What constitutes a good show?

Mon, 4 Dec 2006, 08:21 am

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?

Thread (11 posts)

Threaded Flat

Gordon the OptomMon, 4 Dec 2006, 08:21 am

NaMon, 4 Dec 2006, 10:45 am

I am a very harsh critic...

I am a very harsh critic... for me, a good show is: one that manages to shock me, whether in plot/storyline or in staging/design one that presents a new idea in a new way one that is performed excellently one that has excellent lighting, sound, sets, costumes, and any other staging, that also complements the rest of the performance 'vision' one that makes me think 'How did they do that?' one that makes me forget that I am a theatre person, and knows the tricks of the trade one that makes me forget I'm seeing a show ... A performance that disapppoints me is usually one where I spend the time staring at the lights or set, not really paying attention to the performance itself. Most of all, a performance that impresses me is one that you come out of, and you feel inspired - to do more, to do better, to be passionate... It must excite you. I compare the shows at the MTC like this - they produce 'technically' perfect productions, but you never walk out saying 'Wow!' A performance that does make you say 'Wow!' is the one that is the best... But it's all subjective. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

LogosMon, 4 Dec 2006, 11:27 am

I'm with you too Na

I feel that the show is poor if I start looking at how the set was built or how the lighting was done during the performance. It obviously starts with the script. Doesn't have to be innovative or shocking but has to be well written and keep attention. Performances? I tend to get uncomfortable if one person is operating at a different level either hugely better or hugely worse than everyone else I think it's important that the cast is on a reasonable level and they have to understand the script. I have worked with actors who can put in what appears to be a good performance but lack understanding. I am a technician and designer so I guess the best result for me on the technical side is that nothing is obviously wrong. I see very few shows amateur or professional that really shine technically (who has the time) but as long as nothing is obviously wrong I can and will enjoy the show. I rarely would have lit a show the same way as shows I watch but that doesn't mean the LD was wrong just different. Was it a good show? If I want to tell people about it it was a good show. I take my mother to the theatre a fair bit. She used to be a very active amateur actress but she retired a few years ago and at 84 has decided that life is too short to be overcritical. She goes to the Theatre to enjoy it and does. Maybe we should all take a leaf from her book Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

David GreenTue, 5 Dec 2006, 01:46 pm

Permformances are the key!!!

For me...it has to be a convincing performance. I don't care whether I am seeing a pantomime or a serious production; I need to believe that the actors are truly experiencing the emotion of their character. For example...I have worked with actors who have a funny line but can't deliver it because they don't think it is funny, or they don't have an understanding why it is funny...and in turn the audience doesn’t think it’s funny. If I can believe that the person on stage is that character, everything else is a nice bonus. Thanks my two cents ;) Keep Smiling :) David Green DRAGON FILMS

Tari-XalyrTue, 5 Dec 2006, 03:47 pm

Good Show?

What contributes a good show in my eyes is a successful bringing together of the various aspects of theatre to work harmoniously. It's crazy the amounts of shows I've seen that are unable to do this with much success. It's either the acting or the lighting or something else that lets a show down. A decently written script also helps alot. People don't put enough emphasis on how much a script can effect a performance. The writer usually gets less credit then the actor on the stage but I believe it's essentially their work. They provide the base. Without the solid base the whole tower may develop cracks and crumble. It's the simple things that make a show successful in my eyes. Back to Basics ~ Tari The Writer is a child forever listening at the keyhole of the adult world.

NaTue, 5 Dec 2006, 09:03 pm

Actually, this reminds me

Actually, this reminds me of another thing... I - believe it or not - don't mind if the performers crack it occassionally. I don't mean that the performers completely lose focus; but let's face it, there's no such thing as a perfect show. The sign of a good actor - or crew for that matter - is how well they deal with what goes wrong onstage/backstage. This 'break' from focus, depending on how well it is dealt with, is my favourite part of a show and brings life into what could have been a stale performance. It's why improv is enjoyed so much; the so-called X factor comes into play. Outside of this event, yes, believability is highly important. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

LabrugWed, 6 Dec 2006, 08:57 am

Consistent

A good show is consistent. One word. Consistent performances that feel spontaneous. Set design consistent with Costumes, consistent with lighting, sound, dialogue, characterisation, direction. Actors that consistently perform, at compatible levels, through the play and between each other. A play that is consistent with the intentions of the Author, in terms of pace and movement. A play that is written for speedy deliveries should not be played slowly, etc. If the performance is an interpretation of a script, then it needs to be so consistently.

A good play leads the audience through a maze of characters, scenes, plots and threads in such as a way as to consistently keep their interest up. Anything that works against the grain of movement is immediately noticed and distracting. A single inconsistent moment, direction, character, lighting arrangement, etc can potentially ruin a play.

This may sound like I am saying everything must be perfect. Far from it. Being consistent is not requiring perfection. It is not achieving a certain level of performance and maintaining it through the season. It is not developing any form of inflexibility. Being consistent allows for the occasional mistake, forgotten line, inappropriate movement. Being consistent is keeping the flow, unity and attention that is true to the production.

Every Audience is different. Every night, you feel different, emotionally, intellectually. Every night, something new is forgotten, discovered, fumbled. Consistency is being able to evaluate what is required on the night, on the spot, in order to continue the flow of the story, even if it means improvising something to fill a gap.

A good play is consistent good.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
who can also sing and dance
Fight/Sword Choreographer
Virgin Director
UPstageWA Rep

Home Page

stingerThu, 21 Dec 2006, 09:44 am

Art v Craft

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>>>

LabrugThu, 21 Dec 2006, 10:13 am

In the Eye

Artistic qualities are certainly important, to that I agree. They do not however make, or break, a good show, at least not alone. Strong artistic values need the support of solid performances and structured direction in order to carry it of. Again, the artistic qualities need to be consistent with the goals of the production.

I have even seen and heard of cases where the lack of artistic elements hasn't broken the show. Shows which have been slammed by critics for poor visual aspects, or artistic interpretation have been stunning box office smashes.

However, I am like you I think Stinger in that I enjoy some artistic interpretation. Aspects such as visual, spatial, and geographical direction are always a joy to watch, when done well. The problem comes from the fact that these aspects are somewhat abstract that most audiences would tend to overlook them. A seasoned performer or theatre goer would more likely appreciate things things, but I find they tend to be in the minority. For the most part, as a performer or director, you are entertaining the general public, who have little expereience and understanding of the details behind acting, direction, stage-craft.

With regards Robbie, he may consider himself an entertainer in the definition he uses, but he has very little authority to peak for the rest of us. I agree that there is more artistry to acting than simply pretending. Pretending is easy. My five year old can do that without thinking. Making it believable is where the art rests.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
who can also sing and dance
Fight/Sword Choreographer
Virgin Director
UPstageWA Rep

Home Page

LogosThu, 21 Dec 2006, 12:58 pm

Acting?

There is a radio personality in the UK called Zoe Ball. She was a Radio 1 (think JJJ) presenter and rock journo. She once played herself in a film called "Still Crazy" (which by the way is brilliant) I heard her talking about it on radio afterwards. She said in part " I have developed the greatest respect for actors. I was only playing myself and I was awful, those guys have to remember the lines hit their marks make sure they are facing the right way while all the time being someone else with enough conviction to make the rest of us believe in them totally." Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

LabrugThu, 21 Dec 2006, 01:15 pm

Still Mad

I saw that film also and loved it. Great Bill Nighy, Billy Connolly movie.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
who can also sing and dance
Fight/Sword Choreographer
Virgin Director
UPstageWA Rep

Home Page

← Back to Green Room Gossip