Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

How do you define good theatre?

Sat, 25 Oct 2008, 03:02 pm
Na5 posts in thread
A continuation from: http://www.theatre.asn.au/poll/what_faqs_would_you_like_adde "How should we define 'good', and what qualities should a good show have?" Logos notes: "If we are still talking about helping Directors produce "good" theatre then are we not discussing a hugely subjective issue. I have been to see shows which I considered absolute rubbish that received standing ovations and seen shows I loved that played to 4 or 5 people a night and got panned by reviewers. There are a number of threads on this site that attest to this. Quite passionate attacks on shows and defence of same. I am reminded of Paris and of course Rock Apocalypse. "So what constitutes good theatre? Many people seem to believe that for amateur shows, particularly those with a lot of young people in them, effort from the cast and overcoming obstacles are enough to consider a show good theatre. I don't. "Theatre needs to entertain, I feel that very strongly but then we must consider what it has to say. If it only entertains and has no message are we doing the right thing by Thespis. Oh and by the way, it is important that the cast understands what the show has to say. If they don't the message will fail." Additionally, some people in the business say that good theatre must have a 'message', whether it be political, social or of other important topics of the day. Personally, I find shows are 'good', when the production has strong, believable characters, few mistakes, a clear and defined script, and the design aspects enhance the performance subtly. I prefer a performance which takes me down the road of the unexpected, rather than the retreading old ground (what I call 'domestic' plays: that is, if the play is something that can be seen anywhere and anytime in the world, and does not bring something new to the themes or storyline involved). This is from an audience point of view... so perhaps we need to split the question into two parts. What makes a good show from the audience's POV, and what makes it good from a cast/crew POV?

The X Factor

Sun, 26 Oct 2008, 02:22 pm
While people say this is hard to define, it really isn't. The X Factor is (IMHO), a combination of the following things: A responsive audience (whether large or small) An energetic cast who are dynamic and work well with each other Crew getting their cues right A script that has a good flow, tension, or suspense There's something from that list I'm missing, but I forget what. Why is the X factor so elusive? Because you need to have each of the above in just the right amount to have something special. If one actor is off, the whole show is atilt, if one line ruins the tension, the whole show is let down. How to bottle it? We don't even try: otherwise it would all be too easy, and we wouldn't keep going. Wasn't it one of our well-known Aussies who said that they're continuing to make films because they feel as though they need to keep trying to capture the best performance they can give - and still haven't been able to do it, despite being given awards, etc? Free halloween shadow puppet pattern at Puppets in Melbourne

Thread (5 posts)

← Back to Billboard Bulletins