by Eric Goudie

Created on: May 04, 2009

Theatre critics are a vital link between a production onstage and the audience watching in the darkened auditorium. They force the actors, directors and everyone else involved in the show to interact with an audience member, and not merely to receive their applause at the end of the performance (for almost everyone who's involved in theatre a heartfelt ovation is audience interaction enough).

Critics are a lot like gardeners, and like gardeners, there are some that are better at their jobs then others. It's the critics who look after the garden of theatre, giving the healthy plants plenty of sunshine in the form of glowing reviews that are sure to boost crowds, while nurturing the unhealthy plants towards a longer, better life in the form of reviews that gently but clearly point out the shortfalls in a production. It's also their job to identify the weeds and get rid of them, ensuring that no production that should have ever seen the light of day in the first place is allowed to degrade too greatly the overall look and feel of the theatrical garden.

It's true, a theatre review is only one person's opinion. Anyone who's ever been panned has heard that from supportive cast members and friends. But a good reviewer is usually reasonably wise, and if he or she "didn't get it" then chances are the fault lies not with their lack of understanding, but the shows ability to communicate what "it" really was. And if the critic understood the show but still didn't like it the company would again be advised against simply dismissing a bad review. The critic is the voice of the audience, and who knows how many patrons (who may have felt obligated to applaud with gusto) feel the same way? If nothing else, a critical review, good or bad, is an informed, objective opinion, and neither actors nor audiences should ignore this valuable source of information and enlightenment.

Sadly, some theatre critics are lousy at their jobs, or they have over-inflated ideas about the power and scope of their tasks. Some critics, especially those who aren't strictly theatre critics but who have a plethora of other writing jobs sitting on their desks, often pen reviews that amount to little more than a plot summary, with a line or two at the end about the quality of the show or their take on it. While these reviews have little to offer they at least help to spread the word about the show, and may be exciting to actors who find pleasure in seeing their names appear in print.

The worst theatre critics are not the ones who seem to hate almost every show. The worst theatre critics are actually the ones who seem to praise every show they see. These are the ones who believe they have a proselytising mission to "save theatre," and who write reviews that are more like advertorials solely designed to bring more people out to the show. These reviewers may have a soft spot for a particular theatre, company, director or actor, and want to play some small part in their success, whether that success is deserved or not.

As much as some theatres would love them to be, critics are not marketing departments. It is not their job to sell a show, it is the theatre's. Crafting thinly veiled marketing propaganda and calling it a review belittles the audience, and cheapens the efforts of everyone who has contributed their time and skills to the show.

Ever since Aristotle there have been theatre critics. It hasn't always been an easy job, or one that was particularly revered, but it has been and continues to be essential to the growth and development of thriving, high-quality theatrical projects the world over.

Learn more about this author, Eric Goudie.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.