About these reviews...updated 8/1/11

You will see me bandy about terms, such as honesty, commitment, emotional investment and joy of performance.  I'm referring to the degrees in which actors work their craft.  If the scene feels forced or dishonest, we as an audience cannot connect with the actor, and that character loses us.  If we can see them turn on and off, or disassociate themselves from the show if it's not their line, we can feel that lack of commitment to the scene. If the actor is not willing to, or cannot invest themselves physically or emotionally into the performance, we feel it and don't care about that character.  As an audience, we can sense the fear of the actor and the performance rings false.  We want to feel their joy of performance.  As an audience, we feel all of these things.  We may not have the educational background or experience to judge, but we do it anyway, because we experience the performances on a deeper level.  Or we should.  If we have not, it's not for a lack of trying on our part.  Unfortunately, the actors/directors sometimes won't let us in. 


I think a director is responsible for what happens on stage, that he/she is a gatekeeper and needs to present stage pictures that are fluid and exciting.  The director needs to coach and teach the actors and develop tactics that will work with that particular actor to get the best performance they can give.  It should not matter to the director how the actor gets there because the audience certainly doesn't give a damn.  Sitting there watching, as an audience we don't give a rat's ass about creating back story, sense memory, technique, method and whatever new acting school of thought is popular.  The paying customer just wants the actor to get there.  They don't care if he/she is having a bad day, broke up with someone, just buried a relative, don't have their own dressing room or feel cheated in the order of the curtain call.


I think directors should be aware of who they are supposed to serve:  the paying audience.  You don't serve the producer, or a board of directors, or the bean counters who feel a show's success is only measured in ticket sales. Generally, I have found that boards and accountants seem to care little about the audience's feeling of satisfaction, and more about the audience's money.  The success of a show should be focused on giving the audience (big or small) a show that's worth the price of admission.


I am also concerned about the literature itself.  I don't judge it on the subject matter; rather, I judge on how it is about the subject matter.  There are many plays about love, death, friendship, etc., and not all of them are good.  There are plays out there about rape, incest, and child abuse and not all are bad.  The questions to ask are:

1. Does the dialog as written seem natural or contrived?
2. Do the scenes advance the story?
3. Is there a story arc, with beats within its internal rhythm that lead to an effective ending?

I'm of the belief that a weak script can be hidden by solid performances and that a good script can be killed by weak performances.  But mostly, I believe that poorly executed performances make the weaknesses of any script stand out.


Finally, I think that actors and theatres have to realize that paying audience members are taking a chance by coming to see the show.  None of them are coming to hate the show.  The audience wants to be entertained, involved, and enthralled.  You have them in your hands when the curtain rises.  It's up to the performers to captivate and excite them.  The audience wants to like the show, and your obligation is to perform for them.  If you're not doing that, it's time to start asking why.


And remember, this is just one person's opinion.