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

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

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

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.

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

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>>>

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