1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 12, 2017 22:56:52 GMT
I have a problem with the idea of five star rating systems. It doesn't allow for a 0 and if you consider 5 has to be perfection (I don't because perfection in theatre is subjective although perfection is an objective concept) and 3 seems lukewarm when you enjoy something a fair bit. But if you give it 4 what do you reserve for superlative productions?
|
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 12, 2017 22:57:54 GMT
What is it that makes you believe they are not being as measured as usual Because it didn't strike me as being a five star play, and because reviews from those outside the London theatre critic circle have chimed more with my feelings about it (ditto, those of the audience members sitting next to me with whom I discussed it afterwards). You can love something but still be aware of the flaws: five stars is for perfection, and it wasn't. It wasn't in your opinion. It was a five star play for those who gave it five stars, that's self evident. Just because those five star reviews don't chime with your opinion on the play, or the opinion of others (sat near you / other papers etc) does not mean the five star reviews are somehow less measured than usual. It proves the point because you are saying that because you thought it wasn't a five star play, you think reviews that give it five stars are either buying into the hype or being less measured than usual. They're not. They just disagree with you. And to suggest they are somewhat cheapens the discussion in my opinion. For What it's worth, I would have given it 4 stars, very close to 5, but I agree it wasn't quite perfection. Nearly, but not quite. I'm not defending five star reviews because they reflect my opinion, I'm defending them because they are the reviewer's opinion and I think it's wrong to suggest that because they don't match yours, there is some reason to that other than they disagree with you. If that makes any sense. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 12, 2017 23:21:45 GMT
Not really. I felt it was a collective London critic 'Diana Moment' or Harry Potter Midnight Shop Opening, partly due to the massive expectations (yes, I bought my ticket before they sold out on that first day, too) and partly due to the names involved. Maybe their hearts all melted at the cute sweary kids, Teenage Kicks and the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets, I don't know. I can't recall another time when a play has got 5 star reviews across the board in the mainstream press. Were you really not surprised by that too? Every single critic? Feels a bit Fortean Times. |
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jul 13, 2017 0:39:00 GMT
Not really. I felt it was a collective London critic 'Diana Moment' or Harry Potter Midnight Shop Opening, partly due to the massive expectations (yes, I bought my ticket before they sold out on that first day, too) and partly due to the names involved. Maybe their hearts all melted at the cute sweary kids, Teenage Kicks and the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets, I don't know. I can't recall another time when a play has got 5 star reviews across the board in the mainstream press. Were you really not surprised by that too? Every single critic? Feels a bit Fortean Times. Sonia Friedman is a very powerful woman in the West End and I can't help but feel she had an influence in the outcome of the star ratings for this. They had pre planned the transfer to the West End, and have subsequently mooted Broadway next year. In order to get those tickets sold for the West End run 5* were required from a lot of papers. And look what it got... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 1:35:35 GMT
Not really. I felt it was a collective London critic 'Diana Moment' or Harry Potter Midnight Shop Opening, partly due to the massive expectations (yes, I bought my ticket before they sold out on that first day, too) and partly due to the names involved. Maybe their hearts all melted at the cute sweary kids, Teenage Kicks and the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets, I don't know. I can't recall another time when a play has got 5 star reviews across the board in the mainstream press. Were you really not surprised by that too? Every single critic? Feels a bit Fortean Times. Sonia Friedman is a very powerful woman in the West End and I can't help but feel she had an influence in the outcome of the star ratings for this. They had pre planned the transfer to the West End, and have subsequently mooted Broadway next year. In order to get those tickets sold for the West End run 5* were required from a lot of papers. And look what it got... Or it could be that the media doesn't really work like that and The Ferryman is a strong, well-written, old-fashioned play that resonated with the critics and mainstream audiences. We all respond differently to productions. There are lots of things I've seen that I feel have been treated very harshly by reviews, and many that seem to have benefitted from overly generous notices. It's just the way it goes sometimes. Five stars across the board is rare, but it isn't a shock to me that The Ferryman got them - just like it wasn't when Harry Potter and The Cursed Child was lavished with praise; sure they are hyped events, happenings, but they also delivered on their potential. Critics might have reported extra kindly on The Ferryman on account of any of its various components parts (Royal Court, Mendes, Butterworth, Friedman, large cast, subject matter, etc) - who knows? Maybe there was a sense of anticipation in the theatre on press night that swelled the communal theatrical spirit of generosity. But the idea that there is some sort of high-functioning theatrical cabal which allows Sonia Friedman to effectively pre-book a raft of 5 star reviews is pretty silly. Sonia Friedman is indeed a very powerful person in West End theatre, but there are many people with influence all over the West End and in the subsidised sector - they can't all safely negotiate five stars willy-nilly just because they have a rather large amount of tickets to sell. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 13, 2017 4:44:11 GMT
All reviews, all ratings, are subjective. There's no such thing as as an objectively 5-star play. There are always going to be times when we disagree with others' subjective response to a play.
|
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Jul 13, 2017 7:05:08 GMT
Sonia Friedman is a very powerful woman in the West End and I can't help but feel she had an influence in the outcome of the star ratings for this. They had pre planned the transfer to the West End, and have subsequently mooted Broadway next year. In order to get those tickets sold for the West End run 5* were required from a lot of papers. And look what it got... As already stated, the transfer was not pre-planned. They wanted to open directly into the West End, but Jez Butterworth requested the Royal Court run. To try and find some conspiracy in the star ratings for the reviews is a little silly. |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 7:17:40 GMT
Not really. I felt it was a collective London critic 'Diana Moment' or Harry Potter Midnight Shop Opening, partly due to the massive expectations (yes, I bought my ticket before they sold out on that first day, too) and partly due to the names involved. Maybe their hearts all melted at the cute sweary kids, Teenage Kicks and the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets, I don't know. I can't recall another time when a play has got 5 star reviews across the board in the mainstream press. Were you really not surprised by that too? Every single critic? Feels a bit Fortean Times. You are spending a lot of time coming up with reasons why they were five star reviews purely because they don't match your opinion. |
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Jul 13, 2017 7:28:26 GMT
I I can't recall another time when a play has got 5 star reviews across the board in the mainstream press That would be Jerusalem, also by Jez Butterworth, when it opened at the Royal Court. Mojo, also by Jez Butterworth received strong reviews in its original run and its 2013 revival. A new play by Jez Butterworth is a big deal, and when it's one as good as The Ferryman, an across the board delivery of 5 star reviews is not surprising. It all comes back, again, to YOUR expectations. I didn't have any, was blown away. You had insanely high ones, the play didn't meet them. |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 7:44:20 GMT
Often those who fail to understand that other people have different opinions to their own are, ironically, very defensive of their right to hold their own opinion.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 13, 2017 9:50:40 GMT
That would be Jerusalem, also by Jez Butterworth And those of you who saw it think this isn't as good, yet has been star rated as though it were. If Jerusalem comes out again, will they have to invent a 6 star rating? I think the 5 star consensus from the mainstream press is...odd. Like a shower of fish. I saw another play this week where I think the reputations of those involved coloured the glowing reviews, so I do think this is a 'thing'. |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 9:59:50 GMT
So, to recap.
It only got five stars because of either:
The writer/ the director/ the cast/ the producer/ some sort of tinfoil hat conspiracy to ensure a transfer/ a less measured than usual approach/ high expectations/ cute sweary kids/ Teenage Kicks/ the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets.
And not just simply because the reviewers felt it was worthy of five-stars?! I just honestly will never understand why someone would have the need to conclude that a different opinion to their own has to be somehow flawed or swayed by something other than the opinion itself.
Q - Why do you think the reviews were less measured than usual?
A - Because it didn't strike me as a five star play.
Bizarre to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 10:02:01 GMT
Mikey B gave Jerusalem 4 stars when it first appeared at the Royal Court (irritatingly not all the reviews from 2009 have stars for easy comparison purposes, but Mikey's a big enough critical name to make the point I suppose). I'm in the "across the board 5 star reviews just seems weird" camp myself, as I just don't quite see that The Ferryman is as good as Jerusalem, and yet Mikey B with his 5 star review suggests that actually it's 20% better. It's great, and obviously everyone's opinions are different and that's fine, but just as I don't quite understand how people can't enjoy cheese while I'm stuffing my face with a delicious brie, I just don't quite understand how people might think The Ferryman is better than Jerusalem. But then I suppose it's still comparatively early days, let's check in eight years from now and see if our opinions have held up.  |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 13, 2017 10:07:59 GMT
That would be Jerusalem, also by Jez Butterworth And those of you who saw it think this isn't as good, yet has been star rated as though it were. If Jerusalem comes out again, will they have to invent a 6 star rating? I think the 5 star consensus from the mainstream press is...odd. Like a shower of fish. I saw another play this week where I think the reputations of those involved coloured the glowing reviews, so I do think this is a 'thing'. I wonder if you're not simply over-thinking this crowblack ? Of course, the critics will partly be coloured by things outside of the actual production; they might be influenced by the opinion of their friends & colleagues, by the hype, by how they were feeling that day, by the play they saw the day before, and so on. They will also be influenced (subconsciously and hopefully minimally) by things somewhat 'underhand', like the expectations of their bosses, or by their personal feelings about the creators. However, it's not as though any of us really have an 'objective' view on how good a piece of art is anyway. Your opinion of it will partly be coloured by the expectations that you had going in, or by the fact that, say, you like or dislike Paddy Considine or Jez Butterworth. (indeed, your view of The Ferryman is partly being affected by the discussions you're having here) Further, I think you're mistaken in thinking that 5* somehow represents 'a perfect play' just as 1* doesn't mean that the play is completely without any merits whatsoever. Being pedantic, in an 'out of five' system, five stars just means "above 80%". Given the number of plays released each year it's completely understandable that a bunch will get five stars (hopefully a similar proportion to the number that get 1*) and, occasionally those might align (just as the more or less uniform 1* seem to have been given out for things like Common). At the end of the day, it's completely human to rationalise our tastes and wonder why others might not see things our way, but the reviews are just a bunch of people giving their opinions. Placing too much emphasis on the ratings system is silly given the inherently subjective nature of art. |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 10:16:26 GMT
And those of you who saw it think this isn't as good, yet has been star rated as though it were. If Jerusalem comes out again, will they have to invent a 6 star rating? I think the 5 star consensus from the mainstream press is...odd. Like a shower of fish. I saw another play this week where I think the reputations of those involved coloured the glowing reviews, so I do think this is a 'thing'. I wonder if you're not simply over-thinking this crowblack ? Of course, the critics will partly be coloured by things outside of the actual production; they might be influenced by the opinion of their friends & colleagues, by the hype, by how they were feeling that day, by the play they saw the day before, and so on. They will also be influenced (subconsciously and hopefully minimally) by things somewhat 'underhand', like the expectations of their bosses, or by their personal feelings about the creators. However, it's not as though any of us really have an 'objective' view on how good a piece of art is anyway. Your opinion of it will partly be coloured by the expectations that you had going in, or by the fact that, say, you like or dislike Paddy Considine or Jez Butterworth. Further, I think you're mistaken in thinking that 5* somehow represents 'a perfect play' just as 1* doesn't mean that the play is completely without any merits whatsoever. Being pedantic, in an 'out of five' system, five stars just means "above 80%". Given the number of plays released each year it's completely understandable that a bunch will get five stars (hopefully a similar proportion to the number that get 1*) and, occasionally those might align (just as the more or less uniform 1* seem to have been given out for things like Common). At the end of the day, it's completely human to rationalise our tastes and wonder why others might not see things our way, but the reviews are just a bunch of people giving their opinions. Placing too much emphasis on the ratings system is silly in the inherently subjective nature of art. But so is an attempt to discredit a review, which is also purely subjective. You have to understand that if you don't like something, that is your opinion, if others like it, that is their opinion. Both are just as valid. I find it bizarre how desperate people seem to be to give excuses or reasons as to why someone might be wrong in their opinion. Because no one has laid into those who disliked it... I've said before, I have similar feelings with People, Places & Things. The general view of that doesn't match my feelings, but I see no merit in deciding that all the rave reviews for that must be wrong. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 13, 2017 10:49:12 GMT
Well, it's been an interesting debate. To me, it comes across as the biz feeling it needed a post-Brexit fillip, a hit with its eyes on Broadway and a chance to say hello world, we're still here. An American critic said he felt as though "a brand was being built" and I think he's right.
I just hope it doesn't tie Paddy Considine up for too long because he's a great actor and I didn't feel his talents were being used to the full in this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 11:04:58 GMT
Well. Really. Reviews and star ratings are all a bunch of hogwash that no-one should really take that seriously anyway. I can't say I've ever read a review and thought to myself, "oh goodness, I wonder how many stars they gave it?". So the critics all loved 'The Ferryman' and think its the best thing since sliced bread. In the words of that great philosopher Fraulein Schneider, "so what?". Of course, 'The Ferryman' isn't that great a play and doesn't really deserve 3 stars let alone 5 and the reason for that is frankly because I said so. And in the grand scheme of things, my opinion really is the only one that matters. And to Hell with Sonia Freidman with her freakish upper body strength and particularly brutal headlocks!
Having said that, I'd give 5 stars to any play where Tom Bateman takes his shirt off whether the production was any good or not. I have no shame.
'nuff said.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 13, 2017 11:52:57 GMT
In the words of that great philosopher Fraulein Schneider, "so what?". Because ratings can make or break a production. I've seen excellent small-scale, low budget productions by relative newcomers who haven't much in the way of a publicity machine apart from the newspaper reviews, and in those cases mainstream critics can be very parsimonious. It seems that when it comes to famous names with star power mainstream critics chuck that extremely judgemental, nit picking attitude out of the window and it's all hugs and kisses. As with so much else in life, it doesn't seem like a level playing field. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 13, 2017 15:15:21 GMT
I wonder if you're not simply over-thinking this crowblack ? Of course, the critics will partly be coloured by things outside of the actual production; they might be influenced by the opinion of their friends & colleagues, by the hype, by how they were feeling that day, by the play they saw the day before, and so on. They will also be influenced (subconsciously and hopefully minimally) by things somewhat 'underhand', like the expectations of their bosses, or by their personal feelings about the creators. However, it's not as though any of us really have an 'objective' view on how good a piece of art is anyway. Your opinion of it will partly be coloured by the expectations that you had going in, or by the fact that, say, you like or dislike Paddy Considine or Jez Butterworth. Further, I think you're mistaken in thinking that 5* somehow represents 'a perfect play' just as 1* doesn't mean that the play is completely without any merits whatsoever. Being pedantic, in an 'out of five' system, five stars just means "above 80%". Given the number of plays released each year it's completely understandable that a bunch will get five stars (hopefully a similar proportion to the number that get 1*) and, occasionally those might align (just as the more or less uniform 1* seem to have been given out for things like Common). At the end of the day, it's completely human to rationalise our tastes and wonder why others might not see things our way, but the reviews are just a bunch of people giving their opinions. Placing too much emphasis on the ratings system is silly in the inherently subjective nature of art. But so is an attempt to discredit a review, which is also purely subjective. You have to understand that if you don't like something, that is your opinion, if others like it, that is their opinion. Both are just as valid. I find it bizarre how desperate people seem to be to give excuses or reasons as to why someone might be wrong in their opinion. Because no one has laid into those who disliked it... I've said before, I have similar feelings with People, Places & Things. The general view of that doesn't match my feelings, but I see no merit in deciding that all the rave reviews for that must be wrong. I remember being baffled by the glowing responses to the Old Vic Lear, which I hated. But I know really that my response differed to the critics because I respond differently to Glenda Jackson than the critics who have had a long relationship with her as an actress do. It's not that they're wrong and I'm right, it's that our reactions come from our experiences and perspectives, and mine differ significantly from theirs. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 13, 2017 15:51:41 GMT
Don't forget that a proper reviewer should be able to be objective as far as possible But that's part of my point - with The Ferryman I didn't think they were. It was more like a fandom response. I think something a bit similar happened with Hangmen, which is good, but not as good as McDonagh's other plays. |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 13, 2017 16:35:40 GMT
You think, crowblack? I mean, I didn't like "Hangmen" at all, but my own rave reaction to "The Ferryman" was based on the idea that it made a very difficult period in recent history highly accessible. I didn't feel that it was over-praised by reviewers, if I'm honest, and am fascinated by the thread on here, getting the other perspectives. Be interested to hear the rationalisation others decide to place on your opinion. Are you sure Sonia F didn't force your hand to the keyboard? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 16:51:20 GMT
Is it possible that dissenting voices like crowblack (and others) have been approached by producers of rival shows to The Ferryman in the hope of blighting its veneer of success and critical acclaim?
Is it possible that crowblack is Sonia Friedman, and is just having some fun with us all by asking us to defend her own much-lauded mega-hit that is currently printing money in the West End?
Is it possible that I am in fact Sonia Friedman, just stoking the flames of discourse and watching the pretty colours dance?
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 13, 2017 17:58:50 GMT
Is it possible that I am in fact Sonia Friedman, just stoking the flames of discourse and watching the pretty colours dance? can't be Sonia Friedman, I'm Sonia Friedman! |
|
2,059 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jul 13, 2017 18:36:42 GMT
Interesting interview with Jez Butterworth in this weeks Time Out for those that might care, including rumours of an anniversary Jerusalem revival (I haven't seen it but would like to after seeing this)
|
|
374 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Jul 14, 2017 8:36:55 GMT
Well, it's been an interesting debate. To me, it comes across as the biz feeling it needed a post-Brexit fillip, a hit with its eyes on Broadway and a chance to say hello world, we're still here. An American critic said he felt as though "a brand was being built" and I think he's right. I just hope it doesn't tie Paddy Considine up for too long because he's a great actor and I didn't feel his talents were being used to the full in this. Whereas I came SO close to returning my tickets for it once they announced he would be leading the cast. I think he is one of the least charismatic people on the planet and find him deathly boring to watch. People lose their minds over what a great talent he is and gosh isn't he handsome as well and I JUST don't get it. I didn't return my tickets, obvs, and wasn't surprised in the least when Paddy was completely shown up by everyone else on the stage (except the baby). |
|
