|
|
|
|
The Edinburgh Fringe
|
|
|
|
Fringe 2002Another Standard?It was Catherine, I think, who first raised the question as to whether or not we should apply different standards to reviews of Fringe shows to the standards we would normally apply. She was wondering if she had been unduly harsh on some shows. There is, it is true, a variety of shows on the Fringe, from amateur companies, youth theatres and schools, as well as professional companies of various degrees of experience, but they all have one thing in common: they charge more or less the same. Some, such as Jerry Springer - The Opera, charge considerably more than the average (although considerably less, I suspect, than would be charged anywhere else than at the Fringe). School companies are always clearly indicated, but many amateur, youth theatre and student groups give themselves a name which does not indicate their status. They aim, in fact, to appear to be professional companies, thinking (possibly correctly) that their amateur, YT or student status would put off a number of potential audience members. The reasons companies and individuals have for presenting their shows at Edinburgh are probably many and varied, but they all have one thing in common: they think they are good enough to give enjoyment or entertainment to, or to move, the audience. Should they, therefore, expect to be treated differently by the critics because of their status? I don't see why. If they come clean and say, "Look, we're a school group" or, "We're a youth theatre" in their publicity, then audiences (and critics) go along expecting that kind of work and will therefore make the necessary adjustments to their expectations and responses. If, however, they try to pass themselves off as a professional company, then the audience (and the critics) are entitled to apply the standards they would apply to any professional production. If they don't measure up, then they must just take the consequences. For any company, no matter what its status, the Edinburgh Fringe is a tough gig. They are competing against literally hundreds of other companies for a limited audience - the potential audience is large, but it is limited. There are more critics and reviewers per square mile than anywhere else, probably on this earth. If a critic gives a five star review to a show at, for example, the Traverse, the reader (who may also be a potential audience member) is entitled to expect that a show which receives a five star review from the same critic at, say, Augustine's or C o2, has the same production values. In his/her review, the critic may well say, "I have given this three stars, but in youth theatre terms it is actually a five star piece" but (s)he must ensure that the rating given enables the reader to make a choice between shows based upon the reviewer's judgement of its quality in as near to objective terms as it is possible to get in a notoriously subjective field. And as for the suggestion, which I have heard mooted, that critics should grant some special kind of indulgence to the Fringe, I would reject this entirely. My job, as I see it, is to recognise quality and to point out where a show or a performer falls short. This is, I hope, of benefit to both sides: to the punter who is looking for a show to enjoy, and to the actor, director or producer who can learn from what someone else perceives as their mistakes. No! No different standards, no special indulgence - just honest appraisal. |
|
|