The Ferryman(Royal Court)

It wasn't in your opinion.
It was a five star play for those who gave it five stars, that's self evident.
Just because those five star reviews don't chime with your opinion on the play, or the opinion of others (sat near you / other papers etc) does not mean the five star reviews are somehow less measured than usual.
It proves the point because you are saying that because you thought it wasn't a five star play, you think reviews that give it five stars are either buying into the hype or being less measured than usual. They're not. They just disagree with you. And to suggest they are somewhat cheapens the discussion in my opinion.
For What it's worth, I would have given it 4 stars, very close to 5, but I agree it wasn't quite perfection. Nearly, but not quite.
I'm not defending five star reviews because they reflect my opinion, I'm defending them because they are the reviewer's opinion and I think it's wrong to suggest that because they don't match yours, there is some reason to that other than they disagree with you.
If that makes any sense.

Sonia Friedman is a very powerful woman in the West End and I can't help but feel she had an influence in the outcome of the star ratings for this.  They had pre planned the transfer to the West End, and have subsequently mooted Broadway next year.  In order to get those tickets sold for the West End run 5* were required from a lot of papers.  And look what it got...

All reviews, all ratings, are subjective. There's no such thing as as an objectively 5-star play. There are always going to be times when we disagree with others' subjective response to a play.

You are spending a lot of time coming up with reasons why they were five star reviews purely because they don't match your opinion.

Often those who fail to understand that other people have different opinions to their own are, ironically, very defensive of their right to hold their own opinion.

So, to recap.
It only got five stars because of either:
The writer/ the director/ the cast/ the producer/ some sort of tinfoil hat conspiracy to ensure a transfer/ a less measured than usual approach/ high expectations/ cute sweary kids/ Teenage Kicks/ the simpleton producing bunnies from his pockets.


And not just simply because the reviewers felt it was worthy of five-stars?! I just honestly will never understand why someone would have the need to conclude that a different opinion to their own has to be somehow flawed or swayed by something other than the opinion itself.

Q - Why do you think the reviews were less measured than usual?
A - Because it didn't strike me as a five star play.

Bizarre to me.

I wonder if you're not simply over-thinking this crowblack ?

Of course, the critics will partly be coloured by things outside of the actual production; they might be influenced by the opinion of their friends & colleagues, by the hype, by how they were feeling that day, by the play they saw the day before, and so on. They will also be influenced (subconsciously and hopefully minimally) by things somewhat 'underhand', like the expectations of their bosses, or by their personal feelings about the creators. However, it's not as though any of us really have an 'objective' view on how good a piece of art is anyway. Your opinion of it will partly be coloured by the expectations that you had going in, or by the fact that, say, you like or dislike Paddy Considine or Jez Butterworth. (indeed, your view of The Ferryman is partly being affected by the discussions you're having here)

Further, I think you're mistaken in thinking that 5* somehow represents 'a perfect play' just as 1* doesn't mean that the play is completely without any merits whatsoever. Being pedantic, in an 'out of five' system, five stars just means "above 80%". Given the number of plays released each year it's completely understandable that a bunch will get five stars (hopefully a similar proportion to the number that get 1*) and, occasionally those might align (just as the more or less uniform 1* seem to have been given out for things like Common).

At the end of the day, it's completely human to rationalise our tastes and wonder why others might not see things our way, but the reviews are just a bunch of people giving their opinions. Placing too much emphasis on the ratings system is silly given the inherently subjective nature of art.

Well, it's been an interesting debate. To me, it comes across as the biz feeling it needed a post-Brexit fillip, a hit with its eyes on Broadway and a chance to say hello world, we're still here. An American critic said he felt as though "a brand was being built" and I think he's right.

I just hope it doesn't tie Paddy Considine up for too long because he's a great actor and I didn't feel his talents were being used to the full in this.

Because ratings can make or break a production. I've seen excellent small-scale, low budget productions by relative newcomers who haven't much in the way of a publicity machine apart from the newspaper reviews, and in those cases mainstream critics can be very parsimonious. It seems that when it comes to famous names with star power mainstream critics chuck that extremely judgemental, nit picking attitude out of the window and it's all hugs and kisses. As with so much else in life, it doesn't seem like a level playing field.

But that's part of my point - with The Ferryman I didn't think they were. It was more like a fandom response. I think something a bit similar happened with Hangmen, which is good, but not as good as McDonagh's other plays.

Is it possible that dissenting voices like crowblack (and others) have been approached by producers of rival shows to The Ferryman in the hope of blighting its veneer of success and critical acclaim?

Is it possible that crowblack is Sonia Friedman, and is just having some fun with us all by asking us to defend her own much-lauded mega-hit that is currently printing money in the West End?

Is it possible that I am in fact Sonia Friedman, just stoking the flames of discourse and watching the pretty colours dance?

Interesting interview with Jez Butterworth in this weeks Time Out for those that might care, including rumours of an anniversary Jerusalem revival (I haven't seen it but would like to after seeing this)