Young People Today (part 2)

Of course, this might be a bit of Vile blather - feel free to nip off and read some proper theatre criticism while I indulge myself. But in trying to understand how I can approach youth theatre as a critic, I have opened up a few gaps in my thinking.

Like Agamemnon out of The Iliad, I am a man who can't let go of an idea, once I have had it. They pass through my mind too infrequently to be discarded.

So far, I have made a division between 'professional' and 'youth' performance. The former involves people who get paid - and presumably have a rehearsal schedule that reflects a working day - while the later is created by people under the age of 25 (fitting in with Creative Scotland's parameters for 'youth'), and has a rehearsal schedule that has to compete with other concerns (like exams, study).

I know this is rough - some companies are not all paid, or have funding, or do that 'share of the profits' gig, but the broad outline works. A closer look at the structures of youth theatre companies could help but, frankly, that would be getting too detailed for something that is pretty easy to spot.

My second assertion is that the usual critical approach does not work for youth theatre. Not because they lack the quality to compete (anyone who thinks that professional is a synonym for good can come and watch Forced Entertainment's work between 2007 and 2011 with me), but because the intention of youth theatre is bound up with the process as well as the production.

In other words, the journey of the young people is as important as the audience's experience of the production.

And while I might care about how Jim Davidson grew as a human being during his time in the pantomime at the Pavilion, that isn't really a matter for star ratings.

Equally, and I hate to be blunt, but the standard of youth theatre is very rarely close to the quality of professional theatre. Now and again, there are stand-out turns, or exciting productions, but to put youth theatre on the same rating system as the National Theatre or Robert Lepage would lead to a large number of youth companies getting two stars.

It's also patronising to adjust the rating because they are young people. Giving a good review 'because they are kids' kind of destroys the point of having a professional (yes) critic in the house.

The next step of this investigation might have something to do with a closer look at the function of theatre, and how that is filtered through the lens of 'professional' against 'youth.'