Sometimes an actor’s worse nightmare is receiving a horrible review of the show they are currently performing in. Therefore, it is common for some actors, directors, and producers to believe that critics of the theatre are on the prowl to discredit and bash a show. Yes, reviews can ultimately determine how well the tickets for a play or musical sell.
However, a critic’s review should not be considered a platform for one person to provide their opinion on how well a performance went. It’s up to the critic to provide critical feedback for the artists as a way improve and progress through their craft. Criticism is an art because it takes a lot of practice and patience to discover your own unique style of critically and properly evaluating a show through your perspective. This epiphany came to me while I was attending a theatre conference during winter break.
At the American College Theatre Festival, Region II at Towson University in Baltimore, I had the fortune of participating in The Critics Institute to refine my skills as a critic of the theatre. I blindly came in thinking I already mastered the elements for composing a successful review: catchy opening statement, credit for those who produced the show, short plot summary, witty and descriptive phrases of the action and an overall opinion.
However, I shortly realized that my formula was missing two important things: variety and flavor. During the seminars and open discussions I noticed that every review had a unique opening statement that was never the same. I had fallen into a pattern of making universal statements that everyone could accept. What I was lacking here was the focus and indication of what would be covered in the review. Needless to say, I started to understand that I could critique the show from any starting point such as: at the beginning of the show, the energy of the audience or a moment that captured my attention and made me think.
It’s trickier however to give a review a distinctive flavor. If you want to have a review with flavor, you need to critique the show though one or a few different angles. While I watching a performance of Sarah Ruhl’s “Eurydice” (a retelling of a popular Greek myth), I simply couldn’t stand it. The technical precision of the lights and scene changes was handled very professionally, but the action in the story was slow for me and seemed to possess a lot of awkward, pregnant pauses.
As I wrote my review, I avoided generically pointing out what was wrong during specific moments. I closed my eyes and remembered that the energy on the stage felt empty and almost lifeless. So, I started writing how the energy and action on the stage could have been improved while acknowledging that it was hard for me to fully grasp the poetic language of the playwright. I’m not a perfect critic and I can’t know everything. Therefore, I can only try to give other artists feedback that is critical but useful in order to help them understand and consider what was presented in the audience. It’s my perspective and critique: anyone can choose to accept what I wrote or not.
Sometimes, every show that I like, people hate. But every show I hate, other people like. I have a different idea about what makes a performance great, which was apparently true in comparison to the other critics I recently worked with. What I find atheistically pleasing is a performance that doesn’t just entertain the audience but makes them think about the subject presented to them and notice how diverse storytelling can be in the arts. It’s not all about providing your opinion on the show: it’s about giving helpful feedback to other artists.
