Theatre, at its core, is an art form that’s deeply personal and evocative. For every audience member, a play might elicit a different emotion, spark a unique memory, or challenge individual beliefs. Yet, for theatre critics, the challenge lies in articulating these personal experiences while objectively analyzing the work as an art form. How does one effectively balance the subjective and objective to deliver meaningful criticism? This is a delicate and nuanced process—and the essence of impactful theatre criticism.
This blog dives into the intricacies of balancing subjectivity and objectivity in theatre criticism. Whether you’re a seasoned critic, an aspiring reviewer, or just someone passionate about the arts, you’ll learn how to critique theatrical experiences with depth, authority, and empathy.
Understanding Subjectivity in Theatre Criticism
Subjectivity in theatre criticism stems from personal perspectives and emotional experiences. It’s a reflection of how a play resonated with an individual on a personal level—what memories it evoked, the feelings it stirred, and the lessons it imparted. Here’s how subjectivity manifests:
1. Personal Taste
When evaluating a play, personal preferences often influence interpretations. A reviewer with a love for modernist theatre may react differently to a classic Shakespearean drama than someone who prefers traditional storytelling. This doesn’t mean the review lacks value, but it does emphasize the inherently subjective nature of interpretation.
2. Emotional Response
Some productions are engineered to tug at the heartstrings, while others challenge with existential questions. Emotional responses, whether joy, discomfort, or catharsis, can serve as a deeply subjective lens through which critics write their reviews.
3. Cultural Background
Cultural identity can shape how a play lands with an individual. For example, a comedy grounded in culturally specific humor may resonate uniquely with someone from that cultural group, while remaining less impactful to others. Recognizing cultural influences on subjective interpretation is key to reviewing with awareness.
Objectivity in Theatre Criticism
Objectivity seeks to transcend personal feelings and focus on quantifiable elements of a theatrical piece. It anchors criticism in facts and ensures a degree of authority and credibility. Here’s what constitutes objectivity in theatre criticism:
1. Factual Analysis
From evaluating the accuracy of a historical drama to reviewing a production’s adherence to a script, factual analysis ensures that critique remains rooted in measurable aspects. For example, does a Shakespeare adaptation modify key plot points, and if so, why?
2. Historical Context
Historical context is particularly important in theatre. Plays are often shaped by the socio-political climates in which they were originally created. Evaluating how a play respects or challenges its history adds depth and credibility to critiques.
3. Technical Elements
Lighting design, set construction, costume detailing, and soundscapes are tangible components that demand an objective eye. A critic must be able to assess whether technical elements enhance the storytelling or detract from the overall experience.
The Pitfalls of Pure Subjectivity
Overreliance on subjectivity in criticism, while personal, risks alienation and loss of credibility. Here are some common pitfalls of overly subjective critiques:
- Bias: Reviews grounded purely in personal taste can inadvertently reflect bias, which undermines the review’s universal appeal.
- Lack of Authority: Without objective analysis, subjective reviews may lack the depth needed to establish authority within the theatrical community.
- Limited Insight: By solely focusing on subjective opinions, critics miss opportunities to investigate deeper meanings and the craftsmanship behind a play.
For example, a critic who dismisses a production because it “just didn’t work for me” fails to communicate why it might not resonate with others—or why it might succeed.
The Limitations of Pure Objectivity
On the flip side, a purely objective review can be equally detrimental:
- Devoid of Emotion: Theatre is an emotional art form. Neglecting its ability to move audiences reduces criticism to sterile observations.
- Disconnection from Art: Without acknowledging subjective interpretations, critics risk separating themselves from the heart of the story and its impact on varied audiences.
- Impracticality: Art, by nature, is nuanced and multifaceted. Critics who aim for pure objectivity might miss the point, as theatrical experiences often defy a binary good-versus-bad analysis.
A review solely breaking down a show’s technical flaws lacks the human connection needed to engage readers.
Striking the Balance
The best theatrical criticism integrates subjective insight with objective analysis, creating a balanced perspective that respects both the art form and the audience. To achieve this, critics should:
- Acknowledge Personal Reactions: Own your emotional responses while signaling their subjective nature. For instance, “The final scene left me feeling deeply unsettled—though this may differ for others.”
- Ground Observations in Evidence: Pair subjective opinions with objective reasoning. Instead of stating “The costumes were stunning,” explain how their intricate designs conveyed the period effectively.
- Stay Open-Minded: Look beyond personal preferences to consider how the production might resonate with a broader audience.
Practical Tips for Aspiring Critics
For those looking to refine their theatre criticism, here are actionable tips to guide the process:
- Keep a Journal
Write down your immediate thoughts and feelings after watching a play. Then revisit your notes to objectively analyze technical details.
- Study the Craft
Learn about acting styles, lighting design, and dramaturgy to improve your ability to objectively evaluate theatrical elements.
- Read Widely
Study reviews from seasoned critics to observe how they blend subjective observations with objective analysis.
- Ask Questions
When writing a critique, ask yourself, “Why did this scene work?” or “What was the director’s intention here?” Use both subjective and empirical evidence to back up your answers.
- Engage in Conversation
Discuss productions with other theatre enthusiasts or critics. Different perspectives can highlight aspects you might have overlooked.
Case Studies in Balanced Criticism
1. New York Times’ Review of Hamilton
The Hamilton review blended objective analysis (examining Lin-Manuel Miranda’s use of contemporary styles) with subjective praise (highlighting its emotional resonance and cultural significance), showcasing a perfect balance.
2. Guardian’s Review of King Lear
When reviewing a modern adaptation, insights about the set design and acting choices were paired with reflections on how this particular production evoked unique emotional responses compared to traditional interpretations.
By studying such reviews, aspiring critics can better understand how to seamlessly merge components of subjective feeling with objective commentary.
The Art of Nuanced Theatre Criticism
Balanced criticism is an art form in itself—one that requires skill, empathy, and an intimate understanding of theatre. By harmonizing the subjective with the objective, critics can transcend personal bias and technical jargon to provide insightful reviews that resonate with audiences and creators alike.
Next time you sit down to critique a play, remember to embrace your feelings while also respecting the craftsmanship behind the experience. Use this dual approach to ensure your reviews are as multilayered and compelling as the productions themselves.