Jessica Lynn Kramer (playing Beatrice Carbone) and Gary Werner (playing Eddie Carbone) in A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE at Haddonfield Plays and Players. (Photo credit: Tommy Balne)
Just finished writing my review of A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE for STAGE Magazine and to my chagrin it was excellent. I say that not because I wanted it to fail–not by any stretch, but as a critic it is rare for community theatres to get the most out of modern drama. Granted, VIEW is one of Arthur Miller’s less cryptic plays, but its stern acting demands and subtlety for a powerful result are there and Haddonfield Plays and Players in Haddonfield, New Jersey pulled it off extremely well. And, I’m was proud.
This reviewing experience once again got me thinking about how much I love modern theatre. With a well-written script, the message between the lines is evident, the symbolism effective, and the story as a whole very satisfying. In theatre terms–cathartic. I remember writing a piece on this forum some time ago on what a reviewer or critic should be. What a review or critique should be is an educated opinion and so much more.
A good reviewer should offer perspective, representing the play to an audience even if it is not the his or her kind of play. I find that professionals know better. Here’s the other article so you don’t have to search this blog site for it. You might find the answers surprising. So often, people (audience’s too), performers, crew and directors alike think a review is a matter of opinion; however, are quick to use the reviews when they are positive and even use parts of the review out of context to promote the show.
Perhaps reviews are opinions–to some. Some certainly are that, and some reviews don’t deserve to be called reviews at all; synopses or reports might be a better terms. The term “review” is often interchangeable with “critique;” however, critique sounds negative so most publications stay with review. As with anything, there are good “reviewers” and bad ones. The tone of a review is can depend on editorial policy as well.
Reviewers themselves who are afraid to hurt feelings say nothing negative, forgetting there is tact and constructive criticism. Of course the opposite is true, too. There are those reviewers who lack tact. This usually why a major newspaper speaks with one voice. The scope of the internet has made that almost impossible. What might be nice now would be a set of rules for reviewers to follow. By the way (and I’m not suggesting this is it, but it’s a start), I have a e-book that I published a while ago, Acting Smarts Reviews Local and Regional Theatre that you can download for free on the site. You can also view previous reviews and articles on the STAGE Magazine link on this site.
I am also in favor of previews where a reviewer would come to the theatre before the open and watch the show in late rehearsal, asking questions and offering suggestions. It’s a win-win. The theatre receives the benefit of another set of eyes and reviewer will learn why some decisions were made. Oftentimes, there are reasons that some choices are made by the director that seem wrong to the reviewer, but may not be helped for technical reasons. Perhaps another blog.
I studied reviews of Pulitzer Prize-winning plays from 1920 to 1980 and what I found was that even in major newspapers like the New York Times during that period, the role of the reviewer was not well-defined. Often it depended on what socialite star was back for a returning role, or just an opinion–often with little tact. It was only later that we began to see the more academic analysis that grew along as the legitimacy of the theatre arts grew. Not only can you get an advanced degree, even a talent-based BFA or MFA, in Theatre, but you can specialize in many aspects of the art. Besides experts in acting and directing, there are theater administrators, stage management, dramaturgy and theatre history experts because theatre matters in the world.
Why does it not follow that those who view theatre should not benefit from a person who understands how theatre works, what playwrights intend in their plays, how theatre presents important messages to humanity? Why don’t most theatre companies, especially community theatres see reviewers (good ones) as a boon to them today–as a chance to see what the audience is seeing, to see if the company did the playwright justice, or even better, to improve on the power of his or her message, and to learn the basics of good theatre they may not know, or have forgotten?
I suppose that is why I went from being a literature major in graduate school to literary criticism to working on an interdisciplinary degree with theatre culminating in performance criticism. I saw so many similarities on the face of a good novel as I do in a good theatre performance. A good theatre performance is as complex as good novel. Many people don’t see that. I wonder, do many novel readers go to plays? Then, again, I don’t see many of my theatre friends doing much novel-reading; they read mostly plays and are great observers of life. Of course, the latter is what they have in common with novelists. That same ability to become one with the world is what makes both a great novelist and a great actor.
Shaw's Reality 