The world’s largest performing arts festival returns to the Scottish capital for three weeks – and over 4,000 shows – from this weekend. Brian Logan is answering your questions about it now
Ask a question: log in or sign up here.
GlenWright1975 asks: Do you think Amanda Knox’s show will be judged fairly and without bias? Over the years we’ve all built up an opinion of her, and I wonder if reviewers/audiences can separate that from the quality of her material?
Brian: It’s hard bordering on impossible to review without bringing some biases and preconceptions to the process. The best reviewers will at least be aware of these and try and acknowledge or mitigate them. It looks (judging from the blurb) like Amanda Knox’s show is going to be upfront about her public history, which brings that history even more into the scope of what the critic will be writing about.
I don’t think it’s the critic’s job, or certainly not their most interesting one, to adjudicate on the rights and wrongs of whether Knox should be performing the show in the first place. But if that question, and others relating to what we know of her life, feel like they’re genuinely affecting how one experiences the show (and how it feels it’s landing in the room), it would be disingenuous of the reviewer not to address that.
How long have you got?! Last year gave us a prime example, when the American comedy/cabaret act Cat Cohen had the most fantastic show in town by a mile, and was overlooked. (The fact that no one is entirely clear on the award’s eligibility criteria doesn’t help.)
The phenomenon isn’t unique to Edinburgh comedy, but choices made by committee are often compromise choices, and acts that are brilliant but idiosyncratic find themselves sidelined. At any event, the majority of the incontrovertibly great acts and shows I’ve seen at the fringe over the years have been pipped to or wholly overlooked by the awards – or, as sometimes happens, offered the sop of the so-called Panel Prize.
Continue reading...