Regardless of the artistic medium or performers’ level of
expertise, the critic’s tripartite responsibilities include informer, consumer
advocate, and entertainer. If I were to write a review of the Kalamazoo Civic
Theatre’s “Sherlock Holmes: The Last Adventure” production, I would keep those
tasks in mind while highlighting the features of community theater such as
volunteer performers/staffers and a small production budget.
Context and actor experience are necessary review
components: one would not critique the Kalamazoo College basketball team the
same way one would evaluate the Los Angeles Lakers. Sophisticated
communication, superior execution and raw experience demarcate professionals
from amateurs. I came into “Sherlock Holmes” knowing it was an amateur
production in a small Midwestern city (or a middling farming village by Chinese
standards). Previous community theater works and campus productions defined my
evaluation prism.
My lack of familiarity with the Sherlock Holmes tale left me
at an extreme disadvantage. If I were to formally review this play, I would
acquaint myself with the most important Sherlock Holmes adaptations to fully
understand this director’s artistic vision and this playwright’s dramatic
intent. Even at the local theater level, a formal reviewer should have intimate
knowledge of the story’s differing interpretations and progressions.
Beyond being sucked into a mystery, I didn’t have personal
expectations for the work. I feel uncomfortable responding to this question
because outlining expectations and evaluating whether the production confirmed
preconceived hopes is treading close to conflict of interest territory. I fear
citing specific set, acting, or written elements could lead to a violation of
journalism ethics.
The show’s elements must be analyzed both individually and
holistically. The aural and visual components should be combined because the
reviewer must accurately inform the public on the entire production experience; yet highlighting specific elements of the play may demonstrate
knowledge of the medium and an appreciation for its gradations.
Personally, reviewing film is less challenging than
reviewing theatrical productions because I have more exposure to film and took
the Reading Film course three years ago. Reading Film taught me a basic
technical vocabulary for film analysis, which benefitted my artistic
understanding. At this stage, I lack the technical vocabulary and training to
write a nuanced theater critique.
When evaluating a play, I would consider how it meshes with
similar works. I would use actor and crew expertise, equipment
quality, and the venue itself to classify a production. There is no “one size
fits all” approach to theater reviews. As each artistic medium is different, the critical expectations shift
to fit the medium’s specific characteristics. Yet the fundamental stress on
critic as informer, consumer advocate, and entertainer is unwavering.
For the 30 Rock joke (RIP): http://mimg.ugo.com/201102/6/3/0/175036/sherlock-homie.png
Nice job treading treacherous waters, Guy!
ReplyDelete