Guardian critic criticizes critics
Sparked by commentary in the Scotsman, Guardian writer Bella Todd explores the question, “can you trust unpaid theatre critics?” The concern centers on the glut of four- and five-star reviews cropping up on show posters around Edinburgh and throughout the fringe theatre circuit…many of which are sourced from reviews far outside the mainstream. But what kind of concern is it, really?
There appear to be two things in question. One issue is what’s being called grade inflation: too many shows getting too many stars. Surely not every show can be five stars, can it?
Well, that depends on the reviewer, doesn’t it, and that ties directly to the second issue: what qualifies someone to review a show?
Too many stars
The Scotsman article is mainly looking at how publications like the Fringe Review vet authors to ensure quality. Apparently there are a number of organizations forming to establish some sort of “approved” reviewer list for various festivals around the UK; for example, The Festival Media Network is described as a group trying to “bring venues, publicists and reviewing operations together to ‘review the reviewers’.”
Todd’s opinion piece boils the so-called problem down to this:
How seriously should you take those five stars from the unknown website with no declared policy? Or the solitary star from the person who could, for all you know, be the director’s arch-enemy?
The answer to both, really, is, “buyer beware.” In the end, a review is just an opinion, and “authority” reviewers are just as subject to the vagaries of taste as anyone else. A positive review from Ben Brantley or Michael Billington doesn’t mean that I will like a show, and what is a five star show for one person is not necessarily a five star for me. So why does it matter if I’ve heard of a particular publication or not?
Now, I can see where a venue or producer wants to know that their comps are going somewhere valuable. Fine. But a producer also has a responsibility to sell their show, and “accredited” opinion or not, if someone has given a show a good review, a producer is going to use it in promo material. Todd does note that a number of shows have ended up getting “big media” attention because of commentary in the Fringe Review or Three Weeks. But how can something like the Festival Media Network really enforce what pull quotes a company puts on their poster? If a positive comment comes from an audience survey post-show, is that somehow not a valid piece of marketing content?
The implication seems to be that stars from places other than the “approved” list are misleading, and that is flat wrong.
Who is qualified?
What’s worse, Todd’s article seems to extend this implication into a view that “amateur” or “enthusiast” writers are somehow inferior, and their reviews are of lower quality because the author lacks sufficient reputation to have an opinion. It’s a ridiculous and destructive thought. Here is a person in a perceived position of authority causing people with similar interests to question the value of doing something they love.
What qualifies someone to review? Having an opinion, the willingness to express it, and a platform to do so. What are Todd’s qualifications? It doesn’t really matter. Though she mentions and is advocating organized groups aiming to arrange some sort of credential, that’s really not going to stop people from posting to their Facebook or whatever, is it? There is no qualification for having an opinion.
Look at Alastair Macauley who basically started writing about dance in letters to friends. He’s not trained as a reviewer. He just started writing, and it turned into a job. His opinion may be more informed now, but does that mean his opinion is actually more valid than the opinion of someone in the cheap seats or with a different background in theatre? No. It’s about how the writer thinks about the piece they’ve seen. I’ll quote him:
“I would rather read a fresh critic coming new to the art form with all his/her wits than an old-fart critic who’s tedious to read.”
Yet the idea that there should be approval processes or a “formal code of practice” would seem to favor the old fart who can meet some arbitrary standard of experience, which is simply outlandish.
I don’t disagree that a publishing organization like the Fringe Review has some responsibility to vet writers in order to maintain a certain level of quality, but Todd’s view reads like this vetting should somehow extend to individual authors of any sort. In this age of self-publishing and free blogging platforms, it’s unenforceable at best, and at worst is damaging to the very enthusiasts who support the fringe in the first place.
“if someone has given a show a good review, a producer is going to use it in promo material.”
That’s not necessarily true – even if a review is negative, the least negative parts of it will be used anyway!
Also, thinking about a show which you recently saw and which I skipped, one of the reviews was very glowing but so badly-written it could have reflected badly on the companies to have quoted from it.
But it would be interesting to see the outcome of a plan on how to “accredit” reviewers…