and admitted that "there is much to enjoy," but the editor couldn't resist allowing the headline 'Unconvincing'. Worst of all, the reviewer seemed more than distressed to find that the playwright was more interested in making people laugh (Woe is me!)
Perhaps the most ridiculous - and surprising - aspect of your reviewer's review is that he chose to lump together two productions, neither of which had any relation to each other, to create one review and to damn them with faint praise. The public should know that the only link between Basil Dawkins' Ambitions and the LTM's Skoolaz is that they are performed in two theatres on the same premises and the same designer did the sets.
It is not often, if ever, that I have seen that done in theatre reviewing, a discipline with which your reviewer is well familiar, especially as a teacher in the dramatic arts and as a writer of a Pantomime script in the past. Perhaps the confusion began with that storytelling funeral.