How to Write a Play Critique
(borrowed from NCS Drama)
Good play reviews should include:
1. The basic info about the play (title/author/theatre/director/date)
2. A super-short plot summary (just enough to orient, not a full tale)
3. A clear statement of the play's overall strengths and weaknesses (as you see them) in all areas -- acting,
staging, directing, production design, etc
4. A more in-depth discussion of 3 or more of the most important strengths/weaknesses
5. Remember that there are certain things that are beyond the director’s control, such as the script itself,
length of the play, and any differences between the musical and the movie. Instead of focusing on these
things, you should critique what the director does have control over (actors’ performances, costumes,
lighting, set design, energy, etc.).
Always follow standard English conventions for good grammar, a readable style, and
structure/organization.
_____________________
SAMPLE PLAY CRITIQUE
The Crucible at the Mosaic Theater (Anderson, SC)
Arthur Miller's The Crucible, directed by Ralph Mascaro, opened at the Mosaic Theatre last week. I have
seen The Crucible twice before, once live at the Governor's School and once on film, and in both of those
productions the script was sharply trimmed. Mr Mascaro left Miller's text untouched, risking boring the
audience with a 2 1/2 hour play heavy with dialogue. But his bet paid off: I found this production of The
Crucible powerful and emotionally satisfying despite uneven acting by the cast.
Miller's scathing condemnation of hypocrisy stands strong even after 50 years. Characters like Leng
Nyguen’s Giles Cory leaped out of the lines as realistic examples of imperfect goodness in the midst of a
corrupt community. The plot rose to its climax much more satisfyingly when Miller's full text was
allowed to speak for itself. His words, helped by the actors' portrayals, engaged my emotions and held
my attention all the way through John Proctor's heart-wrenching decision in the end between sacrificing
his life or his name.
The actors were adequate and usually well-cast. David Suggs handled the large role of John Proctor well
for a stage novice. His pensive dissatisfaction with the trial-crazed town and his own marriage came
through well in most scenes, especially those with his wife Elizabeth (played by the Jessica Samwer). The
Reverend Hale, acted well by Jason Meek, served as the audience's conscience during the play. Many
other minor roles showcased local talent in amusing ways.
Unfortunately, Chloe Langley’s portrayal of Abigail Williams was generally unimpressive in that role.
Abigail is the inciting villain of the story; the play lacked the proper 'punch' in the first half because the
audience wasn't able to hate Abigail's deceit as Miller intended. Likewise, Judge Danforth (Ken Black)
had a great persona for that character but apparently knew only a few of his lines -- the courtroom scene
dragged despite evidence of good directing. Overall, the cast's Southern accents worked against their
attempts at realistically portraying 1690s Salem, Massachusetts. And a few of the actors were just
downright annoying.
However, I was impressed overall with the directing of Mascaro. He got the cast to really understand the
underpinnings of Miller's great tirade against those who stifle free thought, and drew the key scenes to a
good emotional climax. The lighting was adequate; the set design was simple but effective; the staging
didn't add much to the play, but it didn't detract either. My main gripe about the production design
centers on their programs (absolutely, terribly unprofessional) and the pixelated images used in place of
backdrops (projected against a screen) -- great idea, poorly executed.
Ultimately, a play succeeds because of the strength of its story not its stage dressing. The Crucible at the
Mosaic Theater communicated the heart of Miller's play, leaving audiences with a strong understanding
of the horrible personal and social costs of political/religious hypocrisy.