Add a Comment

Comment by Catrin Rogers on December 13, 2011 at 2:33

Thanks all!

Brent - I agree with what you say about star ratings, I guess there is an understanding that 5 stars is a way of saying you'll enjoy this more than a 4 star show.

Jen - you're totally right that the two things needn't be mutually exclusive. I hadn't considered what you suggested, which is that maybe pure comedy does change your view somehow. I'm going to ponder that one.

Rick - I think it is art if we're just chuckling. There was a wonderful documentary on BBCFour last night on Ken Dodd, and his methods. He doesn't just slip up on banana skins for hours, he crafts jokes, tailors them, re-examines what makes who laugh and in what part of the country - that's an art, isn't it? 

Comment by Jen Thornton on December 13, 2011 at 1:47

whether a theatre production that makes no attempt to explore the human condition, to change its audience's view of the world, to hold a mirror up to society or to dazzle us with inventive staging ever deserves the full five-star rating

I wouldn't say that comedy can't do these things. I have seen comedy that most definitely explores the human condition and changes the audience's view of the world, albeit using a different device to serious drama. I might argue that your view of the world was changed by seeing this production: it has left you laughing, and pondering meaning enough to write a blog post.

Having said that, there are many reasons for going to the theatre. It's great when critics like something and review it in a certain way but the enduring popularity of West End musicals and comedy on both stage and screen demonstrates that 'real' people (whoever they are) like to be entertained and like to laugh and there probably isn't anything wrong with that. 

As someone who communicates about art to people for a living, I find the concept of high and low, serious and lesser art very challenging. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the value of what might be termed 'high art' and extraordinary creativity; I just wonder if 'average Joe' who goes to the theatre once a year cares. He'd probably rather laugh for two hours than cry deep into his soul for two weeks afterwards. He'd also probably give it 5 stars based purely on the fact that he enjoyed his evening so, as Brent says, it should be about a recommendation of the piece rather than a view based on certain criteria that work for one type of audience member. 

Comment by Brent Morgan on December 12, 2011 at 11:47

This is a real bone of contention for me. I think the star system should be about enjoyment, the review it self can fill you in on the content and theme of the piece. Sometimes all we want to do is laugh we don't want to have our minds changed or world views challenged we just want to enjoy our selves. If a piece of theatre is enjoyable then it deserves to be credited for it. There is enough bad theatre out there or should I say theatre not to my taste out there and I don't think it is fair to throw enjoyable pieces of theatre in with them just because we feel it should of done something that in all likely hood it never intended to do. If you enjoyed a piece of work and would recommend that others go and see it then surely it deserves a high star rating regardless of it's subject matter and content.

Now this is not to take away from amazing piece of theatre that do challenge audiences and leaves them amazed by the whole production with out even a hint of a smile, they to should definitely be praised. I suppose overall I'm trying to say that maybe the star rating system should be used as how highly you would recommend a piece and the review it self can clue us in on the reasons behind this.

Surely this is the best way of avoiding theatre snobbery.