How can you respectfully critique theatrical production?

Writing critics or articles aren't really my thing. I prefer to express my opinion through poetry rather than professional articles.

Theater criticism is necessary to record the artistically development of directors, theaters and, above all, players. Criticism is the artistic counterpart to staging, a reflection. The inventor of this type of criticism, Alfred Kerr (1867-1948), once said in Berlin: "For me, the true critic remains a poet, a designer."

The critic’s work has sometimes been the only remaining piece of information about theatre shows, and even the most far reaching. Theatre critics have a huge responsibility and should consider it when writing their texts.

Hello, A constructive critique is most probably the best way to stay respectful when critisizing anything, not just theatrical productions. A good knowledge of the subject (seeing the production), a good knowledge of the business (theather) and a neutral point of view are key to start a constructive critique.

It's always better to put on a few imperfect shows, than wait for the perfect show that nobody sees...Putting on LIVE theatre requires GREAT PLAYWRITING (source material) , and remember theatre is every bit a collaborative effort just as filmmaking is. Of distinction is how mistakes can be vamped through , but in film you just yell cut, and do another marker and a fresh take. LIVE Theatre requires near perfect rehearsal after rehearsal ..The playwright wants the Director to honor his vision, whereas many film writers accept that the DIRECTOR and/or film STUDIO has FINAL CUT...In LIVE Theatre you have accomplished actors, costume designers, stage managers, lighting and sound technicians Matthew Susman

Creating and executing a theatrical production is an incredible endeavor that requires extensive preparation, hard work, unwavering dedication, boundless creativity, and seamless collaboration - not to mention the inherent unpredictability of live performances. The ultimate objective of any performance is to effectively communicate ideas that capture the essence of the human condition. A well-crafted review acknowledges and assesses the success of conveying these ideas to the audience. As an artist, receiving honest feedback about the experience is invaluable, but it is even more appreciated when that feedback is delivered from a perspective that respects the tireless effort invested in bringing the production to life.

The critic must never place his highest demands on the work of art; he must always formulate his critique against the background of the artistic possibilities and potentials of the performers, the director and the theater. A good criticism always includes an overview of the entire artistic performance of everyone involved, including stage, costumes, lighting, text, before diving into details.

Many people confuse critique with criticize and it goes downhill from there. If we ask ourselves a few basic questions and go from there we can respectfully respond to the work of art. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's expressed the ideas of critique as 3 questions. 1; What were the artists (or production) trying to accomplish? What were their objectives, why were they doing this work? 2; Was the production or work of art successful? How would you identify the elements which make it successful? Did the production meet the objectives you identified earlier? 3; Was the production worth doing? Did it have a purpose, reason, or aesthetic it was trying to meet? Was there a message or some value that was perceived as a result of witnessing it

The criticism must be balanced, highlighting the good and artistically excellent moments first. Only then s/he should look at a production critically, but never tear it apart.

Two types of criticism include descriptive and prescriptive. Including in your comments specific references to the elements of the work of art such as acting, directing, design, and the actual production as it relates to the performance would be descriptive. Talking about the production and including comments about what could be done to make it more artistic, effective, professional, or other qualitative comments would be ways of prescribing what could be done to make the production better. One method infers what the elements were and and how they came across, the other infers what could be done to make the play work more effectively (in the eyes of the person writing the critique) Both can be utilized when responding to a work of art

It is not only attacks, the most important task is not being subjective. Trying to be objective should be the standard for fair criticism in the future. To do this, you have to shake off all preconceptions and prejudices, approach the artists and the theater respectfully and reshape your opinion.

Early in my career I reviewed Broadway and off-Broadway shows for the Aquarian Music Weekly and the NY Daily News. When you're at that level, and you're being paid, you can speak freely, but there is so much needing to be considered before you label something a triumph or a dog, or anything in between. I left "Rock of Ages" early because it was difficult to listen to Broadway performers with their "lots of vibrato" voices applied to the raw, rockin' energy of 80s tunes, for example. Others thought it was fantastic. If you're talking about community theatre or anything else and it truly stinks, there is really nothing you can say except "great job!" Keep your heart in it, too. No one's looking for a Tony.

Criticism is nearly never balanced in the European context today; very few critics value a development or even highlight the achievements of an artistic production. Instead, the critic focuses on a too subjective discussion, reflecting too individual context instead of opening the own view. However, this subjectivity has destroyed the value of criticism and alienated the relationship between criticism and theatrical artists too much. There must be a way back, a kind of recollection.