Reviewing Community Theatre: How Honest Is Too Honest?

by Chris Peterson, OnStage Blog Founder

Here’s a question I’ve been sitting with for a while: how honest should critics be when reviewing community theatre?

We covered this years ago, but I wanted to revisit it, especially with a 2025 mindset.

As someone who’s spent a good portion of their life watching and writing about non-professional productions—everything from ambitious black-box college shows to musicals staged in converted gyms—I don’t ask this lightly. At OnStage Blog, we’ve reviewed hundreds of these shows over the years, and once upon a time, we even gave out awards for them. I believed—and still believe—that community theatre deserves to be taken seriously. But what does that actually look like?

Can you write an honest review of a show where the cast is made up of local accountants, teachers, and teenagers, without sounding like a bully? Can you give notes on pitchy vocals and clunky scene changes when the people onstage are doing it for free, for fun, and for love of the craft?

I think you can. I think you should. But there’s a way to do it.

There’s a big difference between thoughtful critique and mean-spirited commentary. Between highlighting areas for growth and publicly embarrassing someone who’s just trying their best. I’ve read reviews—thankfully not ours—that tore into community theatre productions like they were Tony Award contenders who missed the mark. And sure, the production might’ve been rough. The choreography may have looked like organized chaos and maybe someone forgot their lines in Act II. But what are we gaining by roasting it?

That said, when done with empathy and clarity, honest reviews can be transformative. I remember a reviewer who covered a small-town production of The Crucible. The review praised the lighting design and lead performances but also noted how the show’s pacing dragged in Act II and how unclear direction muddied the central conflict. The director later said those notes helped shape their next production. That’s the point. That’s a win.

On the flip side, I once saw a community production of Les Misérables get eviscerated online by a local blogger. The tone was snide, mocking the performers’ weight and costumes, even implying some cast members should have rethought their life choices. That wasn’t critique—it was cruelty.

I also don’t think we do anyone any favors by going too far in the other direction—by sugarcoating every review into oblivion just because “it’s only community theatre.” That attitude can be just as insulting. These are still artists. Still directors, designers, choreographers, and actors who’ve poured themselves into something and want to be seen. Honest feedback—when delivered with care—is a gift.

The best community theatre reviews I’ve read—and the ones I’ve tried to write—meet the work where it is. They acknowledge the context. They don’t compare a local production of Chicago to the Broadway revival, but they also don’t pretend like it’s immune from critique. They praise what worked, gently call out what didn’t, and recognize the heart that goes into every missed cue and every standing ovation.

Because community theatre is real theatre. Always has been. Always will be.

So yes, critics should be honest. But they should also be kind. They should be specific. They should understand the context in which the work is being made. And above all, they should remember who it’s for.

Because when it’s done right—when it’s loving and thoughtful and true—criticism doesn’t tear down a production. It builds a better one.