Oh hi. Remember this place?

What's up, Rebels? I know things have been slow around here, but I'm chalking that up to summer. Like many of you, I've taken a bit of vacation in the last couple of months, while juggling friends in town and still taking in some of the reduced number of theatrical offerings in July and August (though things have stayed fairly busy at TOC). Haven't had much to say here, but the season's about to hit hard, as Rob Kozlowski noted earlier today. (Speaking of Mr. K, *ahem*.)

Couple of things today worth pointing out. My friends at The New Colony (standard disclosure: I do count several TNC members as friends, and as a rule I don't review their shows) respond on their blog to my Time Out New York counterpart David Cote's recent wishlist for NYC theater. Their rejoinder is a new blog series about goals for Chicago theater, the first of which is: "Make Chicago the home of NEW theater."

This city can be an epicenter of new art if we choose to make it that. The only way for that to happen is for our theater community to collectively end the habit of remounting and reproducing the same shows over and over again (sometimes within the same season!).

Storefront theaters: we make up the majority of that scene. So rather than letting the 10% at the top control the direction of Chicago theater – let’s take that responsibility and herald in a new era of World Premieres and New Works!

Emphasis theirs, but as I said when I retweeted the link earlier, "YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!"

Secondly, I found some interesting comments in regard to TOC's revamped star rating system on my Spring Awakening review. Suffice to say, this is far from the most emphatic feedback I've gotten about star ratings recently. I'm interested to hear what you guys think. Feel free to leave comments below, or email me if you'd prefer to keep your thoughts private.

Comments

[Andrew Patner]

Dear Kris,

The four star system -- with half-stars -- is one that people know, connect with, understand and one that allows for comparison and contrast across publications. The TO "six-star" ploy, nationally or internationally I can;'t recall, was just that, a ploy and was meaningless to readers. Five stars is little better. I note that Google, above, pulled up a "5 Star Daycare/Boarding" for "Upscale . . . Dog Boarding" based on your entry. I think that says enough -- 5, 6, 7 stars (luxury hotels use this one) are all marketing stretches. Perhaps 4 stars were too, once, but they were then incorporated into the general discussion over time.

My two cents!

Andrew P

[Evan Linder]

Here is an interesting post by Roger Ebert praising the rating system used by the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/you_give_out_too_many_stars.html

It's not exactly a "star rating"(though it is on a 1-5 scale), but I like the points he is making.

Stars are such an arbitrary way to measure a work of art that I think any defense of them just further validates their existence. If a publication feels that their audience needs to see a star rating to help them choose what to do for the weekend then so be it, but I don't agree that readers would find a four-star rating system any more meaningful than a five-star one. I think stars are just an easy way for a reader to not actually have to read the review.

As for a four-star rating system providing easy comparison for reviews, I think that websites like Meta-Critic, Rotten Tomatoes and Theater in Chicago's Review Round-Up are doing a splendid job already.

And then there are thankfully many publications who review theater who don't feel the need for a star rating at all. The NY Times and the Suntimes immediately spring to mind.

Kris- When Timeout discussed changing to a five-star system, was the option of no-stars-at-all ever brought up? Do you actually find stars helpful in describing your experience in a theater?