MACT
After MACT*Fest 2025 was over, we sent an adjudicator evaluation form to the 63 e-mail addresses we had from the people that purchased full registrations on-line. We received 15 responses to that evaluation form. Here’s what those people had to say about the adjudications.
On a scale of 1 to 5, how much do you agree with the following statements:
6 responses
While knowledgeable about play and acting, failed to capture importance of technical aspects. Example: lack of comments on lighting issues or need for actors to find their light.
Jim Vogel was especially good at sharing his experience with a couple of the plays he’d seen before.
He seems nice and he was clear it was his first time (which I probably wouldn’t have said out loud). He didn’t really provide any insights about specifics on actors, set, or anything – all felt generic. And, a judge should always be seen as unbiased; when he expressed personal familiarity with theatres or how they have a reputation for always doing well at something, we question fairness. Also, didn’t ask who the director was, didn’t ask questions of the director or cast.
His nervous tics decreased from session to session. True insight into challenges faced by companies taking shows on the road. Positive feedback and tactful commentary.
He seemed fair and thoughtful in his responses
Very friendly, accessible, informal, familiar with a lot of theatres, shows and the festival process; concerned (in a good way) about avoiding “Um…”
Please provide any additional comments you may have about Kelly Florence’s adjudications.
6 responses
Comments seemed to appreciate the political statement of a play more than the merit of the presentation (how well performed). No incorporation of technical impact on performance.
Kelly Florence was a delight to listen to, because she brought fresh ideas with each performance and gave good advice to the performers.
Sometimes landed on a few more specifics, but not much that helped us understand her perspective or help us see her ensuring she was clear (like Vogel, didn’t ask who the director was, didn’t ask questions of the director or cast). And again, bias was in question when she mentioned she was just in a show (or saw it) – but showed her elevated interest in the script.
Clearly used to working with casts to stage shows. Knowledgeable, clear comments and suggestions to companies.
Very vibrant and gave great feedback as well as suggestions
Concise, friendly, but I’m not sure I learned any options theatres might have considered; the briefest speaker
Please provide any additional comments you may have about Michelle Schwantes’s adjudications.
8 responses
Comments were most insightful of the three. Still poor technical inclusion. Political aspect seemed more important than execution.
Michelle Schwantes had good solid opinions and advice for each cast.
The most polished of the three, but it felt too prepared, as if she already had her outline before the show was even performed. Using the same big words and ideas for most of the shows – without pointing out more specifics, or like the other two, didn’t ask who the director was, didn’t ask questions of the director or cast – it just fell flat for me. A quick note for all three – When we don’t get helpful adjudication, and then have a limited number of awards, and have a show go on with only tech awards and the other only have a choreography award, it makes me scratch my head. All of those awards were well deserved and important, but the awards given didn’t match the best of fest sorting.
She was a bit long winded and some what confusing
Obviously a teacher used to the lecture mode but still tactful and to the point in her critiques of each performance. Very positive in overall commentary.
Her comments made no sense for actual adjudication. She did not provide anyone any constructive feedback and it almost seemed like she was reviewing the play content and not the performance. Lots and lots of words.
I felt that Michelle went into a bit more depth and detail with her adjudication, and her comments were very insightful. Although all the adjudicators were good, I felt Michelle went the extra mile to provide excellent insight.
Excellent communicator and well-organized, but sometimes I wanted fewer words and more simply-stated instances of what worked, what didn’t and what options they might try next. She (and the others) did some of that.
About Yourself
