FORMAT: 

Use only standard-size typing paper, one inch margins, 12 pitch font, good ribbon, page numbering, and a cover page.  The review should be no shorter than THREE FULL TYPEWRITTEN PAGES.
 

STRUCTURE:

Make sure you include the basic information early in the opening of your review: name of play, name of theatre and location, type of theatre (educational, civic, Equity), writer(s), director(s), actor(s), designer(s), or any special information (premiere, revival, etc.).  For a film, you don't need the theatre, but you will need the cinematographer.

 The body of your review must include a brief summary of the story, a discussion of the themes, and your evaluation of the performers' and director's success or failure.   You might also write about the contributions of designers (or cinematographer), or go into greater depth on one element of production (e.g. writer's language).

 A reviewer usually summarizes his or her opinion about the quality of the work in their final paragraph.  Clearly indicate in your conclusion why the production is worth seeing or not.
 

PURPOSE:

The main intention behind this exercise is for you to make a claim about an artistic product and support that claim with observations that prove your position.  If you are trying to show that the acting was poor, then give at least three examples of moments when this was clearly shown.  If you want to applaud the designer, then describe the sets or costumes vividly and reflect upon how well they created mood and atmosphere.  Don't just discuss the production - use your critical thinking to support your claims with evidence!
 

Analysis Questions:

Some of the following questions may help you to analyze the production you've seen.  Take notes on some of these suggestions.  Also,  read professional reviews in local papers for examples that could help you to write yours.
 

1.  IDEA:  What is the subject of the play or film?  What comment or statementis made about the subject? What was the playwright or screenwriter attempting to do in writing this work?  Would you classify the play or film as tragedy, comedy, melodrama, farce, tragicomedy?

2.  PLOT:  Does the play or film have a good story?  How unified are the events?  How believable?  Was it interesting?  Why?

3.  TITLE:  How is the title appropriate or inappropriate for the work?

4.  SYMBOLISM:  What symbols appear and what do they represent?

5.  CHARACTERIZATION:  Identify the central character(s).  What motivates them?  What facets of the character's personality are revealed  by what he or she does (action) in the play or film?

6.  CONFLICT:  What is the central conflict?  Who is the protagonist?  Who is the antagonist?

7.  SETTING:  How does the setting contribute to the overall atmosphere?  Was the designer successful in creating the sense of place necessary for the action?

8.  IRONY:  What examples of irony can be found in the work?

9.  LIGHTING:  How would you characterize the lighting of the play or film - harsh, soft, balanced, theatrical, etc.?  How did it contribute to the mood of each scene?  Could you see the actors?  Were there any special effects?

10. SOUND:  Is sound used effectively to create mood and atmosophere?  Were levels set appropriately?  Did sound support or disrupt the action of the scenes?

11. COSTUMES AND MAKEUP:  Were the costumes right for the characters who wore them?  Were they well made?  Did they create an interesting ensemble (as in large cast scenes)?  Was makeup and hair subtly handled or was it overdone?

12.  MUSIC:  If the production is a musical, how strong was the composition and the lyrics written for it?  What was the quality of the singers' voices?

13.  DIALOGUE:  Did the dialogue approximate real conversation?  Was there an attempt by the writer to create heightened language?  Was the dialogue effective in creating a distinctive world for the play?

15.  ACTING:  Which actors were strong in their roles?  Which were not?  What were the primary reasons for an actor's success or failure?  Did the actors relate to each other believably?  How well did they listen to each other? Did their work seem spontaneous, relaxed, and natural?  Were they easy to understand?  Did they have clear and resonant vocal qualities?  How well did the actors use movement to characterize and create relationships?

16.  DIRECTING:   Were the actors cast appropriately?  Did the director use the space imaginatively?  Were there compositions that helped the audience see the story being told?  Was the movement of the actors well motivated?  Was the pace of the action effective (that is, did it change often enough to create varieties of rhythms)?

17.  VISUAL ELEMENTS:  For a film, does the cinematography create clear, powerful, and effective images in a natural way, or does it self-consciously show off the skills and techniques of the cinematographer?

18.  EDITING:  In the film, does the editing effectively guide you from one image to another so that smooth continuity is achieved?  Is the editing tricky and self-conscious?

19. SPECIAL EFFECTS:  How effective are the special effects in the film?  Do they dominate the film to the point that the film is just a showcase for the effects, or are they an integrated part of the film as a whole?

20. SOUND EFFECTS:  Where in the film are off-screen or invisible sounds effectively employed to enlarge the boundaries of the visual frame, or to create mood and atmosophere?