Sean Burnett Dugdale-Martin
I want to begin incorporating opt-in star ratings to our reviews. A rating out of five stars is an internationally recognised mark of success and prestige but our productions that look to tour internationally market themselves with quotes and awards… not stars. The fear from local productions is that this comes across more as a deliberate omission rather than a cultural absence. It gives the impression that the show has bad ratings and wants to hide its stars when in reality no one in our country seems to be giving them out.
The kaupapa of stars is about as damaging as the kaupapa of awarding the best theatre show. The issue is in quantifying the qualitative. I am drawn to this idea though and it requires a sturdy kaupapa in order for me to rest easy on its incorporation.
The kaupapa of stars is about as damaging as the kaupapa of awarding the best theatre show. The issue is in quantifying the qualitative. I am drawn to this idea though and it requires a sturdy kaupapa in order for me to rest easy on its incorporation.
The Stars (and half stars are a thing that we also do)
⭐ - Horrible and offensive. There is nothing good about this show, it's actively dangerous for some audiences.
⭐⭐ - Still very very bad, almost nothing going for it.
⭐⭐⭐ - Middle of the road. There are some bad parts, there are some good parts. This is the average and I expect shows that our reviewers don’t like to be landing around this mark.
⭐⭐⭐⭐ - A pretty good show! Still some stuff needs work but all-in-all a great time!
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - Great to Excellent theatre. You shouldn’t hold out a 5-star review for the best show you’ve ever seen because there is a lot of excellent theatre around!
The Whakaaro
Firstly, I think that it should be opt-in. If shows are looking at touring internationally then this would be something they go for, and shows that don’t want them won’t opt-in.
Secondly, the rankings. The elaboration of each level, particularly 3 stars being baseline instead of 1 star being baseline, helps ease the reviewers and reviewees into the positivity of the system. It means that pretty much all shows will be getting 3s and 4s with the exception getting 5 stars. I have only been reviewing for a few years now but I’ve never seen or heard of a production worth 2 stars (maybe that one online US piece that Austin reviewed and it was anti-sex worker and maybe homophobic?). Even the worst stuff I’ve seen, because of Art Murmurs kaupapa of credit where credit is due, has been through a sympathetic/empathetic lens which shifts my review into a positive focus and a higher star.
Is this design kind of like rigging the system so no one loses? I reckon it is and that doesn’t bother me. I want our community to do well and by skewing it like this it means the reviewers worry less about being hated and shows will always walk away with a decent number of stars. The incorporation of arbitrary stars is meant to supplement those in our industry with personal goals of furthering New Zealand talent onto a world stage. A worthy cause in my opinion, something I’d rig the ballot for.
How this is going to work
When you apply for a review from Art Murmurs, either via the google form or direct email, you’ll receive a confirmation response from Art Murmurs. In that email will be the question: “Would you like a star rating?” and if the show does not explicitly say they would like one then they won’t receive one. This is an opt-in system, rather than an opt-out system.
In each review the star ratings are going to be at the bottom. The kaupapa here is that we still want to prioritise the written expression our reviewer has constructed in response to the show over the star score. The conversation is the important part. The reciprocity between artwork and reviewer takes precedence over an arbitrary score which is why we won’t be putting up the star rating next to the title of the review or anything like that.
Because of Art Murmur's peer-reviewing culture, if one of our reviewers goes to a show they don’t like and are tempted to give it a lower star score they will be questioned about it. Even though it does slow down our review release turn-around (ask anyone who has had an AM review) I reckon it could come in handy for cases when a reviewer writes a negative-leaning review with low stars because then there is an opportunity to challenge them and potentially end up with a higher score (or lower lol)
All in all I think this is an interesting new development from Art Murmurs and the New Zealand review-scene as a whole. Selfishly, as the person who has just taken over all the Art Murmurs admin, I’m keen to put my mark on the company. I’m excited to provide a point of difference that our community could use to promote themselves more effectively. Perhaps this is us doing our bit in working towards a sustainable performing arts ecosystem by providing local talent with internationally recognised marks of success.
I’m sure you’ll all let me know what you think: [email protected]
Ka pai, cheers,
Sean!
⭐ - Horrible and offensive. There is nothing good about this show, it's actively dangerous for some audiences.
⭐⭐ - Still very very bad, almost nothing going for it.
⭐⭐⭐ - Middle of the road. There are some bad parts, there are some good parts. This is the average and I expect shows that our reviewers don’t like to be landing around this mark.
⭐⭐⭐⭐ - A pretty good show! Still some stuff needs work but all-in-all a great time!
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - Great to Excellent theatre. You shouldn’t hold out a 5-star review for the best show you’ve ever seen because there is a lot of excellent theatre around!
The Whakaaro
Firstly, I think that it should be opt-in. If shows are looking at touring internationally then this would be something they go for, and shows that don’t want them won’t opt-in.
Secondly, the rankings. The elaboration of each level, particularly 3 stars being baseline instead of 1 star being baseline, helps ease the reviewers and reviewees into the positivity of the system. It means that pretty much all shows will be getting 3s and 4s with the exception getting 5 stars. I have only been reviewing for a few years now but I’ve never seen or heard of a production worth 2 stars (maybe that one online US piece that Austin reviewed and it was anti-sex worker and maybe homophobic?). Even the worst stuff I’ve seen, because of Art Murmurs kaupapa of credit where credit is due, has been through a sympathetic/empathetic lens which shifts my review into a positive focus and a higher star.
Is this design kind of like rigging the system so no one loses? I reckon it is and that doesn’t bother me. I want our community to do well and by skewing it like this it means the reviewers worry less about being hated and shows will always walk away with a decent number of stars. The incorporation of arbitrary stars is meant to supplement those in our industry with personal goals of furthering New Zealand talent onto a world stage. A worthy cause in my opinion, something I’d rig the ballot for.
How this is going to work
When you apply for a review from Art Murmurs, either via the google form or direct email, you’ll receive a confirmation response from Art Murmurs. In that email will be the question: “Would you like a star rating?” and if the show does not explicitly say they would like one then they won’t receive one. This is an opt-in system, rather than an opt-out system.
In each review the star ratings are going to be at the bottom. The kaupapa here is that we still want to prioritise the written expression our reviewer has constructed in response to the show over the star score. The conversation is the important part. The reciprocity between artwork and reviewer takes precedence over an arbitrary score which is why we won’t be putting up the star rating next to the title of the review or anything like that.
Because of Art Murmur's peer-reviewing culture, if one of our reviewers goes to a show they don’t like and are tempted to give it a lower star score they will be questioned about it. Even though it does slow down our review release turn-around (ask anyone who has had an AM review) I reckon it could come in handy for cases when a reviewer writes a negative-leaning review with low stars because then there is an opportunity to challenge them and potentially end up with a higher score (or lower lol)
All in all I think this is an interesting new development from Art Murmurs and the New Zealand review-scene as a whole. Selfishly, as the person who has just taken over all the Art Murmurs admin, I’m keen to put my mark on the company. I’m excited to provide a point of difference that our community could use to promote themselves more effectively. Perhaps this is us doing our bit in working towards a sustainable performing arts ecosystem by providing local talent with internationally recognised marks of success.
I’m sure you’ll all let me know what you think: [email protected]
Ka pai, cheers,
Sean!