In the last month, I've had the pleasure of writing reviews for a handful of local shows. Most of them involved theatre folks with whom I've worked. Many of them I also consider my friends.
The experience has been a lot of fun. I think inside every theatre artist, regardless of your specialty, is a critic waiting to come out. There's something rewarding about putting into words the visceral feelings you get while watching a show, and it makes the experience of going to the theatre a two-sided conversation. (And don't we all crave that? I know the second I leave the theatre, I'm eager to talk about what I just saw, desperate to hash it out -- good and bad -- to argue, debate, consider.)
The down side: in the interest of being as honest as possible about the experiences I had in the theatre, I had to take issue with some of the work I saw. It's not something that happens often in local criticism. In fact, because of the dearth of working reviewers, many shows don't even get reviewed at all. If you just went by published
reviews, I've been largely absent from the local theater scene in the last five or six years. And I not only took issue with productions, I also took issue with the work of friends and artists I admire -- which is an anxiety-producing experience, let me tell you.
It's one thing to be critical of someone you don't know. It sucks to be critical of people you like. A lot.
But I think it's necessary. It's the entire function of criticism, really. And I think when we turn a blind eye to the less than successful things we do in local theatre, we do a disservice to local theatre. Everything isn't going to be wonderful. Some things will be terrible. And most things will be a combination of the two.
And that's how it's supposed to be.
I think a critic should essentially do three things. First, I think a good critic gives the reader some sense of what they experienced in the theatre. Was the show fun, heartbreaking, funny, fast, cold, ect.? That's what I want to know when I read a review. I'm putting money down, after all. I want to know what I'm in for.
Secondly, I think a good critic looks closely at the individual parts that make up the whole -- design, script, acting, directing -- and weighs in on what worked and what didn't. Most shows aren't uniformly
good or bad. They're mostly a mixture of successful and unsuccessful elements. If you praise what really worked, hopefully you'll get more of it. If you point out what elements didn't work, hopefully, you'll see that change in future work. (And, if you're like me, it helps you decide what you can live with -- I can often handle mediocre acting if the play is phenomenal. Bad writing, regardless of the acting, generally makes me cringe. A good review will tell me what's what, and I can decide if the money is worth it.)
And finally, I think good critics place the show they saw against their own expectations of what good theatre should be and make a subjective judgement. A good critic shouldn't like everything. (He or she shouldn't hate everything, either.) But they should be able to explain exactly why they liked or didn't like something. And they
should be honest. Because I think there's nothing worse than empty praise. My favorite complements are from people who have, in the past, been honest about their less than warm feelings of my previous work. Honesty counts, and I think you should be able to trust both a critic's praise and criticism.
I've been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh reviews. (Have you ever had a New York critic basically say your play's characters were illogical, cold and completely distancing and that he didn't care about any of them? I have.) It sucks, but it's necessary. And it's just one person's opinion, anyway.
And hopefully, it can start a conversation. Theatre should be a two-way street. And if my review of something doesn't jibe with what you saw when you experienced a show, then by all means, I'd love to hear you out.
I appreciate the value of bad reviews as much as anyone.
---Cody Daigle
No comments:
Post a Comment