A worrying marginalisation of much of the Evening Standard’s cultural coverage has occurred, with all but the lead daily review (which sometimes warrants an upfront early page splash) relegated to a 150-word blurb. Apparently the official reason is to get more reviews in; but the theatre reviewing staff – once a team of three and long now just two – have to fight to squeeze into a tight corner now more than ever. That’s fewer words than even Metro or Time Out affords its reviewers.
And talking of Time Out, we have yet to see the six-star rating that the magazine curiously introduced a couple of months ago yet see any show earn its highest accolade. Star ratings – that all but The Times and Telegraph now seem to do – are a subject of constant debate amongst critics; do their presence detract from people actually reading our words, since our opinions can be gauged by how many stars we award something? (In fact, we even do it amongst ourselves. Instead of asking each other what we thought of a show, we simply ask a fellow critic, “How many stars did you give it?”) Expanding the number of stars available may allow a little bit more nuance; but a six-star rating doesn’t allow for a middle ground anymore. There’s no half way point; you’re either on the way to being brilliant (four stars) or below par (three).
Nigel: "You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. You’re on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder." DiBergi: "Why don’t you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?" Nigel: "These go to 11."