Final answer:
A theatre reviewer does not necessarily need to have an extensive background in theatre but should provide well-rounded, cultural knowledge and articulate critiques that are informative and focused on key aspects of a production.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question touches on the subject of whether a theatre reviewer should be required to have a deep background in theatre to represent the tastes of the general public effectively. However, while a scholarly background may enrich a reviewer's understanding, it's essential to communicate to an audience that may have varying levels of familiarity with theatre. This means a reviewer should offer insights that cater to both novices and aficionados.
That being said, well-rounded cultural knowledge and articulated reasoning behind their critiques, as exemplified by Willa Paskin's review, are crucial elements in theatre criticism. Reviews should be accessible but informative, explaining the basis for judgments while keeping the review focused on key ideas that support a thesis. Moreover, an appreciation of diverse theatre forms from global cultures enriches the critique.
Theatre appreciation courses and the critique of theatrical productions are enhanced through a broad understanding of theatre's cultural roots, as highlighted by Missy Maramara in "Global Theatre". Also, accessibility to theatre is not confined to dedicated theatrical spaces, thereby making it essential for the critic to be adaptable in their reviews.
Whether a space is built for productions or not, the essence of theatre revolves around the actor and the audience. Lastly, reviewers should be mindful to limit their review to essential observations that support their main thesis, focusing on the most significant parts of the production rather than attempting to cover a wide array of production elements.