School, college and other closings for Monday

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

A theater critic's job, by definition, is to "evaluate, judge, and find fault." As one whose work often falls under review, I ask simply for objectivity and fairness.


(Who am I kidding? I crave praise and adulation.)


I also ask that criticism not sacrifice the art on the altar of smartness. After all, the professional reviewer's livelihood, as well as my own, depends on developing interest in the precious community resource of live theater.  


I remember performing in a national touring production of "Candida" by 

, who is known for his lengthy and wordy plays.  After a performance on the East Coast, the local critic slyly implied his own familiarity with Shaw's canon by lamenting the drastic cuts we had made in the original. But, in fact, we had not made any cuts in Shaw's original. 

 just happens to be an uncharacteristically short piece. 


The critic must have very much wanted either to dislike our work or to display a knowledge he did not possess. Nevertheless, readers would be left with the impression that we were not presenting the whole megillah.


Part of the reviewer's job is to focus critical attention on details. Pointing out flaws in a production helps to sharpen the perceptions and knowledge of the prospective audience. 


Sometimes, however, a minor flaw becomes a thorn in an otherwise positive review. I would only ask the critic to be sensitive to the need for balance -- to remember that the whole of the article should accurately reflect the reviewer's overall impression. 


A word to editors: When a review praises 90 percent of a show, but points out one or two flaws in an otherwise delightful experience, is it fair to publish a headline that gives the flaws 50 percent of the weight? Many readers will see only the headline and decide against seeing the show.


My colleagues and I try to create something special in every production. It's a lot harder than it looks. Hardest of all is to make it look easy. And sometimes a show just plain flops, but not for a lack of trying. 
 

I appreciate the critics who are careful with ridicule.

 
A critic who does good homework can enrich the audience's experience by preparing it as to the nature of the production -- a plot synopsis (without spoiling surprises, of course); the cultural or philosophical context of the play; relevant biographical details about the author; the style of performance; the play's relationship to current issues, and so on. I appreciate the critic who gets it. 


Good, stimulating theater should generate debate and controversy. An expert critic is in a great position to help frame and inspire that debate.


I'm often involved in period pieces, works by long-dead playwrights written in the language and customs of bygone eras. I love exploring the sensibilities and behaviors of the past, and pondering how we got from there to here. I appreciate reviews that further illuminate the world of any production and help audiences to share imagination over time.


Lastly, I would like the critic to take into account the reaction of the audience. I knew one who averred that she would prefer to view productions alone, so as not to be distracted by responses from the audience. What she was looking for was not theater. 

 former artistic director at the Guthrie, argued that theater is the energy created between the production and the audience. Theater is designed to be an interaction with a crowd. 


Professional reviewers have to see exponentially more productions than the average person. That experience gives them more expertise, but does it dull the sense of wonder and surprise that would greet the average theatergoer? 


I would ask the critic always to be open not only to the production itself, but also to the energy in the room.


Show business needs the critics who, as 

 "take upon them to decide for the whole town, whose opinion and patronage all writers solicit, and whose recommendation no manager dares refuse." 


Media criticism, whether positive or negative, directs the public's attention to the arts. I want the critic to continue as a vital part of the celebration of our culture. I want the critic's discernment to further the development of discerning audiences.  I want the quality of the critic's writing to generate enthusiasm for theater in my community. 


But I confess, most of all, I want butts in the seats.


Nathaniel Fuller has been a professional actor for more than 37 years.  For the past 21 seasons he has worked primarily at the 

What an actor wants from a critic. (Besides praise.)

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox