On the unanimity of arts critics

Peter Wilby – whose column 'First Thoughts' is the first thing Arts Update turns to in New Statesman – enjoyed the current revival of Guys and Dolls in London. 'I had no quarrel with the national newspaper critics' seemingly unanimous awarding of four stars,' he wrote. 'Why, though, was one of them not sufficiently generous to give it five stars and why was there no highbrow grouch to give it three?' (New Statesman, 15 January 2016). Wilby, a frequent stirrer, is struck by the seeming 'unanimity of arts critics' and wonders if 'they collude, as do other groups of specialist journalists of which I have knowledge or experience.'

Them's fighting words. Still, Arts Update demurs. We've seen plenty of hacks swapping pints and rollies at opening-night parties, but not stars. Most critics, in our experience, prefer not to swap impressions until they have written their reviews. As for the business of allotting stars (a necessary vice, which we indulge online), this does induce a certain queasiness among critics, who are subtler animals than Peter Wilby acknowledges.

Arts Update critics, it goes without saying, are free to bestar productions as they see fit – from nought to five. Our critics bestow the latter (Barney Zwartz's and Peter Rose's reviews of Spotlight and King Lear are two recent examples). Zero stars is rare. Even a dog of a play or a film has certain qualities: a single performance, a trick of lighting, a frock.