Right? Wrong, according to ASPA-Winning Theatre Reviewer Uther Dean, whom Louise had a chat to about what reviewing theatre involves.
Louise: Why do you review theatre?
Uther: My personal story is that I read the theatre reviews in another student publication and they were terrible. Amateur, out of date and they were written from a point of ignorance; stupid people telling other stupid people that theatre was for haughty people… What people think of when they hear the word ‘theatre’ is that episode of Friends when they went to a show and it was a woman talking about her divorce for four hours. Theatre criticism needs to be talking to people who aren’t going to the theatre and saying “you should actually come to the theatre”.
Louise: What makes a good review?
Uther: A review needs to be three points: What is this trying to do? Does it achieve that thing? And is it worth doing? Feeling and tone are much more important than plot or character. It’s much more important for you to be able to read a review and say “Oh, this sounds a bit like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou so I want to see that…”There’s a weird anti-intellectualism rising up in reviews of people moaning that you don’t read themes into plays because they aren’t there and that’s why I think it’s important for reviewers to also be makers. I think it should basically be the law, if I’m honest. You have to realise that if you’re a director or a writer that everything ends up meaning something