CRITIC: from the Greek kritikós – one who discerns, from the Ancient Greek krités, meaning a person who offers reasoned judgement or analysis, value determination, interpretation, or observation.
CRITICISM: Judgement over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes .
Evaluating any art or entertainment form is rather subjective– depending ultimately on the taste and understanding of the adjudicator. It helps, though, to have some more objective questions to ask so that the reviewer can at least articulate where they’re coming from.
For those of you who may wonder what I try to evaluate on a production I’ve seen, here is the general rubric (not EVERYTHING here can be achieved in most single productions, but I try to evaluate the items that do apply to the production):
Directing elements: Clear POV in theme, aesthetic, overall statement. Cohesiveness of acting, story, spectacle and style elements (Is what’s there balanced? Is what isn’t there necessary? Does anything there distract from the overall presentation? Does anything seem incomplete?); effective use of blocking to enhance meaning or understanding; effective establishment of mood, pacing, and use of space.
Acting elements: Strong, active choices, full characterization, heightened sense of tension, imagination and spontaneity; effectiveness of projection, vocal variety, diction, gesture, and confidence. Rapport among ensemble.
Story and Language (Script) Elements: basic dramatic structure: exposition, complication, conflict, crises, climax, and resolution. Recurring patterns; metaphors; subtext; symbolic elements; use of use of figurative language and imagery; compelling themes; essential human insight.
Spectacle (Design) Elements: Effective use of stage technology (or lack thereof): lighting, stagecraft, costuming, make up, special effects to enhance setting, mood, tone, and meaning.
Style Elements: effective use of theatrical forms (such as commedia, vaudeville, Shakespearean, classical, contemporary, non-realistic, naturalism, etc) within the given story; period understanding and details; cohesiveness of style among the actors (do they all look like they’re in the same play?); Is the tone taken toward the work appropriate? Is the reinterpretation or adaptation appropriate to the spirit of the original work? Does it bring forth new ideas regarding the themes of the work?
Intentions: What is the production’s intention? To reinterpret? To adapt? To send up? To satirize? To entertain? To be thoughtful? To discomfit? To discredit? To reinforce? How well does it achieve that goal?
Finally, while most ‘reviewers’ write for a largely unstudied public in order to inform them on whether or not the production is worth their time and money, I write for that audience only incidentally.
My primary audience is that of the practitioners of drama in our Valley. My attempt here is to put the production into some sort of context for both practitioners and theatre-goers. Some may find my criticism harsh, but some may be able to better question the choices of their next production with one educated audience member’s honest and studied evaluation.
Even if that choice is to set aside my opinion altogether.
So, there you go.
