Gin Over Stars

I get frustrated with the way shows in the Fringe are rated.

Most people in the theatre world would agree that a full five stars should be reserved for performances that blow your mind. Performances with brilliant direction, acting, design, and technical direction to be a five-star show. Most, if not all, Fringe shows fall short of that.

It disqualifies shows that have a lower budget, or that end up in venues that have no storage/no light or sound infrastructure.

There is also the genuine issue of reviewer bias.

Because there are over 4,000 shows each year in the Fringe, media outlets and theatre groups hire in loads of people to do reviews so they can see as many shows as possible. Except there is no standard of training, sometimes there is no training at all. This leads to some reviewers whose reviews are based not on objective things but fully about their taste.

So this means that poor reviews are bound to happen.

And audiences will see perfectly good reviews (like a three-star which generally means a good but not fantastic play) and see them as bad.

Conversely, too many five stars, and it looks like you’ve bought reviews or bought in an outside show.

So stars just don’t fit a Fringe.

Hince - Gin.

A simple marker of whether a show is worth the ticket price.

This way, good/amazing shows get grouped together, and mediocre/bad plays find themselves in the same pile. It’s all about seeing as few flops as possible while going in with an open mind.

Gin over stars.