Reviewing

A friend of mine who taught theatre studies at a college was very good at putting plays on stage but had no idea how to review a play. I once saw an example of his reviewing technique - or, rather, lack of it - when he reviewed a play for a local paper. He wrote about how the techniques the producer had used were not those that should have been used, he used technical language to describe what was going on behind the scenes. And so on.
In short, he did not see the play but saw the things that made the play stageable.
At a conference of producers of plays for young people I objected to the way that theatre critics were regarded: it was being suggested that critics were out of touch with what producers were attempting to do and had no knowledge of the machinery which was in place to activate the enterprise of putting on a play. So I made a defence of the theatre critic, being myself one at the time.
I was then asked if I knew anything about the workings of local theatres, what went on behind the scenes and so on. I said I did not and had to admit then that I was lacking in this regard.
I was wrong to make that, sort of, apologetic admission. What I should have said is that the theatre critic is, or should be, a person who is a member of the audience, that he needs to know nothing about how the play is constructed or how it is produced; he sees the final result just like any member of the audience does; what goes on other than that which is visible to him where he sits is of no consequence to him.
After that he goes away and writes about what his feelings were about what he had seen and heard.