Editor’s Note: This month the “Editor’s Page” will also be the front page because it goes far in expressing what we are about at Los Angeles Theatre Review and why we do what we do.

We Love Small Theatre

What are reviews?

Some people think of them as consumer advocacy. An expression of “Don’t see this, it’s bad, do see this, it’s good” by an expert who knows much more than you do and, therefore, must be listened to. I find that attitude abhorrent, actually. Art is meant to be shared, discussed. It is never simply good or bad. It is meant to evoke and provoke a response, one that can be either positive or negative. For everyone who loves a piece you will find someone who hates it. Yes, one critic may know more about the art than the “general populace” (whatever that may be), but it is the individual’s reaction to the piece that is important, not the experts’. If an expert, through criticism, opens someone’s eyes to a possibility in the art, he has done a constructive thing.

Some people think reviews are simply an opportunity to help theatres out by getting an interest in a production, thereby getting people into seats. I feel this attitude, although important, misses the point. Art is meant to be experienced and a piece of theatre that no one comes to is a very sad thing. However, a review of a one-night show or a show that is about to (or has already) closed can be a powerful thing. It has the power to get a conversation going.

Some people think a review is a detailed description of the plot and information about the ticket prices and performance dates of a play. I find this attitude silly. That’s not a review, it’s a synopsis. Yes, a good review will often touch on and even explain the plot, and, if the play is still running, give information helpful to anyone who might want to see it, but without analysis, without considered thought, there is no conversation. And without conversation, I say there is no point.

A professor of mine in college once said something to the effect that criticism should be a conversation between two adult people who have experienced a work of art. I have a small problem with this, assuming your audience has already seen the piece will invite what have become known as “spoilers,” and could ruin the art for someone who hasn’t seen it. It is a delicate balance, then, but I do agree, for the most part, with his sentiment.

With that in mind, one thing we are attempting to do at LATR is get the conversation started. That conversation will help people decide if a work is for them, and it will help put bodies into audiences simply by expanding the energy and putting more focus on the possibility of theatre. That conversation can also enliven, enlighten, entertain and provoke. That conversation, in the long run, can inspire more experimentation and more art.

LATR is committed to well written, well considered reviews of small theatre in Los Angeles, but we are also committed to opening the dialogue. Each article and review on this site has a place to enter comments. We usually reply to those comments in some way and love it when a back and forth begins between people who wildly agree or disagree or even provisionally or conditionally agree or disagree. We welcome and encourage your comments.

So, let’s start talking about theatre!