Brevity, they are always saying, is the soul of wit; but these are lean times for theatre reviewing, in every sense. AA Gill famously suggested a few years ago that “no aspect of the culture is as badly served by its critics as the theatre is”, and went on to complain that “Many of the national press reviewers who haunt the lobbies of the West End, picking up their complimentary programmes and free glasses of screwtop wine, are a moribund, joyless, detached bunch. Where are the voices that ring out as being aesthetically intelligent, passionate, current and, most important, entertaining?”
Leaving aside his own dubious claims on that status - last year he began a now notorious review of an E1 restaurant with a long preamble about how he shot a baboon in Africa “last Wednesday, just after lunch”, merely in order “to get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone, a stranger” - he probably needs psychiatric help rather than a good meal out.
But it is also his journalistic pomposity that riles: he also complains of my tribe, “The chorus of critics has forgotten that its first calling is as journalists, to write readable, intelligent and amusing articles…. Criticism is too often bereft of elan, panache or even the mildest stylistic polish. “
I’m not so sure that a review that runs to over 1,400 words of a restaurant, some 900 of which were to do with his activities in Africa and only 500 are to do with the restaurant itself, constitutes a readable, intelligent and amusing article. But here’s the thing: at least he had 1,400 words in which to exercise his so-called “stylistic polish”. By comparison, some theatre critics are lucky if they get a quarter of that amount. I have just checked the word count on three reviews by Lyn Gardner that ran in last week’s Guardian, and they ran to respectively 276, 288 and 290 words. Michael Billington was luckier, with two reviews of 420 words and 435 words apiece.
Another critic I recently spoke to told me that she had even fewer words, “but it doesn’t stop me having big thoughts,” she joked. We’re being squeezed, literally, in every direction. On the one hand, I’m quietly relieved that we’re still there at all - in the clamour for celebrity coverage, its great that shows at places like the Gate in London or a regional production of The Miser at Coventry’s Belgrade Theatre are getting space at all.
But it does mean that we’re having to write tighter and leaner copy. And it does also, inevitably, put more pressure on the judgment call that ultimately adorns the review: the star rating. Many readers will read only that. Critics are as guilty of the shorthand as the next man (and woman): I know several colleagues who simply ask each other not what they thought of a show, but how many stars they have given it!
Nowadays quotes on ads are often not so much about drawing out the best quotes on a particular show, but simply a parade of star ratings: there’s something more forceful and unambiguous about multiples of four or five star ratings. But it’s not quite as unambiguous, it turns out, as it seems: just last week Michael Coveney complained in his blog, “I was surprised to see in yesterday’s Evening Standard that Whatsonstage.com’s over generous three star rating had been upgraded to four stars. I’m sure this is an error that will be immediately rectified. But it looks bad. And I’d hate to see producer Sonia Friedman faced with the concerted wrath of the fearsome Critics Circle backed up by legislation at the European Court of Human Rights.”
In fact, the concerted wrath of the Critics’ Circle wasn’t required: Whatsonstage.com’s Managing Director David Dobson promptly issued a clarification, “We have been informed that the advert in last night’s Evening Standard used the star rating given to the show by our readers (in our user reviews section) rather than the rating awarded by our critic Michael Coveney. The user reviews give the average rating of everyone who has seen the show and contributes a review to that section - in this case 15.” He went on to say, “If nothing else it does go to show that critics and real ticket buyers can have very different opinions, something we at Whatsonstage.com embrace. All we can recommend is that you see it for yourself and form your own opinion.”
But actually this is dangerous precedent: not only can the public ratings be easily manipulated, either by the producers and publicists and friends of the company themselves posting their own user reviews, or by rivals of the show posting counter-reviews, whether they’ve actually seen it or not. It’s also not a static reading: it’s likely to move up and down as more and more reviews are added.
It’s great that the public can contribute more to the critical discourse, of course, but as Michael Coveney also wrote in a feature in The Stage (which ran on January 21), “Even before the reviews were out at the end of last week for the West End musical Legally Blonde, the press had declared the show a hit, taking part in a mood of hysteria that has engulfed the Strand and threatened to turn the West End fluffy and pink.” He proceeded to carefully examine “what has caused this stampede and how reliable are the claims made for it.”
It could be said that a perception was being created around the show that was merely being generated by hype, not reality. No one has any way of authenticating whether the reported advances, for instances, are accurate - as Michael points out, the Standard reported a take of £2million, while the Guardian had one of £1.5m (“ah, which figures are we using today?”) and the Telegraph £2.5m (“Do I have any advance on that advance?”, as Michael asked).
And now the review ratings are being manipulated to the producers’ own ends, too. It can’t be long before the quotes follow suit. Why stop with the rating? Why not start quoting user reviews themselves? “This show is brilliant. Loved it in New York and in London. GO SEE IT!” doesn’t, of course, come from Michael’s review; but from one Mr Hewett. And while we’re at it, why don’t we publish some of the random attacks on the theatre’s staff, too: “Oh yeah, and the bald guy in the box-office needs to be fired. SUCH a rude man,” says Cassox. That’s the problem: like AA Gill, the public have a habit of straying off the subject of what they are reviewing.
While I agree in general to the critic's plight of not enough room , and the use of quotes from the readers of a website rather than that site's critic, I do feel that since the internet has given an open forum for those of us who are simply theatregoers and not paid critics, that the group of regular aisle sitters is really a thing of the past. It's not as if you yourself hasn't bemoaned the lack of theatre experience of some of the newer members of the group. Why should the fact that a person is paid for their review make it more valuable or quotable? Let's face it, no one pays the West End Whingers for their reviews but I tend to find myself believing what they say about a show rather than what some of your colleagues say . Though I hasten to add that lately they are being a little to free and easy with looking for invites to the show's parties - and their half full wine glass ratings tend to tip toward whether or not the star of the show posed with them or met up with them at the Pub after the show. Still, they have successfully created their own forum and their own following. Will Libby Purves do the same? Perhaps the solution lies in the Guardian giving Mr Billington 400 words in the paper but 1200 on line? In other words, you lot get to write two versions of your reviews , one that is an over view and one that has more depth. That way professional critics would have the opportunity to prove to us theatregoers how much more your opinion matters than just the fans who get no financial reward for writing their thoughts on a particular production but an emotional one knowing that their voice has been heard by those that are interested in listening.
Actually the public can make valuable points, too: the offending Cassocks has also added a user review to the current review (http://www.whatsonstage.com/reviews/theatre/london/E8831265458537/Lucia+di+Lammermoor.html) of Lucia di Lammermoor on Whatsonstage.com to state, "This is predominantly a horribly acted and unintentionally hilarious production. There was so much grasping at walls, wardrobes, banisters and throwing of chairs (in fact every opera acting cliche you can think of) that i was in stitches half the time. Big fat scottish man bursting through a window and covering himself with a tablecloth was so like 'acorn antiques' that i weed myself a bit."
The reason I want to hear a critic's review rather than an audience review is quite simple: there is more depth (even in the 400 words or less that they get), an actual critique and less emotional input.
Getting rid of critics in my opinion is a REALLY bad idea. Okay, some are just tosh and some have gone a bit dolally, but if you choose the right publication you get a well informed and insightful review of the production.
I think that internet reviews posted by "audience members" for the most part are lacking in any real critique, often streams of emotional drivel that can come from anywhere - audience members might have a bad view, an uncomfortable seat, annoying fellow audience member/s, a few too many drinks beforehand and the list goes on and on. At least the critic is in a better position to review the show on its own merits and not have to contend with some of the idiots I've had to endure whilst watching a show.
I also agree that the point of audience voting on web sites and being displayed on ads is just ridiculous.
While reviews made by professionally commissioned reviewers and visitors to a website may be very different things, I would ask commenters to this website to bear something in mind.
As publishers, we are responsible for content on our website regardless of whether it's come from a theatre reviewer or a member of the public. As such, we would really appreciate it if you could refrain from ascribing motive or making any other statement which could possibly be construed in a defamatory manner as you comment on The Stage website.
Breach of this request may result in your comment being edited or removed without notice.