While proving you are fantastic at counting should surely always be close to a producer’s heart, I’m afraid it’s taken me rather longer than I hoped to get around to counting the star ratings of the Daily Telegraph reviewers Dominic Cavendish and Charles Spencer to add to those of the Guardian and Evening Standard.
However, here they are:
So, Charles Spencer is both the nicest and nastiest of the critics so far, with an impressive 6 one star reviews and 22 five stars (out of 191)!
So after revealing that Michael Billington is nicer* than Lyn Gardner, here are the results for the Evening Standard critics, Henry Hitchings and Fiona Mountford.
And the winner is… Henry Hitchings, with and impressive 54.67% of reviews rated at 4 or 5 stars, beating Fiona Mountford’s 46.51% by a solid margin. Interestingly, these were both higher than the Guardian critics’ scores of 43.75% (Billington) and 31.70% (Gardner).
So there we go. Daily Telegraph up next…
*where nicest equates to percentage of theatre reviews given 4 or 5 star ratings.**
** as counted by me, very unscientifically.
I recently had a long train journey up to Edinburgh and, having forgotten to bring the mountain of scripts I had to read, needed something to do. So I thought I’d have a go comparing the star ratings of different critics. Why? Well, what the critics think of a show is pretty important, especially when you might not have the marketing budget to survive an almost universal drubbing.
So, I looked through all the past reviews in approximately the last year and counted the star rating. My science teacher would be proud.
So here are the numbers for the Lyn Gardner and Michael Billington at the Guardian.
Interestingly in the 208 reviews I counted by Michael Billington he didn’t award a single 1 star review and only 7.21% of his reviews got 2 stars. Lyn Gardner on the other hand awarded 1 or 2 star reviews 18.3% of the time (in her 224 reviews). Perhaps that’s due to the higher proportion of Edinburgh reviews, which tended to be lower rated. Yet Billington still gave a 4 or 5 star review 43.75% of the time. So I’d be pushing for his review from the Guardian.
Whether this is actually helpful or not is not clear. I’m inclined to suspect that trying to woo a critic to come see your show because they are more or less likely to award a five star rating is probably futile. But, I guess you can’t have too much information. Use as you will!
Next up, the Evening Standard.
On Sunday comedy critic and Guardian writer Brian Logan shared some interesting thoughts about writing a bad review over on the Guardian website. I’ve previously talked about my reaction to dealing with a less than rosy review here but I’d never really considered what it’s like to be the one dealing out the reviews.
I also recently discovered this website which hilariously collates awful online reviews of classic novels and films. But are theatre audiences too literate for such comments? Alas not. Even a cursory search on Whatsonstage.com provides examples from the pleasingly pedantic which seems to review the review itself:
to the casually misogynistic (I think this is an attempt at a joke but I’m not sure I quite get it)
I’m currently working with the brilliant Creature of London on our marketing strategy for The Hairy Ape. Our goal is simple: sell tickets. But we’ve been careful not to overestimate our audience – we’re not going to please absolutely everyone. But that doesn’t mean we can’t try!
© Simon Annand
The reviews are in, and they’re all saying one thing: don’t miss Lucinda Coxon’s bitterly funny HERDING CATS.
“a bouncy comedy which accelerates without break into a dark and disturbing excavation of psychology”
★★★★★ Whatsonstage.com
“A compelling cackle”
★★★★ Critics’ Choice TimeOut
“Unforgettable”
★★★★ The Times
“Faultless performances”
★★★★ The Guardian
“Icily funny”
★★★★ Evening Standard
DON’T MISS this season’s darker critically-acclaimed hit.
BOOK NOW at the Hampstead Theatre:
http://www.hampsteadtheatre.com/page/3031/Herding+Cats/292#-Overview
Since last posting about a less than positive review we’ve got a rather fantastic notice from the New York Times.
It praise Rosie’s “captivating performance” and Jenny Turner’s “delightful” animation, but it stresses Jack’s “acute ear” and the way he captures “Britain in the throes of seething ethnic strife.” And I absolutely agree.
We’re also one of the NYT’s Critics’ Picks, which puts us rather alongside shows like Billy Elliot and The Book of Mormon!
If you’re in New York between now and Sunday, check out Bunny at 59E59 Theaters to see what they mean.
Of course, given the above list, Bunny might be the only one you’ll get tickets for…
Bunny is having a fantastic run in New York at 59E59 Theaters. And the reviews have generally been just as positive as we’d been receiving in London, praising Rosie Wyatt as “superb” and the one who “should make headlines,” while Jack Thorne’s script is “tight and insightful.” Yet we have also received less than positive comments: Bunny “hobbles along” (presumably a byline too easy to miss), and later the same reviewer “beg[s] for this Bunny to crawl down the rabbit hole.”
The reviewer didn’t like the show (although they still praise Rosie’s fantastic performance). And that’s obvious fine. Clearly there will always be people that don’t like, don’t want to see, or just don’t care about your show. And regrettably sometimes those people will be the reviewers. But how should a producer deal with this negative response?
Simply ignoring it is one answer. And perhaps this was a viable option before the internet, when a review would be published, seen and then forgotten, but with reviews now available for any potential audience member at any time during your run this is not so easy.
What about just taking the positive comments and spinning it into a thumbs up? It wouldn’t be too difficult to just lift quotes about Rosie and pretend that it was a stellar review:
“Rosie Wyatt is sensational as Katie”, OffBroadwayWorld.com
Of course, as soon as anyone clicked through to see what else that reviewer had to say they’d be confronted with a lament that “the material fails to pull the audience inward.” Not ideal.
So the only other option is to embrace the fact that there are lots of different opinions and that this show (as any show, one presumes) is not going to please everyone. I know that Bunny can go down incredibly well with audiences and critics alike. And obviously some people won’t enjoy it. I guess the producer’s job is to find those people who will and get them into the theatre.
After all, no one wants a miserable audience, even if they have paid for their tickets.
We had a fantastic first week of performances at the Soho Theatre, and this week we’re Critics’ Choice in TimeOut!
“Rosie Wyatt is excellent as Katie”
“Thorne writes with exceptional drive and insight”
“a brilliant minature play about Britain”
Read the full review here.
Make sure you pop along to the Soho Theatre in the next two weeks so you don’t miss it! Wednesday is sold out, but we do have tickets later on in the week.
I had a great debate today with the fantastic PR at the Soho Theatre about the press night for Bunny. I’d wanted to book it in for Thursday 13th October, but Amy pointed out the numerous clashes scheduled already (the Bush, Trafalgar Studios 2, Royal Court, Lyric Hammersmith, RSC and more all open shows that week) and persuaded me that it’d be better to invite reviewers to attend when they could. If they wanted to, of course.
As more and more shows keep opening (and so often open in the same four week cycles), the press diary maintained by the Society of London Theatre looks full however far in advance you try to plan, so it’s increasingly difficult to get all the reviewers in at the same time. But does this matter?
Well, yes and no. No, in that a good review is a good review. If you’re looking to the long term, no one is going to care whether the review came out in the first week or the last week of your run. Critical thumbs up is still a great way to strengthen your profile (be that as a director, writer, actor or producer). But yes, in that reviews can sell tickets. Perhaps. For small shows on the Fringe with limited runs reviews are a useful tool to publicise your show quickly to its audience. Even shows in the West End can often be hurt or helped by them. A high critical approval rating can translate into ticket sales, especially when a few extra seats makes all the difference. Luckily that was my own experience working on Blue Surge at the Finborough. There, with only 50 seats to sell, positive reviews definitely made a difference.
Of course, Bunny has already got fantastic reviews, both in Edinburgh and on its UK tour. But there are still reviewers who haven’t given their verdict, just like there are lots of people who haven’t seen the show yet.
It looks like we won’t be holding an official press night. But you can bet anything that I’ll be urging reviewers to come along as early as possible if they can.
