Criticise This

I've been doing a lot of analyzing lately. Movies, music, theatre, people, and myself. I've found that I tend to look for the bad things first, and the good things second. I can't figure out if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
I am a harsh critic of film and theatre, but I tend to be a little easier on people, but movies and plays are made by people so why the harshness? I guess I see the things that I could have done better. Here's an example, but I have to give a little back story first, so be yee warned!
After being turned down on the Drama Coach position at the local high school, and finding out that a 2nd grade teacher with little to no theatre experience is who was chosen over me, I was a little bitter (to say the least). I decided that if she wanted my help she would call, because the people in charge of hiring told me they would give her my name.
Well, she never called and I heard all kinds of complaints from the cast (many are my sister's friends, whom I knew from helping out with the plays last year). Everything from, being treated like small children, to lack of experience/knowledge about what she was doing, to lack of involvement from the director in the whole process.
So, naturally when I went to watch the play I was already skeptical. As the curtains opened I found myself looking for anything and everything that could possibly go wrong. But, since I did like the actors themselves I tried to look for the positive points as well. By the time the first act was over and intermission started I wanted to leave, but because I also wanted to support the cast and be able to give a solid review I stayed.
My biggest complaint with the play was a simple thing that any good director would have fixed, the way the set was laid out the actors always ended up speaking upstage, instead of toward the audience, therefore they lost over 3/4 of their volume, and a good 1/4 of the play couldn't be heard. All that had to be done was bring the set closer to the edge of the stage, and make sure the actors didn't turn upstage to speak. Simple and effective, something that anyone who even took a theatre class in high school should know.
My second complaint was with the actors' speaking when the audience was laughing. "Laugh lines" are hard to find, but a good director will remind the actors to pause for the audience. An experienced actor knows this, but as they were in high school their experience is limited. So that was another 1/4 of the play's lines lost to the laughing.
Another thing that happens often is actors speeding up their lines, usually caused by nerves. This makes it harder to understand what is being said. Although most of the actors spoke clearly, the rate at which they spoke made it hard to understand. So, we'll add that to the 1/4 of the play lost to volume. So, basically we've lost 1/2 of the play to volume and laughing. That's a lot to miss, and simple to fix.
Finally the one thing that stood out to me was the actor's lack of enthusiasm. Personally I think it came from a number of problems the director made/had/was. First, the play was below the cast's ability. It was a poorly written comedy, with slightly degrading characters and dialogue (degrading in the sense that they did Annie last year, a classic. They've also done The Music Man, and Much Ado About Nothing). The plot was lame, about a hick that becomes king and has to find a wife. His advisor is a swindler who puts on a Bachelor/American Idol/Survivor show to find the king a wife. Many of the actors told me later that they felt like their part was stupid, and that it made them feel stupid too.
Another mistake that the director made to cause the kids to not have the enthusiasm they needed for the performances, was to not do anything more than sit in the house seats to direct. From what I heard (from my sister who is even more critical than me, and from a few other cast members) she didn't get on stage ever. Now, a strong director who has the whole show planned out step by step can do that and still have a strong production. One who asks a cast member to do something different, but doesn't explain what he wants done, or doesn't show what he wants done, won't get anything much different. After all isn't a director's job to, um, direct?!
My final complaint against this director is the fact that she did not expect anything from the cast. She had no goal for them, other than the obvious to put the show on. They did not receive any excitement from her so they had not excitement themselves. An experienced director, even one that has had no training, would set a goal for each rehearsal and for the production itself, something to reach for, and expect the cast to reach it or try their best to reach it.
The stage is a place for actors, directors, and technicians to try new things in new ways. It is about discovery, and, especially in an educational setting, it is about pushing beyond the boundaries of self and comfort to find something new. The most important thing about high school theatre is to have fun while learning new things. This cast didn't learn much and they weren't having fun.
Oh, one more technical thing, costumes. While I know that budget is limited and the kids at the school generally dress the same, the costumes for the play all looked the same. Each of the contestants should have been wearing distinctive clothes. The valley-girl should have been girly and pink(or other such girly clothes), business woman would never wear open toed shoes to an interview, the gangster from NYC needed baggy jeans not tight cut offs (not to mention the sunglasses and hood that was blocking her facial expressions), and all the hill-billies clothes should have been more worn and torn and dirty. It was hard to tell the important characters apart from the ensemble because they all looked almost the same.
Okay now good things. I knew most of the cast, there were a few freshmen and upper-classmen that hadn't been in any of the plays I'd helped with. So I could recall what I had seen them do in the past and use that to analyze what they did in this play. As a whole they are all very talented young men and women. Some are stronger actors than others but they all are good.
The king and the girl he chose both had country accents, both accents were different. This too me was a huge accomplishment. The king was a kind of hill-billy accent whereas the girl was from a ranch in Texas. It was amazing that they could have such similar accents and yet be so different! Props to them!
There was one young man who would be a great actor, he has the voice and inflection to do some great work, however, he has a pattern, and I would love to be able to help him with that. he always uses the same hand gestures, and only moves the upper part of his body to emphasize things. With just a little work I think he could let go of the patterns he falls into and become a great leading man.
The freshmen in the cast were great as well. They had a great command of their voice and their parts, their blocking onstage was just disjointed. Once again with just a little work this flaw could be worked out.
Basically I could see the potential that each actor and technician had, and where the director (from lack of experience and enthusiasm) went wrong. I saw what I would have done differently and how just a few simple changes would have made the play exponentially better.
Okay long example of how I look at things, but I like to see what can be done to make things better. I'm that way about everything. If I don't like a movie, what could be changed to make it something I would like.
People are a little harder, but I still do the same thing. I analyze everything about someone each time I meet them. I analyze what they say, what they wear, and what I say. I worry over stupid stuff, and a get caught up in flaws. But I do look for the good in everyone I meet. I guess if I can't hope that someone will not let me down then my life would be pretty bleak.
If you are thinking that I am pathetic than you are quite right. Don't worry though, the over analyzing is usually me over analyzing myself not others. I worry about the little things I say, things that no one remembers but me. I analyze looks that people give me and automatically assume the worst.
Yet, I hope for the best, I look past the things others do and say (most of the time) and usually get disappointed. Maybe I expect too much. Maybe my brain works the wrong way. But after analyzing my criticisms I feel life is better this way, even if I am strange.
I live to see what can be done better (only I don't always do what needs to be done for things to be done better).