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?
Log in to reply

Thread (5 posts)

ThreadedFlat
NaSat, 25 Oct 2008, 03:02 pm
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?
Log in to reply
Walter PlingeSat, 25 Oct 2008, 04:55 pm

How do you define good theatre?

Question: How do you define good theatre? Answer: Anthing that doesn't happen at Stirling Theatre
Log in to reply
LogosSun, 26 Oct 2008, 07:02 am

Audience versus cast/crew

I will ask a further question here. Should the criteria be different. Are we really looking to different definitions for good theatre from audience and insider Points of View? OK I admit that sometimes I sit and watch a piece of theatre and will applaud the subtlety of lighting tricks that enhance the production greatly but will probably only be noticed directly by experts but I do feel that the audience would miss them without necessarily knowing why if they weren't there. I generally agree with you Na in some ways. I too am becoming tired of the same old plays being trotted out even if they do have different names. The modern farce is in many ways the same play rewrit over and over, but audiences (at least those willing to spend money to go to the theatre) love them. New plays are incredibly hard to get an audience too. Oops different subject. Anyway: yes, quality script, good actors, competently directed, performance well supported by good tech (much more important than some people give credit for) will sometimes result in "good" theatre. But there is often a spark that is missing. How do we bottle that? How do we get the enthusiasm we see from some of our colleagues out there and channel it to the places where it is needed. You know I once heard a director I respected deeply say "90% of the work of a director is done when he/she casts a show. Get that right and the rest falls into place." Will that open up a discussion. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au
Log in to reply
NaSun, 26 Oct 2008, 02:22 pm

The X Factor

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
Log in to reply
LabrugMon, 27 Oct 2008, 09:47 am

My own thoughts

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

Log in to reply
← Back to Billboard Bulletins