What constitutes a good show?

What constitutes a memorable show?
Should a play still be considered admirable and worth recommending, if the sets are first class, the lighting outstanding, the direction imaginative, the acting amazing – never been better - but the script boring, clichéd and pointless? On this occasion the audience may depart the theatre frustrated and thinking what a waste of time and talent.
Or is the piece which has very little scenery, a few lights, the acting is wooden with the odd fluffed word, direction is dull and laborious, but the play has a brilliantly inventive, beautifully written script, a better show?
Possibly the play is one which is technically average, has good - but not outstanding acting - yet on leaving the theatre you realise that you have engaged in some kind of emotional experience? Perhaps you have laughed, cried, aroused, been scared witless and still are thinking about passages in the play a day or two later. Is this the 5-star production?

I realise that in the ideal show, all of these ‘quality features’ should be present, but isn’t the audience enjoyment factor the most important point of any show?
We hear of Art Galleries which have spent $20,000 on a pile of bricks, or recently in the UK of the 50,000 pounds spent on a standard urinal as the latest art. Likewise I feel that the number of productions which are weird and fit into some strange genre is increasing. There is a massive GENERAL public out there, which some producers may consider plebs, who need to be taught to appreciate the latest real and innovative theatre art. Are the public right or should a select few discerning theatricals receive preference?
The Da Vinci code was a massive seller, very popular but hardly the best written book of the year, but it was a good satisfying yarn. So how should books and plays be rated? Does the audience enjoyment factor matter?

I agree that consistency is an important quality in the crafting of a piece of theatre. I also agree that entertaining the audience is generally a vital objective. However, as a reviewer, one should also look for and appreciate the artistic aspects of a piece and this is where a little theoretical information can be an advantage. In my view, a successful work of art is one which draws upon the wisdom of the ages, marries that with real emotions and experiences and progenerates a new creation which evokes a unique emotional response in the spectator. This applies equally to visual and to performing arts. Their component parts (brushmanship, stagecraft etc) are the means whereby the artistic goal is achieved. I saw a recent interview with popster Robbie Williams in which he declared himself an entertainer, not an 'artist'. He offered the opinion that actors also were not 'artists' because all it involved was "pretending to be someone else". I disagree. I think what he does can be called art and of course, we all know there is much more to acting that that! Ssstinger>>>

Art v Craft

Thread (11 posts)