Reviewing and Archives

Reviewing

I hope to have the time to write my traditional three sentence reviews for all the shows I see. In 2020, I had a chemo treatment for neck cancer that left me with reduced hearing, particularly in noisy environments. I will note such problems in my reviews. I try to have a consistent star rating across the years with 5 stars indicating a show that is excellent in all aspects of its production. Usually only around 10% of the shows meet that criterion. Four-star shows are usually excellent in many aspects but have area(s) that were problematic for me. A three-star rating is not a condemnation and just indicates that the show had provided normal enjoyment for me. It is problematic whether, in this era of star-inflation, that I should post my three star shows to edfringe.com. I‘ve decided that I will not because a three-star rating may hurt a play’s attendance. Shows that I give less than three stars have serious problem(s) for me, and I feel obligated to warn others on edfringe.com unless they have a school age cast.

After attending more than 1000 performances, I have a much better idea of my biases and prejudices in the role of a critic. To limit my analyzing shows during their performances as much as possible, I have intentionally avoided any training in criticism and the dramatic arts, both formal and informal. I find that I prefer fact to fiction, innovation to repetition, coherence to creativity, the concrete to the symbolic, and cleverness to depth. I realize that many of these are antithetical to the spirit of the Fringe, but I cannot deny my nature. In particular, I just do not like shows that push the bounds of creativity beyond my ability to make sense of them. Because I choose to fill time slots with whatever is available, I still expose myself to such shows, and do not mind. However, I do feel a little guilty giving a low rating to a show on which a company has worked so hard, and with such commitment. Nevertheless, I envision that that is my role—to accurately report my enjoyment so that others may better use my ratings. In all but a very few cases, I admire the effort of each company and wish them well.

Archives

I think that the most useful aspect for my readers is the rankings. I base the rankings on my enjoyment of the show, so they may not reflect the quality of the script and/or acting. I prefer plays to comedy acts, but work in a little of the latter for diversity. I have discovered that I have a penchant for true stories. The comments are usually only three sentences long because I have little time between shows, and, after all, I am here for the shows. You can see a compilation of all my reviews in many formats: AllReviews.htm, AllReviews.pdf, AllReviews.xlsx, and AllReviews.csv. You can also see my reviews from specific years at: 159 reviews for 2025 Fringe, 188 reviews for 2024 Fringe, 223 reviews for 2023 Fringe, 154 reviews for 2022 Fringe, 15 reviews for 2021 Fringe, 171 reviews for 2019 Fringe, 177 reviews for 2018 Fringe, 151 reviews for 2017 Fringe, 171 reviews for 2016 Fringe, 189 reviews for 2015 Fringe, 165 reviews for 2014 Fringe, 152 reviews for 2013 Fringe, 135 reviews for 2012 Fringe, 175 reviews for 2011 Fringe, 200 reviews for 2010 Fringe, 177 reviews for 2009 Fringe, 153 reviews for 2008 Fringe, 162 reviews for 2006 Fringe, and 151 reviews for 2005 Fringe. I always enjoy chatting with both audience members and dramatic artists. If you wish to contact me, send e-mail to Sean Davis.