How do you define good theatre?

This is something that I am sure something like the WA Finley Awards struggles to deal with - what is a fair assessment of a 'good' show. It is subjective, of that there is no doubt else you would have overwhelming consistency in reviews. So how do you establish what is a Good show? I don't dare to postulate other than to offer my own personal thoughts on the matter.

A 'Good' show (IMO) is one that achieves the goal of the writer/director/company. If a show is written to entertain, make people laugh, sigh or what-have-you, then that is what it should do. If a show has been designed to shock, provoke or horrify then that it the desired outcome. Mainstream shows are designed to 'entertain' (which is also subjective) which is what the bulk of audiences go to theatre for, to be entertained, which is mostly associated with positive emotional reactions such as laughter, sentimentality, respect, frivolity and so forth.

At the end of the day, did you get an emotional reaction from the audience? Was it what you intended? If so then the show was 'good'.

Having only recently begun the venture into direction, I can still see the difference in perspective I have now as to my expectations in a show. My view has become more technical in terms of staging, characterisation, development, pace, energy where as previously, I was able to suspend the reality of the theatre an find threads in characters that I can relate to. I find nowadays that when some small detail doesn't quite fit the reality of the piece, it jars me. Once I could overlook this. Yet, at the end of the show, I measure it's success or worth by the general mood of the audience - and the number of smiles I do or do not see.

A good show is one that achieves its basic point and does so to a majority of the audience.

I disagree that a good show needs a responsive audience. Many a show I have done where the audience have been what I call 'thinkers' - barely any apparent interaction, laughter, vocal input - but have at intermission and curtain call received the play very well. Some of these shows have been the best of the season. Similarly, an involved audience is not a reflect of a good show. After all, what exactly are they getting all worked up about? Your acting or what you are wearing? Or maybe what the little kid in the third row is up to?

A well integrated, energetic cast who believe in what they are doing, have a good understanding of what their purpose is and feel supported by their fellow cast members, director, stage crew and script certainly goes a long way toward a good show, yet even that on it's own is not always enough. There is also a need for the technical aspects to be seamless (as possible) and organic in a way.

Good staging I believe can make or break a difficult scene, and it could be that one scene that lets down the whole show. Depending on the play, most scenes will take care of themselves when you have a good quality cast. It is those individual moments such as;

• Change of tension
• large cast numbers on stage
• small cast with minimal dialogue - action scenes
• points of revelation
• significant plot moments of any find
• etc

- that can fall flat and effectively 'ruin' a show. All plays have these moments and they need particular attention from the cast, director and stage crew to ensure they work well. These are Landmark moments. A Good show will find these moments are at least equivalent to the rest of the play in terms of energy, momentum and truth. In Brilliant plays, it will be these moments the audience will be talking about long after the show has ended.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Find an Agent