Yesterday, I had a conversation with my editor about the practice of reading scripts ahead of a performance--a performance I'm supposed to review. Lately, I've been trying to make that a regular practice, but also lately I've discovered I'm having trouble bottling a sense of spontaneity in my reviews. Coincidence?
(...)
Today's review, of the Wilma Theater's production of Terry Johnson's Hysteria, begins with a direct comparison between the script and its staged counterpart. In this case, I felt the comparison was absolutely fair. After all, if a play jumps off the page, it ought to similarly jump off the stage. I discussed the issue some more with my editor, who concluded that reading the script beforehand might have caused me to cut the production some extra slack. So what to do?
Friday, May 22, 2009
Spoiler Alert?
Critic Wendy Rosenfield ponders the advantages and disadvantages to reading a script before reviewing a production:
Labels:
Criticism,
Wendy Rosenfield
1 comment:
Must all theatre critics use the same review techniques? I always felt that the post show discussion, whether with friends over coffee, or in the blogosphere, benefitted from the fact that the audience members (and I include the critics) have different perspectives, and quite possibly agree only on the importance of theatre.
I find it interesting when I enjoy a staging of a classic that I've never seen before (and feel that I can articulate that enjoyment) while somebody who is equally (if not more) articulate but has seen several productions of the same play finds it mediocre or a misguided interpretation.
Post a Comment