Drama

Home > Drama > HSC Course > Individual Project > Critical Analysis: Portfolio of Theatre criticism > Portfolio of Theatre Criticism

Portfolio of Theatre Criticism

Over the years various observations have been made about what constitutes a good Applied Research Project, as well as the kind of approach that leads to a poor mark. You should check the requirements of each project in the course prescriptions document. A summary of those reports follows here:

The best candidates:

could grasp the director's concept and critically evaluate its execution on the stage
drafted and refined reviews into a coherent and unified piece of writing
could relate all elements of production back to the vision of the production
could substantiate criticisms
wrote in a formal, sophisticated and often elegant style
could criticise objectively and support their criticism through detailed and substantiated reference to the play
displayed strong evidence of research and knowledge of theatre style or background of the play. Such material was evident in the logbook and, most importantly, incorporated into the portfolio.
wrote in a formal, yet fluent manner and used a coherent structure which included all relevant areas of production. That is, they wrote in a review style, as opposed to an extended English essay
usually had seen a comprehensive range of theatre, which enabled them to showcase their knowledge of the syllabus, their facility and versatility with the practice of reviewing theatre
showed a balanced and detailed criticism of all the major aspects of a production
could use drama/theatre terminology in an appropriate and substantiated style
incorporated research skills into the review, or either through knowledge of the play and investigation of the style of theatre being performed
demonstrated a consistent quality over the four reviews
could identify the main concept behind a production and relate all elements of the production to this
demonstrated a sophisticated command of theatre terms and applied them appropriately
had generally written on a variety of productions
included relevant research
could identify the main concept of a production and comment on elements relating to the execution of the concept on stage
demonstrated a sophisticated command of theatre terms and applied them appropriately
wrote on a variety of productions
included relevant research to support criticism
wrote in an articulate and original manner
adhered to the prescribed word limit.

The weaker candidates:

described or merely re-told the events unfolding on the stage
used sensational or overblown language, lapsed into cliché or were inappropriately colloquial
presented theatrical terms as a shopping list rather than integrating them as elements of the performance
presented highly personalised “raves” or diatribes without any corroborating evidence from the production
used unreferenced opinion, which was either loaded with praise or dismissive with negativity
wrote in an inappropriate register, usually colloquial, with mistakes that should have been eliminated during the drafting process
relied on describing, rather than analysing the action on stage and showing how this related to the development of the theatrical vision
were restricted by the limited range of theatre they saw
used personal opinion that often gave a confused or misleading picture of the action on stage
wrote poorly, with errors that could have been eliminated through careful re-drafting
omitted major areas mentioned in the project requirements
employed sweeping generalisations
showed minimal understanding of the craft of reviewing
omitted key elements expected in a critique
showed scant regard for re-drafting and re-editing, error-ridden work
gave simple descriptions of elements without reference to how this contributed to the concept on stage, for instance “The actors were good” or “The lighting was bright”
substituted personal opinion for informed analysis
retold the plot and omitted key aspects of the criteria
wrote in an inconsistent style.