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

previous forum topic | next forum topic | email this forum topic | 537 reads