What constitutes “good theatre”? We all know what we like, and we all know what we don’t like.

When it comes to theatre, or any of the arts for that matter, it becomes very gray indeed. In the industry we like to think that we are the arbiters of taste and fashion. Nothing could be further from the truth. All we can know with any certainty is what we, as individuals, consider “good.”

One thing I know for certain is that good theatre has absolutely nothing to do with good reviews. Some of the greatest theatre I’ve ever seen has been roundly panned by the critics. So, is there any reasonable yardstick with which to measure the quality of a given play or production?

The theatre that I have seen that has left a lasting impression on me is that which has, for lack of a better word, Vision. I once saw a production of Hamlet, produced here in Chicago at UIC by the Studio Theatre of Moscow. It was in Russian (no subtitles). Perhaps it was my own familiarity with the play, but I followed every moment of the play with great clarity. The vision of the director and the actors was immensely clear. The scenes between Hamlet and Gertrude in her chamber, the moment when Hamlet decides not kill Claudius while he is at prayer, the very vivid duel between Hamlet and Laertes (executed almost completely in the dark with sparks flying off of rapiers providing the only illumination) were passionate and inspiring. Shakespeare’s language rendered in the muscular tongue of Russian was absolutely visceral and alive. The clarity of their collective vision, and their skill in articulating it gave me all the reality I needed to “see” Hamlet.

Sometimes the most impressive theatre is that which is done without any resources. It is in these cases (what Peter Brook would call Rough Theatre) that real commitment and inspiration emerge. I recently attended a performance in a tiny theatre space in a seedy Rogers Park neighborhood that provided only the barest semblance of an actual theatre. What shone through the performance was a true investment on the part of the actors and the director. Stripped clean of any trappings the play, its characters, its message were all placed directly in front of us, unselfconscious and truly inspired.

The Theatre is a medium for argument and self-examination. It places before us a central question and it commands us to try and answer it. “Good theatre” will set us up to answer these questions, to examine our world and ourselves. It succeeds when we walk away pondering and questioning.

The highest production values, the most award-winning creative team, the most famous cast are no guarantees of “good theatre.” It is a willingness to fail, to risk the hateful bad reviews, the ire of patrons that provides the most fertile atmosphere for “good theatre.” I would rather fail courageously than succeed moderately. “Good theatre” can’t be quantified, it can’t be formulated, it can’t be predicted. Even a theatre famous for its “good theatre” can produce bad plays or mediocre productions. The only way to find “good theatre” is to go out and see theatre, a lot of theatre, even bad theatre. The only way to determine what constitutes “good theatre” is to experience it first hand, in the moment, the very fleeting and transitory moment.

Lou Contey is a multiple award-winning director. His latest project is Copenhagen at Timeline Theatre.

What Makes Good Theatre? Archives

Joyce Piven
Lou Contey
BJ Jones
Jen Ellison
PJ Powers
Michael Halberstam
Sean Graney

Home