You’d be hard-pressed to find many one-star theatre reviews in Australia.
Some would argue this is no bad thing; the unwritten rule of kindness is to show support to a small, embattled industry. Theatre makers pour everything they’ve got into their art over years, just for a critic to potentially savage it within hours of seeing it.
Others might even argue against star ratings altogether; there’s a school of thought that considers them reductive, subjective, biased, even lazy.
Like it or not, star ratings are part of critical culture. The top-rated five-star rave review (which theatre makers never complain about) is also relatively uncommon — but nowhere near as scarce as the one-star pan. This diplomatic “asterisk inflation” may save actors and theatre makers from bruised egos, but do they serve the main audience of the theatre reviewer: the readers? Furthermore, do they incentivise theatre makers to constantly strive to improve their craft?
Not according to Britain’s longest-serving theatre critic. Michael Billington OBE, the UK Guardian’s chief drama critic for 48 years, recently described star ratings as “an abomination”.
Speaking to The Fence magazine, Billington said that when they first came in, critics told editors they didn’t like them, but editors insisted the public loved them.
“That is the moment criticism changed and it became part of the commercial market,” he said. “They short-circuit the readers’ response, and they don’t bother to fully engage with the review itself.”
“He crossed a line”
So sensitive is Australian arts discourse, even a two-star review can lead all hell to break loose.
Cameron Woodhead’s recent two-star review of Macbeth in The Age provoked Bell Shakespeare to take the unusual step of responding with a statement objecting to his “cruel” and “unfair” assessment. They called out his “belittling and contemptuous” opinion of the lead actor’s performance, which they said “crossed a line” because he deserves a “safe workplace”.
Woodhead rarely awards only one star, although he did recently for Cruel Intentions: the ‘90s Musical (which left him feeling “angry and disgusted”.)
A “swingeing critical takedown” can even be helpful, Woodhead told Crikey. “It can generate free publicity and intense public discussion, especially when … critics are extremely divided.”
He also says that readers are “smart enough to realise that reviewers are subjective … a negative evaluation can encourage them to see the show for themselves”.
Barely any single stars
We contacted many of Australia’s major theatre critics. Most said they had not given a one-star review at any point in their careers.
John Shand almost got there. He gave a one-and-a-half-star review to Good. Cook. Friendly. Clean at Griffin Theatre in 2018 and to The Life Of Us at Hayes Theatre in 2020.
Walkley Award-winning freelance arts critic Steve Dow can’t recall giving any show fewer than three stars. Long-time reviewer Jason Blake has never given fewer than two stars, and says: “I guess I was holding out for a Nazi play written and performed by Nazis or something.”
Critic Cassie Tongue has only ever handed out one one-star review, but it wasn’t for an Australian production (it was for Daughter, by Canadian actor-director Adam Lazarus at Sydney Festival 2019, published in Time Out).
Critic Tim Byrne explains why he doesn’t think extremely negative reviews have a place in Time Out.
“They have a kind of unwritten philosophy that prefers to tell people what they should see rather than what they shouldn’t,” he says. “They don’t ever editorialise or discourage reviewers from expressing criticism, but they do ‘encourage my kinder nature’, I guess.”
Reviews without star ratings
Some outlets escape the fear of rebuke by omitting star reviews altogether.
There are star ratings on album and movie reviews in The Australian, but not performing or visual arts. Similarly, City Hub reviews without stars.
Rita Bratovic, who has given star reviews in Time Out and The Sydney Sentinel, says: “I’m always very generous with theatre. I don’t think I ever gave lower than two stars (if that). I cut them a lot of slack. Films are a different matter, especially big-budget ones.”
Meanwhile, prolific theatre blogger Suzy Wrong of Suzy Goes See says that, while she does give negative reviews, she only started awarding stars very recently, and “only if they’re like four or better”.
London: home of the zero-star review
Compare this reticence to London’s theatre culture.
When theatre makers Mark Hollmann and Greg Kotis recently brought their show, Urinetown, to the Hayes, it enjoyed three and four-star reviews.
The praise would have been welcome, considering only six months before, the London production of their show Yeast Nation received one-star reviews in both The Guardian (“a swampy mess”) and The Times (“sinfully boring”). Michael Billington told The Fence there was a time when The Times discouraged critics from giving three-star reviews. “This may not be still true, but they were encouraged to go for extremes. Three stars was negative for the reader,” he said. “But so much art is three stars! It’s neither a masterpiece nor an unassailable disaster. It’s no disgrace to have a three-star play.”
There’s even evidence of the zero-star review in London. It was awarded by The Guardian critic Lyn Gardner to Menopause the Musical, “a long cold douche of the soul”. Audiences can decide for themselves when it arrives in Australia for a tour in September.
Another infamous zero-star review was awarded by Tim Walker in the UK’s Sunday Telegraph for the Spice Girls musical Viva Forever!, written by Jennifer Saunders, “a show so bad, it ought, if there were any justice, to be accorded a minus star rating”.
London, of course, has things major Australian cities don’t: distinct press nights (separate from opening nights), more commercial big-budget shows and a vastly bigger industry. Here we’re perhaps conscious of being mean-spirited by humiliating independent shows on small budgets.
Peter Eyers, host of the Stages podcast, says he has recently been astounded by the adulation heaped onto “productions that were poor in execution”. He has observed a “dumbing down” in the last two decades of audience expectations. “Perhaps they haven’t had the luxury of seeing theatre overseas,” he says.
According to Eyers, the post-COVID world is even less critical. “People are clawing their way back via baby steps; maybe reviewers feel a responsibility to nurture the industry rather than critique it.”
He’s optimistic things will change though. “In two or three years, we’ll hopefully get to where we once were with the honesty in reviews.”
Are theatre critics too kind, or do they have an obligation to support the local industry? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
