Watching Theatre Critically: Taking Useful Notes
Why Watching Is Not Enough
Most people leave a theatre humming the music or remembering the big emotional moments. For your live theatre review, that is not enough. The exam rewards you for being able to pinpoint specific choices — a performer's exact vocal quality at a named moment, the intensity and colour of a lighting state, the texture of a costume fabric — and then judge whether those choices successfully communicated meaning to the audience.
That level of detail requires a different kind of watching: critical spectatorship. This lesson gives you a framework for doing exactly that, both in the theatre and in the notes you write immediately afterwards.
The exam rewards specific technical detail, not general impressions. “The lighting was dark” earns no credit; “a single Fresnel special focused downstage centre, producing a cold blue wash at low intensity” can earn top marks.
The What / How / Why Framework
Before you enter the theatre, memorise this three-part scaffold. It structures every paragraph you will write in the exam:
- What was the choice? Name it precisely: a sharp blackout, a sudden drop in the performer's vocal pitch, a costume change carried out in view of the audience.
- How was it executed? Add technical detail: a Fresnel lantern at 20% intensity, a downward pitch shift of half an octave, a black linen coat replaced by a cream silk dress in full stage lighting.
- Why did it work (or not)? Evaluate: what did the audience feel as a result? What meaning did the director intend to communicate? Did it succeed, and why?
This scaffold applies whether you are writing about a performer, a designer or the directorial concept. The key shift is from describing to evaluating.
Taking Notes in the Theatre
You cannot write full sentences in the dark, but you can capture trigger words that unlock memory later. Keep a small notepad and pencil. During the performance, note:
- Performer moments: write the character's name, a one-word description of what the performer did, and a physical cue (e.g. “Mira — freeze — USL, turns away”). This helps you reconstruct the blocking later.
- Design moments: note colour, direction and quality of the lighting state; any abrupt sound cues; unusual set elements. Even “blue wash — cold — interval end” is useful.
- Audience reaction: if the audience gasped, laughed or fell silent at a particular moment, write it down. Audience response is evidence that a choice worked.
- Stage configuration: sketch the stage layout in the margin — whether it is theatre in the round, a proscenium arch, or a thrust stage. This affects how proxemics read for the audience.
The interval is gold. Use the first five minutes to expand your shorthand notes while the first act is fresh. Ask yourself: what was the single most striking performer choice so far? What design element most affected my mood as an audience member? What do I think the director wants me to think about this production’s themes?
Write answers to these three questions in full sentences. You may use them almost verbatim in your exam. At the end of the second act, sit for two minutes before leaving — identify your most striking moment from the whole production before the crowd noise and adrenaline erase it.
Post-Show Notes: The Production Log
Write your production log within 24 hours of seeing the production. After that, specific sensory memories fade fast. Structure your log under four headings that match the exam’s focus:
- Production context: title, company, venue, date, stage configuration, approximate running time.
- Performer analysis: for each performer you plan to write about, record one vocal choice and one physical choice for a named moment, plus the effect on you as an audience member.
- Design analysis: one lighting example with technical details; one sound example; one set or costume observation. For each, note the specific moment and the audience effect.
- Directorial concept: in two or three sentences, state what you believe the director’s central intention was and give one piece of evidence for it.
Many students write a plot summary in their review — they retell what happened scene by scene. This earns little credit because the exam is asking you to analyse how meaning was communicated, not what the story was.
Think of your reader as someone who also saw the production. They already know the plot. What they want to read is your analytical voice: why did a particular lighting state succeed in creating unease? Why did a performer’s sudden stillness communicate power more effectively than movement could have? That analytical perspective only comes from the What / How / Why scaffold, not from scene-by-scene summary.
Your course must include a live performance of at least 50 minutes, with at least two actors, dialogue and a range of production values. You may use a digital or streamed production in the exam. You may not write about your set play in the live theatre question.