How to Critique
- jiayu Huang
- Mar 13
- 10 min read
Critiquing theatre does not mean writing full-on praise or criticism, but rather writing an evaluation of the actor’s excellence. It’s about the holistic picture of theatre, such as whether or not the thematic message was effective. Being accustomed to the genre of performance and the “norms” for that genre allows an insightful yet impartial critique to emerge.
In critiques, it’s essential to describe the context of the performance. Before entering a theatre, some key points should be considered, as it’s impossible to provide perceptive feedback on the performance if you cannot understand it. These salient points include the name and location of the performance, who the director is, who composed the music, who is the choreographer, who wrote the play/musical, and the meaning of the title, so that it’s explicit whether or not the performance showcased that particular idea. Understanding the genre marks an important point due to the various standards on how to build up valuable criticism. However, do not do too much research, as that is how biases are formed. Be prepared to know that setting changes according to the context; therefore, do not anticipate anything, but note how the setting choice is utilized by the production.
Prior to the performance, it would be a benefit to read the official synopsis of the play if possible. Getting familiar with how the performance may appear on stage will streamline the process of following the performance on the day of. In addition, pick out some to look forward to, so that you enter each performance with an open mind.
Before the performance, arrive 15 minutes early to take a look over the program, check the bios, the understudy replacement, the leads, the director, and others involved in the cast and crew. As well, it may be possible to even find what the directorial choice is if mentioned in the program. During the performance, make sure to take notes of key moments on a piece of paper or mentally, as sometimes pictures or videos cannot be taken due to copyright issues. Key moments to look for can include but are not limited to the set design (lighting, sound, costumes, makeup, and props), acting and directing (was there an important casting choice or memorable dialogue (are they saying the dialogue in a comedic, formal, stern, or casual way, if so, way?), special effects (in terms of sound, tech, and lighting and whether if audience participation (if any) improved engagement?), and concluding notes after the performance (initial impressions, was the performance successful?). For special effects, mention if the usage of this element turns the performance complicated or interesting.
After the performance marks the pivotal moment, the actual writing of the critique begins. Do not rush to write the full critique out; instead, include a rough draft after seeing the production. Make sure to be thorough with the description, comment on the intention of the director behind specific lighting choices, sound effects, or costumes (what were they trying to get the audience to feel?), and give a genuine remark about the effectiveness of the play in a holistic manner. Lastly, include what one may expect from the performance. If the play is available to read online, compare it to the performance. How different was it, and did it affect you, the critic, in any way?
Before writing the actual critique, we have to know *how* to critique, meaning that when approaching a critique, we have a discerning eye and mind. This entails considering the positives and negatives of a performance. As previously mentioned, do not overly criticize or praise, as critics' opinions are subjective, but instead, provide valuable feedback and areas for improvement. As well, too much criticism strips the professionalism and results in conflict with the theatre industry. Instead, to avoid these issues and to maintain a respectable balance, pay attention to details and why a certain choice makes the experience enjoyable. For critiquing, it’s necessary to recognize that by dissecting the numerous theatrical elements of a performance, the critics gain insight into the strengths and areas of improvement of a production. Critiques are one of the main factors in determining if the reader will attend the performance or not.
In order to write a good critique, we have to understand the art form itself, meaning the performing, directing, stage design, lighting, and other technical aspects of theatre. This way, informed feedback on the performance will be easily thought out. As well, an idea that I’ll reiterate is that a critic should keep a nonpartisan mindset when writing a critique; there should be no biases or prejudice. A critique should have both the positives and negatives of the performance. This was reiterated to me personally several times; for instance, after reading my Ava: The Secret Conversations review, my supervisor suggested I should “start with a positive aspect of "Ava" - it's definitely a critical review, but perhaps lead in with *something* that worked.” A professional critic in the industry echoed my supervisor’s words, saying, “[y]ou are most critical of this one, and that's okay, but identifying a positive element or two at the outset is always a good idea.” Next, do not make broad statements or assumptions without logical evidence from the actual performance that backs you up. Instead, discuss the various aspects of the production, do they benefit/enhance or detriment/detract from your overall experience and provide nuanced ideas.
Some techniques to use for providing constructive criticism in theatre include the basic factor of watching the performance with an open mindset. Then, connecting back to the previous paragraph, let go of all assumptions of the play and focus on the moment. Next, observe the production choices and how these elements come together to formulate an enriched experience for all audience members. Consider the intended message that the director and company aspire to convey through their work. Furthermore, the critic should understand the deciding factors behind the director’s work and why they choose to do one thing over another. Lastly, maintain a positive attitude and mindset when approaching the feedback aspect of a performance—offer criticism in support of the company’s growth instead of denigrating their work. Remember, always direct feedback towards the director, as, according to the critic, “the overall impact of a show/performance lies in the hands of the director/producer. It's their vision. Don't be too quick to criticize actors on their blocking and scene work. Consider that scenes are heavily crafted and supervised by the director, and everything the actors do and say is approved by that individual.” Avoid using attacking language due to the efforts that were put into the production behind the scenes to create something memorable. For blocking, mention whether it made sense or not, such as whether it appeared awkward on stage or not. Therefore, offer feedback that acknowledges their strengths. Critiques are for the professional development of the theatre industry. Ultimately, some key pointers to keep in mind before writing the critique is to always, again, to approach criticisms with a mind, enter the critique with a willingness to learn, and lastly, fully comprehend the production’s goals.
A critique isn’t supposed to be your opinion on whether you enjoyed the performance or not, but rather, did it accurately convey the intended impact of the performance on the audience? Such that, if the performance was meant to be a comedy, did the audience laugh? 5 questions to consider before making your final evaluation can include but is not limited to the effectiveness of the casting, whether the lighting benefited or jeopardized the the overarching story of the performance, what the overall reaction of the audience to the performance was, were the changes to the script intentional, and was the overall message accurately conveyed or did it diminish the effect of the performance?
Throughout the review, as a critic, you must show readers why your review matters. This can be done by grasping the tone and maintaining your impartiality in the review. Never leave out essential information of the performance to avoid comments of confusion. Draw direct comparisons of the same performance, such as one can be a live performance while the other one is on film. Lastly, whatever you focus on as a key element (lighting, sound, props, facial expressions, voice, etc) is dependent on what you hope to achieve with the review.
As you approach the beginning of the writing process, make sure to recognize the purpose of your review. It’s recommended that you briefly give the main idea of the play to the audience members. It should emphasize on the fact whether or not the performance is worth the time and money. As well, make your final decision of whether the play was “good” or “bad” and do not give too much away! Be specific with your review, do not hover above the surface of the performance but dive into it and include elements such as “direction, imagery, grouping, pace and timing, atmosphere or mood,” from the performance.
The traditional structure of the play review contains 5 sections. Section 1 should begin with the context of the production and a summary of the plot of the performance. This assumes that the reader does not have prior knowledge of the performance. Therefore, with the information we share, we have to be careful not to spoil any plot, but we should not leave out basic information that provides a basis for the rest of the critique. In addition, indicate who the protagonists are, where the story takes place, its themes, and plot. Then talk about the main themes and the conflicts that the actors encounter. The genre should also be mentioned along with how this style is seen through the performance and whether it's effective or not. As not all performances are based on the original text, state if the script is an adaptation or not and whether the play was written by the same author. Furthermore, if implied, does this performance occur on film as well? If so, how is it similar or different, and which performance method was more effective? Everything has a purpose, so consider the question, “Is that a coincidence, or was it done intentionally?” Keep in mind that facts and context should come before judgment and evaluation. Lastly, if possible, mention the 5 Ws and 1 H (what, who, when, where, why, how) to establish the setting of the performance.
The second section should be more focused on major standout positives as a sign of respect. Positive remarks can accumulate from the factors of whether the actors masterfully embodied their characters or not. As well, if actors are connected, can we understand what their relationship is? Did the actors use physicality or characterization in expressing their character? Who stood out and why? Positives can also include elements of the set and production if they were notable.
The third section can be more focused on providing valuable feedback to improve the performance. We can focus more on the guiding question of what was missing from the performance, what can be improved, was it worth seeing, did something resonate deeply with you from the performance, if not, what can be changed?
The fourth section can discuss the technical aspects, but is not limited to that. Always refer to the big picture when talking about the technical side and how these elements impacted the outcome of the performance. Enhance this part by utilizing theatre terminology to write the different sections of the performance. For lighting, observe if the lights help distinguish the time or season or just why this element was used. Next, for sound, how is this factor creating emphasis on the format of the play? Watch for if the usage of sound benefits the performance in any way or jeopardizes it. Did the lighting convey a mood to the performance? Did it draw attention to characters or props that conveyed importance in the performance? Pay close attention to whether microphones were used; if so, how was the sound quality? How did the music influence the mood? Were there sound effects? If so, how did that affect the production? For musicals: Is there a live orchestra, or was the soundtrack prerecorded? If either, how did that impact the tone of the play overall? Did either lighting or sound elucidate where the story is taking place, and does it create a well-rounded atmosphere? For costume design, do the costumes tell us when the story takes place (such as whether it’s a modern or traditional interpretation of something)? Is the character’s personality conveyed through the costume choices, and are the colours of the costumes suitable for the external glance of the performance? Was there a uniqueness to the costume or makeup that affected the context of the play? Next, the set design should be thought about when analyzing if the props or sets used were an effective portion of space or not, did that benefit the performance? Was there an overwhelming amount of props that it was inaccessible for actors to move around in? Connecting back to the directorial vision, mention whether the set design aligned well with that or not. Did the set design/props establish the correct mood for the performance? Did they add development to the characters, the plot, and the setting? Were they convincing and well-made?
In section 5, we should make our final statements while avoiding cliché phrases such as “The performance was bad,” instead, stating our opinion on why our response is significant. Mention if the audience was attentive or interested in the play or not. Also, suggest the adjustments or changes to make this production stronger and more engaging. Finally, leave readers with a clear final message of your opinion on the play with more questions than answers.
At this point, you may have noticed that this structure is similar to how one might write an argumentative essay. In fact, a critique is another form of an argumentative paper, as critics are trying to prove their reviews using a combination of objective and subjective evidence. As such, while the above guide focuses on theatre, the same principles apply to all performing arts. For example, a dance critique may focus more on how the dancers used time and space; a music critique will examine the use of classical techniques like vibrato and tremolo. However, even though the type of art is different, all of these critiques analyze how well a production uses performance and technical elements to connect to its themes and impact the audience.
Ultimately, it is most important to keep impartiality when writing critiques as a critic’s opinions are always secondary. Do not feel restricted by these structures, as critiquing is still a creative art form like writing. Still, I found it valuable to have a plan to follow, especially in my first few drafts. If you are interested in learning more, please check out the resources I’ve linked below that have helped me.
Resources used:
Comments