The Do’s and Don’ts of Theatre Review

Know the difference between a reviewer and a critic.

These two people are usually catering to two different audiences. A reviewer communicates the information that helps a person to make a decision about a particular performance. A critic engages readers on a intellectual-conversation-over-a-cup-of- Earl Grey level.

Make sure you are communicating effectively.

Great, interesting, fascinating, boring, and A common mistake of writers, especially new writers is to fill a page with general or flat words that really say nothing. horrible are examples of words that need to be left in the rough draft. Your theatre review needs to contain specific and meaningful content that will make an impression on your readers.

Don't write Cliff's notes.

A theatre review empowers the reader to make a decision. That does not mean that readers want you to motivate them to see a performance and ruin it for them before they finish your review. They don't want a minute but minute or scene by scene synopsis. They don't want you to pinpoint every highlight. They don't want you to reveal the climatic twist in the plot.

Allow the work to do some work.

Writers like to be regarded as brilliant wordsmiths. This often causes them to work harder than is necessary. Much writing goes into a theatre performance. Extract and quote telling lines. The tone of a play with an ambiguous title such as

The Lover's Tale

can be quickly established by quoting a line such as, "for God's sake Charles, who expects a summer fling to extend into the fall."

Don't just focus on the roles; focus on how effective people are in their roles.

More important than knowing the name of every character is knowing which characters appear to have been born for their roles and knowing which are playing roles that they are ill-fitted for.

People like people. . . so introduce them.

An off-stage or after performance quote from the lead actress, from the playwright or from the theatre owner can give your audience an idea about the people behind the masks and how passionate they are about their work. A stage hand or even an audi ence member can offer insight into how a performance ranks compared to others. Listen to more than the performance and if you hear something interesting, weave it into your theatre review.

Talk to regular people in regular language.

remember from drama class.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that you will make a name for yourself by writing a pretentious theatre review. Just as common users don't to be burdened with industry terms when reading an instruction manual, the average reader doesn't care to wade through all the technical terms you

Little Shop of Horrors

In a dark little florist, in a dark little alley in downtown New York, a muse is born…The BIG, vivacious, money-making, blues-belting, man-eating, exotic, one of a kind – AUDREY II. But, be warned, her ruby lips and her sapphire skin aren’t the kind you’d want to kiss. This lady has an appetite and your flavorsome blood and crunchy bones are the next things on her menu… Welcome to Skid Row, Ladies and Gentlemen. Your stay may be long, and bloody.

Little Shop of Horrors: An Unhelpful, Scathing Review

Pembroke College last night opened a little shop of theatrical horrors with their take on Ashman and Menken’s ‘Little Shop of Horrors’. At the outset, I should say that this was not uniformly awful: the chorus composed of three street-wise, mouthy girl things was far from terrible (in fact, there were two very good singers there); Charlie Daniels, as Audrey, showed some promise (although her vocals are in desperate need of attention); and I for one was glad to be reminded of the joyously bad rhymes, corniest of jokes and all round charm of this musical. Furthermore, the cast and crew had introduced some ‘funnies’ of their own, which I, along with the rest of last night’s audience, enjoyed. However, my favourite part was still the bit when the set collapsed on two cast members (no injuries and no jokes).

But now, with a heavy heart, I must step up to the reviewer’s plate and write some nasty, nasty things. The collapsible set is probably a good place to start. Mushnik’s eponymous flower shop seems to have been built from the painting of a child – a child, that is, with a disturbing affinity for brown at the expense of every other colour in the spectrum. Either that or some of the cast, angered by their director, had decided to stage their very own dirty protest. In which case, judging by the copiousness of the brown, the band might well have joined in; or perhaps a particularly potent vindaloo was served in Pembroke Hall on Tuesday (with ‘Yawn’ playing at the OFS, apparently poo jokes are de rigeur this sixth week).

While I enjoyed the plant in its earlier forms – when it was presented as a glove puppet which Matt Thomas (Seymour) worked well – the fully grown thing was not in the least bit interesting. Plainly speaking, it was nothing more spectacular than a heap of some plastic sheets stitched together (which, incidentally, it was). ‘Feed Me’ was the most shockingly inept and mundane three minutes of theatre I think I have ever had to sit through as this dull creation was pretty much left on stage alone to open and then shut its mouth in time to the music. Seymour’s goofy dancing (not particularly funny anyway) at the end could not save what is normally a very enjoyable number.

It is possibly a little unfair to single out any principal member of the cast for criticism. However, Josh Randall (director) should probably shove a large amount of diazepam up Jarred Wiehe (a very hyperactive Mushnik who seemed to froth at the mouth) ahead of tonight’s performance. My advice to Oxford theatregoers: don’t feed the plants and don’t feed the coffers of Pembroke College Music Society by turning up to see this set of horrors.

Why is this a bad review?

Viewers’ Critiques

Little Shop Fan said: I think this is a very unprofessional review on this production. At the very least should you appreciate that there

are certain constraints on holding a production in a space primarily used as a dining hall, and thus not naturally set up for any productions… The author’s attempts at humor here are also unbefitting of the supposed professionalism with which he should be approaching his reviews. His scathing report on Jarred’s performance, together with his seeming attempt to condone sodomy is both disrespectful and irrelevant. Criticizing the production in constructive fashion is of course perfectly acceptable, and as Mr. Fazan clearly did not enjoy the show, he is perfectly entitled to his opinion. However, to make personal slights at individual cast members which are largely unfounded and plain rude does not constitute a decent review.

That said, having seen Mr. Fazan’s own recent performance in ‘Macbeth,’ I think he should work on his own theatrical ability before so rudely criticizing those of others.

John Waters said: What passes above for a review is quite plainly Mr Fazan taking his ego for a self-pleasuring wallow in the muddy waters of cruel and unnecessary theatre criticism. Even putting aside factual errors, the general tone of this review is completely uncalled for. Suggesting that his favourite moment of the night was when actors were put in danger by some dodgy tech work is completely unfair on them and the production.

To give Little Shop one star and encourage people not to go is ridiculous – there is not enough musical theatre in Oxford and tonight’s (Thursday’s) performance was full of charm, hilarity, pitch-perfect harmonies and hard-hitting musical numbers, not to mention the enthused and responsive audience packing out Pembroke Hall and proving that there is an appetite for musicals in Oxford.

The technical faults from the first night were clearly ironed out as nothing was noticeable aside from the admittedly ill-chosen colour of Mushnik’s shop (although apparently fitting for the Skid Row address). In fact, Pembroke hall had been transformed into a fully-functioning theatre with a colossal stage. Particularly impressive was a fully-functioning electric dentist’s chair which (with a bit of help) emerged from underneath the set to provide the impetus for a darkly comedic musical number which had the audience in stitches.

If Mr. Fazan would like to masturbate his ego any further, I suggest he pick a different and more suitable target. Little Shop is here to stay until Saturday, go and see it for yourself! 4 stars from me.

Praying for Grace

Not quite a 'Grace'-ful performance by Eli Matzner Arts

| 3/29/05 Posted online at 4:06 AM EST on 3/29/05 You think your family is bad? In Praying for Grace, a thesis production written and directed by Zack Friedman '05 and presented at the Merrick Theater last weekend, the Weissman family gives a whole new meaning to the word "dysfunctional." The script resembles a cross between Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and David Auburn's Proof. As in Albee's masterpiece, the characters get angry early and stay that way, relentlessly waging war on each other for three hours. Meanwhile, the play's basic premise has clearly been lifted from Auburn's Pulitzer Prize-winner: The dead mother, the overly irritable sister, the guilt-tripped sibling who flies to comfort the father and the use of flashbacks all invoke parallels that are difficult to ignore.

The plot centers around Martin Weissman (Max Louik '05), a middle-aged father who suffers a heart attack. Paul, played by Jon Sherman '05, comes to see his father, bringing his fiancée Dana (Cassandra Waterman '05) in tow. They plan to stay at a hotel but Margot, Paul's sister, allows them to stay with her and her husband Doug (Devin Carney '06).

From there, things take a turn for the worse. Paul and Margot initiate a heated conversation about Dana, and later that evening, Margot lashes out at and repeatedly insults her brother's fiancée. Meanwhile, in the hospital, Martin yells at his nurses, who have quickly grown to despise him. By the end of the show, we have seen every character yell at nearly every other character in the play.

Regrettably, Praying for Grace was written with a group of thoroughly unpleasant characters. At first, only a few come off as downright malicious: Margot yells at everyone in sight for no perceivable reason, while Martin seems displeased by everything anyone says to him.

Soon, though, they pull the rest of the cast down with them. Martin's outbursts cause his nurses to become harsh and spiteful, and Margot's systematic denigrations turn Dana, Paul and even Doug into her enemies. And when it seems Paul is the only character left who the audience can side with, he screams and punches his brother Ron. The conflicts Friedman has drawn up fall flat because there is no character to cheer for. In Praying for Grace, nearly every scene involves two unlikable people. When Martin unreasonably lambastes his nurse-who drops all pleasantries and lashes right back-it feels like watching a game and rooting against both teams.

In Friedman's defense, the script shows that the young playwright has a good mind for writing dialogue and the ability to tell a story. He inserts gems of cleverness into the script and offers up several genuinely humorous one-liners, while numerous literary allusions and quotes blend well and bolster the action. Still, these radiant moments drown in the sea of angry, unappetizing quarrels.

While the actors performed commendably, they were unable to overcome the unattractive dispositions of their characters. Specifically, Sara Friedlander '05-in the role of Margot- attempted to make her character seem human and she almost succeeded. She was still bound by the script, though, which provided her with tirades that consistently alienated the audience.

Just when it seems like the play is ending with a multifaceted, meaningful speech by Dana, the action drags on. Friedman would have been wise to tie everything together earlier and, on that note, let the lights simply fade to black.

Why is this a bad review?

Another Reviewer’s Response

•

Matzner does a respectable job of summarizing Friedman’s play and does offer up a couple worthy points of critique for Friedman’s thesis: the play was in some stretches too emotional for too long, and coming in at nearly two hours and 45 minutes, a lengthy performance as well. But by and large, Matzner fails to engage with the plays primary conflicts or critically examine Friedman’s abilities as a director or writer. Matzner leaves his readers with the assertion that the play was dysfunctional and beyond some genuinely humorous one-liners, little worth your time.

•

Matzner comes to this conclusion from two connected thoughts: first, the plays primary figures comprised of a group of thoroughly unpleasant characters, and second, the play falls flat because there is no character to cheer for. Although both assertions are true, the characters as they are presented are relatively unlikable and there is no character to cheer. In point of fact, both points make up part of what makes Friedman’s play so interesting; the unpleasant traits that Friedman draws out in each of his characters are not simply presentations of negative character attributes but the representations of the family members psychological complexities in a time of familial crisis. That there is no easily apparent, dare I say obvious, protagonist in the play should not deter audiences or critics either. Really, it should help viewers remain more objective about the unfolding relationships that are portrayed over the course of the plays duration because we do not become caught up in any one characters struggle. In a complicated literary move on Friedman’s part, the plays family make-up becomes the protagonist, not one character that is easy to spot throughout. As a result, we can empathize with the entire family even while we might not choose to strongly identify with any individual member.