Looking to the stars part 2

The story so far: Gareth K Vile, theatre editor of The List and the hardest working ego in criticism, has been bemoaning how star ratings are difficult. Rather than just do his job, he is trying to explain his rationale... we join him as he asks his cohorts, Robocritic and Mad Cyril to take over.

ROBOCRITIC: Self is not comfortable with this. Self sees numbers as absolute and Vile rejects such notion.

MAD CYRIL: Right, shut it. Vile. Two stars means a good kicking for the production. Time to getting chucking the dustbins through the windows.

GARETH: No. I hate two starring shows... but what it is... It means that I think the work has failed in its intention. That doesn't mean it is rubbish... if the bar is set high, then it could be a noble failure.

ROBOCRITIC: Other selves only observe rating. Not content.

GARETH: I understand why an artist would be upset at two stars. And I have done a Mad Cyril on a few shows... I regret that...

MAD CYRIL: Never regret it, mate. The crowd loves to watch a good beating.

GARETH: Well, I don't want to be giving them. I have to account for my life to God.

ROBOCRITIC: Self rejects notion of God or judgement.

GARETH: Look, I have two starred one show that I think is morally righteous, but falls short of theatrical effectiveness. And another that - I gave three stars to a show that is a bit racist...

ROBOCRITIC: Either racist or not. Zero sum game.

GARETH: And sometimes I even enjoy the two stars better than the three... good bits, or a winning character...

MAD CYRIL: Comes down to who you think you are addressing. If you are talking to the acts, then a two star is saying - keep at it, but you're not ready for prime time... if it's the audience, then you are giving them a fair warning that they might not get their money's worth.

ROBOCRITIC: Difference between two and three stars can lie in subjectivity of self. Humans are variable. Taste. Such things. 

MAD CYRIL: Yeah, but if an act gets upset at three stars, then they are being weak. Grow up, kids.

GARETH: But... what about the one star show...

Star Ratings Time!

Yes, yes, we all hate star ratings. The critics don't like them because it reduces our wonderful prose to a series of marks on a page. Artists don't like them because two stars. Punters don't know what they mean thanks to that newspaper that gives out seven stars, ruining the whole system.

Yes, yes, but they are a given. We have to do them. Shut up Vile, tell us what they mean to you.

Five Stars

I gave Puddles five. I would recommend his show to anyone. That is rare (my previous top scorers have always had a bit of an edge. Red Bastard was a five, but comes with a trigger warning). But I usually think a five star does a few things...

Has a point.
Entertains.
Is structurally coherent.
Excellently performed.
Brings something that I haven't seen or considered before.

That last one is the five star special. In the case of Puddles, it was the exposure of rock'n'roll's self-indulgent self-pity (which he takes and builds into a moving celebration of life and love. And Kevin Costner).

Four Stars

Perm any four of five from the list above. Lucy Ribchester does a good job for Clout. She's not even in my section, but I like her writing. She argues the case for a four star. 

Three Stars

This is the tough one during the Fringe. Usually it means: this is good, if you have an interest in the subject and/or company. It is usually me hedging my bets... not wanting to risk praising a show too much, but knowing some people would think it is a four star. Plus, a three star annoys the hell out of performers. 

Really, the three star is why we all hate star ratings. It reads as a shrug, even if it is positive. 

Take my review of Pole. It is a cool appraisal, rather like the show, but without any enthusiastic adjectives - or negatives. It's actually an oddly dispassionate review... but I think it is a morally good work, because it supports a charity to project trafficked women. 

Contrast my review with Sally Stott's. She argues - successfully - that it is a four star show. 

Three, four and two stars are all closely related... it is the place where subjectivity comes in...

On that note, I think I'll post. Come back soon for part two...

More on stars!

'Stars' - as you say - have become shorthand in making a judgement. They are the 'text' version of a review. 

What do you make of the 7-star rating system? IMO, whilst it offers the reviewer greater granularity, until there is commonality across 'star ratings' the significance is lost on both audience and performer. 

Thank you for asking. In general, I regard the star rating system as an expression of the patriarchal obsession with order, reducing the quality of a work into a mathematically ordained hierarchy. It is a useful tool for the writer, to make a commitment to placing the value of a work for them, but does not really help potential audiences. Every three star show I have seen is worth seeing, but three stars is seen as not good enough in the Fringe...

If the five star system is the equivalent of a boring white male in his thirties dishing out opinions, the seven star system is like the same guy growing dreadlocks: ostentatious, shallow and a sad cry for attention. It destroys what is of worth in the star rating system by debasing the value of a five star show...

It's interesting to see that already, companies are beaming on social media about their 4/5* reviews but I suspect from their euphoric rhetoric many don't realise these are on a 7-star scale. 

Don't realise? That is rather generous. I think they are hoping their audiences don't know, more like. Frankly, I wish they'd quote my comments -- those companies that do get my respect. I spent a lot of time doing that sentence with all alliteration, so please use it. 

Moreover, if they're trying to sell the show for a life after the Fringe, they'll be promulgating their 4/5* review to a venue/audience totally unaware that it's come from a 7-star system thus duping - both unintentionally and intentionally - the future recipients. I think the introduction of a 7-star system was a bold and welcome move, but does anyone bother about the consequences?

Thanks again, Patrina Finch, for the questions! I am going to use a rating system based on the Fibonacci Sequence next year... two one stars and a scale that goes to infinity. 

While I am rating, Broadway Baby are giving too many five stars again. I try to defend them, say they are necessary, then they pull the same stupid trick. I would like to remind BB that I offer classes in critical writing, and you might want to come along to a few. 

A Quick Note on Star Ratings...

This is the time of year when people actually read critics.

I say read... they look at the star rating and make a judgement. Or, if they are performers, they cut out the stars and put them on their posters.

I haven't seen a one star show in a while, so I don't think I need to talk about that. And five star shows are amazing, so...

It's the two to four star ratings that are worth some thought. I am going to give you a quick guide to how my star rating system works.

Ironically, I don't do stars on the blog. But I do on The List.

Two Stars
Audience Note: This show is not irremediable, but it could do with some fixing up if it is going to have any further life. There is usually a weakness in one of the key areas of performance (direction, script, the acting overall) that make the experience dull.
Performer Note: A good writer, like Mad Cyril, will make it clear where the problem is - but critics don't suggest solutions. If I give you a two star review, then I can recommend a dramaturg, or might even do a 'dramaturg writes' column for you. But my reviews will not offer the answer... that has to come from a dialogue with the company.

Three Stars
Audience Note: If the subject or genre or anything else interests you, this is worth a punt. It probably
won't cover any surprising ground, might lack dramatic tension, but the acting is strong, the director thought about the theatrical impact, and the script/devising process stands up.

Performer Note: I know you won't be putting this on the poster, but have a look at the review underneath. There will be words that praise aspects of the performance. Usually, a dramaturg could help out, get the show up a level.

Four Stars
Everyone likes these. But remember - these are more common in the Fringe than gay men in Craig Hill's audience. If you don't back it up with a quote, no-one cares.

Next Up: A Quick Note on Liveness. Or something about works in progress.

How Many Bastards?

For many years, The VileArts has pondered star ratings. There was one year at the Fringe where a big Facebook group kicked off, with many artists complaining about the proliferation of stars all over posters. These artists couldn't actually bring themselves to stop putting stars on their posters.

So the next year, one newspaper started awarding marks out of seven stars (completely fucking the system that made five stars 'the best thing in the world ever') while I suggested a rating system based on the Fibonacci sequence. Although this later was highly practical, since it went into infinity AND  had two one star positions, I was ignored.

However, a genius came up with a solution: step forth Eve Nicol and your cat picture reviews. Funny, succinct AND SUCCESSFUL, it ought to have destroyed the 250 word review (the first sentence being the only one anyone reads) and the whole edifice of ratings.

It didn't, so I am stealing the concept. Pending his permission, I am going to use a picture of Red Bastard to rate shows this year.

There is a logic for this: I regard Red Bastard as providing a gold standard for performance. I am not saying his show is perfect (although deconstructing it to find the imperfections would challenge me to assess my own identity, since I am so bound up with adoring his work), but in terms of doing the things that I want theatre to do (make me laugh, challenge my intellect, effect real change and show me a willy), it scores highly. Plus, his photos work better than mere adjectives as semiotic signifiers of qualitative meaning.

Of course, it won't mean that Red Bastard supports my ratings. But to show you how it works, here are my Red Bastard reviews for the past few shows that I have seen.

NDT2 @ EFT

(Contemporary choreography from Europe, including tunes from Phil Glass).

A Small Prometheus @ Tramway

(Contemporary choreography from Australia, including tunes from Robin Fox).

 The People Show @ CCA

(Devised performance from the UK, including tunes on a flute).