40 le ?!?

Last monday we went to Larcomar to watch "Fiesta de cumpleaños" a play written by Harold Pinter.
When I entered the theatre, the stage was dimly lit, so that the whole scenery was visible, and my first impression was quite good, for it looked quite good, with the windows to the side, and the double-height roof, the old wallpaper, I thought it was a promising play. (Also due to the fact that the ticket costed 40 soles, a part of me wanted this play to be promising) And so the play started, with a relatively old couple living in the house having breakfast. The first thing that made me realize that something wasn't working was the volume of the voices, which was extremely low and was difficult to keep up with what they were saying, and a little boring too. If at first it may have seemed an effect to reflect the quiet nature of a cozy morning, any regular morning, started becoming too frequent, and throughout the play the volume of the voices was almost consistently too low. One thing I quite liked was the vagueness of the lines, conversation which were not relevant in themselves, but more interesting in their subtext. The use of pauses, at first, like the volume, may have worked as an effect, in this case to make the audience fill in the blanks with subtext, and create a bit of tension, but again, the extensive uses of these pauses made it painful to keep watching the play, because they created an enormously dense and monotonous atmosphere. Then, as the play progressed, it was more and more difficult to understand what was actually happening, and I don't blame it on the text, I think it was the fault of the actors, because they did not really transmit what they were trying to say with their intonation and way of expressing themselves, and due to the lack of this hinting, the audience was left with no material in order to speculate or recognize any consistent flow in the subtext. I dont think its very important to analyse every character in this play, because most of them dont deserve individual criticism , as a whole, it didnt work. The only character which I found interesting in terms of the characterisation was Meg, the old lady, which had obviously worked with the voice and physicality to convey her character. Also, the scenery, mixed with the costumes created a somewhat flat ambient, because the colours were alike, and nothing really stood out, it was a combination of opaque colours, which could've been good if it had something to highlight, or if the play itself gave sense to it through the plot or acting, but it didn't, which made it even more dull to watch.
It was certainly the worse play I've seen so far this year (excluding one-act play performances)

Is it possible to get to an agreement wether a play was good or bad, if the play relies heavily on subtext? Because in that case, different audience members could arrive at different conclusions which affect their perspective of the play. Making it different for almost everyone.