Being critical in theatre is not an easy job. I am not sure how well I balance the line between theatre fan and theatre critic. Some critics seem to loathe the theatre, as is famously parodied in Ruthless!, and others seem to pick apart every scene and be impossible to please. while others seem to love absolutely everything. I confess that I have fallen victim to the loving everything often, being a big fan of theatre since I was a child I found it difficult to view things with a critical eye. Over the past 9 years, I have been able to develop more of my skills in critical thinking, and I have also taken the opportunity to widen my theatrical viewing opportunities, which has helped me become more willing to be critical of the choices of actors, directors, and creative teams. At the same time, I have also become more appreciative of when these same actors, directors, and creative teams take certain theatrical risks that may seem unorthodox and yet they pay off in the sense of a heightened theatrical experience.
However, the magic of that balance still astounds and alludes me as merely a critic and a theater-goer, not (yet) a theater-creater. For instance, take a community production I saw of The Scottish Play that put the events in a post apocalytic time and gave some gender fluidity to the characters in a brave but workable fashion. Compare that to a University production of Sense and Sensibility that goes a little to far down the rabbit hole into chaos and confusion.
When is a risk a good risk, and when is it perhaps too much pandering to an audience, shock theatre for nothing more than shock value, or important conversation at an important time. Is a bad performance simply a poor casting choice, or does it go much deeper?
Going off the beaten path for intimate acting experiences has proven to be some of the best theatre I have ever seen, such as a show that had me walking around the streets of Salt Lake City, but it can also have me in a show that I know was good, but I am also a little embarrassed to admit that maybe I was just not smart enough to understand it.
Theatre can also be thought provoking and move you to consider things in a new way. But it can also be boring, predictable, and forgetable. So, where is the line? What makes or breaks a show?
To quote Damn Yankees, is it lame to say that it does come down to heart? "All you really need is heart." Putting feeling into a show can help bring it strength and help it to succeed, but maybe I am wrong. After all, Be More Chill had a lot of heart, but that did not mean it lasted at the box office. However, that does not mean it is dead. It is heading to London and I am sure there is life in it yet. I have also seen shows that don't seem to have much heart to me that refuse to die. I will not provide a link to protect the guilty. But I would say that as a critic I can tell when an actor is really trying to put their heart in their show, and when a company is trying to put their heart into their work.
There is a company local to me, Good Company in Ogden. Run by two sisters, it seems that their mission is to provide more diversity in theatre in Utah. I see heart in every production that they do. I have not always provided positive reviews for all their shows, but I do see heart and hard work in their productions, and find some success and pleasure in the art they put forward. Those risks are worth more of the reward than some of the companies a little more south that are more flashy and fancy. Not to say that some of their productions don't have heart, but big productions sometimes lose that heart. Like the Sense and Sensibility down the rabbit hole, when too many ideas get thrown in the pot, we forget why we wanted to take the risk in the first place. We want someone to feel the emotion, but maybe we don't need them to feel all the emotions at once.
However, the magic of that balance still astounds and alludes me as merely a critic and a theater-goer, not (yet) a theater-creater. For instance, take a community production I saw of The Scottish Play that put the events in a post apocalytic time and gave some gender fluidity to the characters in a brave but workable fashion. Compare that to a University production of Sense and Sensibility that goes a little to far down the rabbit hole into chaos and confusion.
When is a risk a good risk, and when is it perhaps too much pandering to an audience, shock theatre for nothing more than shock value, or important conversation at an important time. Is a bad performance simply a poor casting choice, or does it go much deeper?
Going off the beaten path for intimate acting experiences has proven to be some of the best theatre I have ever seen, such as a show that had me walking around the streets of Salt Lake City, but it can also have me in a show that I know was good, but I am also a little embarrassed to admit that maybe I was just not smart enough to understand it.
Theatre can also be thought provoking and move you to consider things in a new way. But it can also be boring, predictable, and forgetable. So, where is the line? What makes or breaks a show?
To quote Damn Yankees, is it lame to say that it does come down to heart? "All you really need is heart." Putting feeling into a show can help bring it strength and help it to succeed, but maybe I am wrong. After all, Be More Chill had a lot of heart, but that did not mean it lasted at the box office. However, that does not mean it is dead. It is heading to London and I am sure there is life in it yet. I have also seen shows that don't seem to have much heart to me that refuse to die. I will not provide a link to protect the guilty. But I would say that as a critic I can tell when an actor is really trying to put their heart in their show, and when a company is trying to put their heart into their work.
There is a company local to me, Good Company in Ogden. Run by two sisters, it seems that their mission is to provide more diversity in theatre in Utah. I see heart in every production that they do. I have not always provided positive reviews for all their shows, but I do see heart and hard work in their productions, and find some success and pleasure in the art they put forward. Those risks are worth more of the reward than some of the companies a little more south that are more flashy and fancy. Not to say that some of their productions don't have heart, but big productions sometimes lose that heart. Like the Sense and Sensibility down the rabbit hole, when too many ideas get thrown in the pot, we forget why we wanted to take the risk in the first place. We want someone to feel the emotion, but maybe we don't need them to feel all the emotions at once.
Comments
Post a Comment