Theatre criticism is a quick and dirty act – our views change and so do plays
Why Read This
What Makes This Article Worth Your Time
Summary
What This Article Is About
Guardian theatre critic Arifa Akbar reflects on dramatically revising her assessment of Ryan Calais Cameron’s For Black Boys Who Have Considered Suicide When the Hue Gets Too Heavy, upgrading it from two stars to five after seeing its developed version at the Royal Court Theatre. She uses this experience to examine the inherent constraints of theatre criticism, which requires overnight responses rather than the extended reflection afforded to book reviewers, making it a “quick and dirty” form of critical judgment.
Akbar argues that changing one’s mind doesn’t discredit a critic because plays themselves evolve through dramaturgy and development, while critics’ perspectives also shift with time and second viewings. She questions whether theatres should invite critics to see clearly unfinished work by emerging playwrights, advocates for protecting young writers from premature judgment, and concludes that both the mutability of art and the evolution of critical perspective are valid aspects of theatrical culture rather than failures of professional rigor.
Key Points
Main Takeaways
Dramatic Critical Reversal
Akbar changed her review from two stars to five stars after seeing Cameron’s considerably developed production, demonstrating how plays can transform with proper resources and time.
Quick and Dirty Tradition
Theatre reviewing requires overnight responses within approximately twelve hours, unlike book criticism which allows days or weeks for reflection, making it fundamentally a gut reaction.
Protecting Emerging Playwrights
Akbar questions whether theatres should invite critics to see unfinished work by young playwrights, suggesting embargo practices used for experimental or activist productions could protect emerging voices.
Imperfection and Brilliance Coexist
The critic acknowledges regretting reviews where imperfect shows deserved five stars, realizing that flaws don’t preclude brilliance—a lesson applying to works like Pass Over and Wise Children.
Second Viewings Test Judgment
Revisiting art is intimidating because it challenges initial responses, yet Akbar’s experience with Jerusalem and Wuthering Heights shows perspectives evolve while core responses often remain valid.
Mutability of Art and Opinion
Both theatrical works and critical perspectives have the capacity to transform, making changed opinions legitimate rather than evidence of flawed judgment, especially when art itself evolves dramatically.
Master Reading Comprehension
Practice with 365 curated articles and 2,400+ questions across 9 RC types.
Article Analysis
Breaking Down the Elements
Main Idea
Legitimacy of Changed Critical Opinion
The central thesis argues that changing one’s critical assessment doesn’t constitute professional failure because theatre criticism operates under unique constraints—overnight deadlines that produce immediate gut reactions—and because theatrical productions themselves evolve through development. This matters because it challenges the notion that critical authority requires unwavering consistency, instead embracing the mutability of both art and interpretation as valid aspects of cultural criticism.
Purpose
To Reflect and Advocate
Akbar writes to defend her changed assessment while examining broader questions about critical practice, the nature of theatre reviewing, and institutional responsibility toward emerging artists. By using personal experience as a starting point for professional reflection, she advocates for more protective practices around young playwrights while simultaneously arguing that critics shouldn’t be paralyzed by the possibility of changed perspectives—both are legitimate responses to art’s evolution.
Structure
Personal Anecdote → Professional Defense → Universal Reflection
The piece opens with the specific case of changing her review of Cameron’s play, moves to defending this practice by explaining theatre criticism’s unique constraints and comparing it to book reviewing, then broadens to universal questions about second viewings through examples from Jerusalem to Wuthering Heights. This structure uses the particular to illuminate general principles, grounding abstract arguments about critical legitimacy in concrete theatrical and literary examples.
Tone
Reflective, Self-Aware & Analytical
Akbar maintains a thoughtful, confessional tone that acknowledges vulnerability (calling her revision a “mea culpa”) while refusing to be defensive. She’s analytical about professional practices, self-deprecating without being apologetic, and intellectually curious about larger questions her experience raises. The tone balances professional authority with personal humility, modeling how critics can maintain credibility while admitting uncertainty—appropriate for a piece arguing that rigidity isn’t a prerequisite for critical legitimacy.
Key Terms
Vocabulary from the Article
Click each card to reveal the definition
Build your vocabulary systematically
Each article in our course includes 8-12 vocabulary words with contextual usage.
Tough Words
Challenging Vocabulary
Tap each card to flip and see the definition
A Latin phrase meaning “through my fault”; an acknowledgment of one’s error or mistake; an admission of personal responsibility.
“If that sounds like an innocent statement in itself, it is surely a mea culpa for a critic who delivered a damning star-rated judgment the first time around.”
A frivolous, flighty, or excessively talkative person; someone who lacks steadiness, reliability, or seriousness in their opinions or behavior.
“Does my change of mind, on second viewing, render me a flibbertigibbet whose critical judgment changes with the wind?”
A formal written defense or justification of one’s opinions, positions, or conduct; a systematic argumentative discourse defending something.
“But to return to the incriminated critic and my apologia: if a critic changes their mind, do they discredit themselves?”
To analyze or examine something carefully in order to understand its components or complexities; to unravel or disentangle layers of meaning.
“Some of the best plays defy easy reductions of their meanings and there are many shows whose themes I have not managed to fully unpick…”
To irritate, annoy, or provoke someone; to make someone angry or upset through persistent or aggravating behavior or content.
“The play still riles me for the same reasons — as well as a sense that it glories in insularity and sentimentalises a certain kind of Britishness…”
The quality of being isolated or detached from outside influences; narrow-mindedness or lack of interest in cultures, ideas, or peoples beyond one’s own.
“The play still riles me for the same reasons — as well as a sense that it glories in insularity and sentimentalises a certain kind of Britishness…”
Reading Comprehension
Test Your Understanding
5 questions covering different RC question types
1According to the article, theatre critics typically have approximately twelve hours to formulate their reviews after seeing a performance.
2What does Akbar suggest theatres could do more often to protect emerging playwrights?
3Select the sentence that best captures Akbar’s realization about the relationship between perfection and brilliance.
4Based on the article, determine whether each statement is True or False.
Cameron’s play now has co-direction between Cameron and Tristan Fynn-Aiduenu, whereas originally it was directed only by Fynn-Aiduenu.
Akbar was initially disappointed by For Black Boys because she had high expectations after being moved by Cameron’s previous work, Typical.
When Akbar re-read Wuthering Heights in her forties, she disliked it because her teenage judgment had been wrong.
Select True or False for all three statements, then click “Check Answers”
5What can be inferred about Akbar’s view on the nature of critical authority?
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
The phrase captures theatre criticism’s fundamental constraint: critics must produce overnight responses, typically within twelve hours of seeing a performance. Unlike book reviewers who receive days or weeks for reflection, theatre critics deliver immediate “gut reactions” under tight deadlines. This makes their judgments “less penetrating”—more impressionistic than deeply analytical—and explains why changed opinions shouldn’t discredit critics. The term acknowledges that speed inherently limits depth while defending the practice’s validity within its specific constraints.
The Royal Court production featured several key enhancements: Cameron became co-director alongside original director Tristan Fynn-Aiduenu, bringing playwright involvement to staging decisions. The lighting became “astounding,” the choreography dramatically improved, and lines were “spoken with poise and power.” The entire production was “well-paced, sharply comic, full of pain and beauty”—suggesting both technical refinement and deeper emotional resonance. These changes transformed what she initially saw as “a play in need of serious development” into something “remarkable” dramaturgically, proving that adequate time and resources can elevate work substantially.
Jerusalem represents nuanced revision rather than simple reversal. Akbar’s initial negative response stemmed from being “alienated” by the play’s racism and misogyny at the start, causing her to miss the “magic” of later acts. On second viewing, she still finds it problematic—it “still riles me for the same reasons”—but can now “better appreciate its craft and performance.” This demonstrates that changed opinions aren’t always complete reversals; critics can simultaneously maintain original objections while recognizing previously missed qualities. The example shows critical evolution as adding complexity rather than simply replacing one judgment with another.
Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.
This article is rated Advanced due to its sophisticated metacritical analysis—criticism about criticism itself—requiring readers to follow abstract arguments about professional practice while tracking multiple theatrical examples. The vocabulary includes specialized terms like “dramaturgy,” “apologia,” and “flibbertigibbet,” plus literary references from Mark Twain to Emily Brontë. The piece demands understanding of nuanced positions where the author both defends changed opinions and questions institutional practices, maintaining multiple threads of argument simultaneously. Its self-reflective, essayistic style typical of high-level arts journalism assumes reader familiarity with critical discourse conventions.
The Wuthering Heights anecdote serves as counterpoint to Neil Gaiman’s Enid Blyton experience where childhood love didn’t survive re-reading. Akbar feared her teenage judgment was wrong but discovered upon re-reading that she “loved it for many of the same reasons” plus “some new ones.” This supports her thesis that “what we liked the first time around is usually what we will like the second and third time, and that the first response is a valid one, even under pressure of a deadline.” It validates both initial instincts and the value of accumulating additional perspectives over time without negating original responses.
The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.
