Theatre is subjective, and putting a numerical score on a performance or design can be challenging. ATAC asks judges to evaluate each production thoughtfully, fairly and consistently.
Judges evaluate the quality and execution of the work using ATAC’s established scoring system and category guidelines. Each element is considered on its own merits.
Judges score each eligible element of a production on a scale of 1 to 10. Scores are intended to reflect the quality and execution of the work being evaluated.
Evaluate each element on its own merits.
Judges evaluate each actor, designer or production element according to the criteria established for that category.
Focus on quality and execution.
Scores reflect how effectively the work achieves its artistic and technical goals.
Use the full scoring range when appropriate.
The 1–10 scale allows judges to distinguish between different levels of quality and execution.
Personal opinions about a production’s subject matter should not affect its score.
Judges evaluate the production based on the work itself rather than their personal agreement with, identification with or preference for its subject matter.
Producing theatres and/or directors determine which performance category an actor is entered into. ATAC provides guidelines for each category to help ensure that performances are evaluated within the appropriate category.
Performance categories reflect the scope and significance of a role within a production. Not every performer in a production will necessarily fall into the same performance category.
Each actor, designer and production element is evaluated independently. A production may demonstrate particular strengths across different areas of the work.
Scores do not need to be the same across different categories. Each score reflects the individual quality and execution of the work being evaluated.
ATAC’s judging process is designed to recognize excellence while maintaining fairness, consistency and integrity. Judges evaluate the work independently using ATAC’s established criteria and scoring system.
The work demonstrates a very high level of quality, skill, and execution.
The work is consistently exceptional and stands out through particularly effective choices, technique, creativity, or impact.
A score in this range represents work that is exceptional within the production. The work is so well suited to its purpose and artistic demands that it is difficult to imagine a substantially better interpretation or execution.
The work stands out in a positive way and demonstrates thoughtful choices, preparation, skill, and a clear understanding of its role within the production.
The work makes a significant and effective contribution to the production, though there may still be some room for improvement or refinement.
The work effectively meets the needs of the production.
The work is competent, appropriate, and successfully fulfills its intended purpose within the production.
A score in this range represents work that meets the expected standard for the category. It does not indicate that anything is wrong with the work, but rather that it does not consistently demonstrate the level of distinction associated with higher scores.
The work has noticeable weaknesses that affect the overall effectiveness of the production.
The work contributes to the production, but areas of quality, execution, or effectiveness limit its overall impact.
The work has significant weaknesses in quality, execution, or effectiveness.
The work does not effectively meet the needs of the production and substantially limits its overall impact.
A score in this range represents work that requires significant improvement to achieve its intended artistic or technical goals.