Critics
Mon, 21 July 2003, 02:07 pmjassep3 posts in thread
Critics
Mon, 21 July 2003, 02:07 pmHello,
Just something that occured to me recently, given the very *average* standard of journalism that passes for criticism in this town (Perth) - with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.
Anyway, my statement for comment is this:
"Critics need to have a solid understanding and/or their own interpretation of a piece of theatre in order to write an even-handed assessment of it as a successful performance."
In one way, I can see that it would be easier to review, say, an established work but that new work would be difficult to assess.
On the other hand, wouldn't a solid understanding of the script or, at least, an active insight into the processes of putting on a piece (ie. consideration of a director/producers/casts vision) be a way of assessing whether or not that vision had been achieved?
Looking forward to some debate on this... ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
Just something that occured to me recently, given the very *average* standard of journalism that passes for criticism in this town (Perth) - with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.
Anyway, my statement for comment is this:
"Critics need to have a solid understanding and/or their own interpretation of a piece of theatre in order to write an even-handed assessment of it as a successful performance."
In one way, I can see that it would be easier to review, say, an established work but that new work would be difficult to assess.
On the other hand, wouldn't a solid understanding of the script or, at least, an active insight into the processes of putting on a piece (ie. consideration of a director/producers/casts vision) be a way of assessing whether or not that vision had been achieved?
Looking forward to some debate on this... ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
jassepMon, 21 July 2003, 02:07 pm
Hello,
Just something that occured to me recently, given the very *average* standard of journalism that passes for criticism in this town (Perth) - with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.
Anyway, my statement for comment is this:
"Critics need to have a solid understanding and/or their own interpretation of a piece of theatre in order to write an even-handed assessment of it as a successful performance."
In one way, I can see that it would be easier to review, say, an established work but that new work would be difficult to assess.
On the other hand, wouldn't a solid understanding of the script or, at least, an active insight into the processes of putting on a piece (ie. consideration of a director/producers/casts vision) be a way of assessing whether or not that vision had been achieved?
Looking forward to some debate on this... ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
Just something that occured to me recently, given the very *average* standard of journalism that passes for criticism in this town (Perth) - with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.
Anyway, my statement for comment is this:
"Critics need to have a solid understanding and/or their own interpretation of a piece of theatre in order to write an even-handed assessment of it as a successful performance."
In one way, I can see that it would be easier to review, say, an established work but that new work would be difficult to assess.
On the other hand, wouldn't a solid understanding of the script or, at least, an active insight into the processes of putting on a piece (ie. consideration of a director/producers/casts vision) be a way of assessing whether or not that vision had been achieved?
Looking forward to some debate on this... ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
Michael DunbarWed, 23 July 2003, 01:36 am
Re: Critics
Jason,
Interesting to have read your thoughts on critically appraising a Theatre piece whether it be an established work or a contemporary or unknown piece.
I have often thought that criticising a theatrical piece or creative work of any kind is merely someone expressing their own opinion and obviously is not nescessarily the opinions of others.
However, there are levels of quality in all creative work and even at professional levels one might observe an aspect that just doesn't work or may not have reached a level of appreaciation.
There are many aspects of a theatrical production as you suggested, in my opinion the more levels of detail that you can produce up to a quality "professional", beleivable and saleable point the 'better' the production. Also, if the actors, cast and crew have enjoyed the whole process of the production up to and including the performances, then the play is usually "good".
Having said that, however, I would presume that many of us who have been involved in theatre for some time aim for a level that satisfies their own perceptions of 'professionalism' or higher. And personally the more plays I do the more I realise how little I know about acting because there so much to learn endeavouring to put on a professional performance.
Getting back to your original discussion, your thoughts with regard to a "...solid understanding of the script..." then you would expect a better critique - though you would also expect a constructive critique highligting areas to improve upon.
On the other hand many patrons who come to be entertained can have many justifiable criticisms that are as valid. After all we are entertaining people form all walks of life regardless of their knowledge of theatre.
A few areas I like to focus on when performing is Timing, enunciation, relaxation, enjoyment, natural expression and a deep insight into the scriptwriters intent behind the character I am portraying within the story of the performance.
Enough of my comments though ...anyone else for debating ?
Michael Dunbar
Interesting to have read your thoughts on critically appraising a Theatre piece whether it be an established work or a contemporary or unknown piece.
I have often thought that criticising a theatrical piece or creative work of any kind is merely someone expressing their own opinion and obviously is not nescessarily the opinions of others.
However, there are levels of quality in all creative work and even at professional levels one might observe an aspect that just doesn't work or may not have reached a level of appreaciation.
There are many aspects of a theatrical production as you suggested, in my opinion the more levels of detail that you can produce up to a quality "professional", beleivable and saleable point the 'better' the production. Also, if the actors, cast and crew have enjoyed the whole process of the production up to and including the performances, then the play is usually "good".
Having said that, however, I would presume that many of us who have been involved in theatre for some time aim for a level that satisfies their own perceptions of 'professionalism' or higher. And personally the more plays I do the more I realise how little I know about acting because there so much to learn endeavouring to put on a professional performance.
Getting back to your original discussion, your thoughts with regard to a "...solid understanding of the script..." then you would expect a better critique - though you would also expect a constructive critique highligting areas to improve upon.
On the other hand many patrons who come to be entertained can have many justifiable criticisms that are as valid. After all we are entertaining people form all walks of life regardless of their knowledge of theatre.
A few areas I like to focus on when performing is Timing, enunciation, relaxation, enjoyment, natural expression and a deep insight into the scriptwriters intent behind the character I am portraying within the story of the performance.
Enough of my comments though ...anyone else for debating ?
Michael Dunbar
jassepWed, 23 July 2003, 10:38 am
Re: Critics
Hi Michael,
Good to hear from you.
This discussion has been taken up in the Gossip section under the "New Poll - To crit or not to crit" thread...look forward to seeing you there!
Jason
Good to hear from you.
This discussion has been taken up in the Gossip section under the "New Poll - To crit or not to crit" thread...look forward to seeing you there!
Jason