the shows Mickey-Jo wasn't allowed to review... | thoughts on ONE DAY and why productions exclude critics

Summary

Podcast Summary: “the shows Mickey-Jo wasn’t allowed to review... | thoughts on ONE DAY and why productions exclude critics”

Podcast: MickeyJoTheatre
Host: Mickey Jo
Date: March 20, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, Mickey Jo explores the increasingly common phenomenon of theatre productions choosing to exclude or limit critics—particularly national critics—from reviewing their shows. Centering the recent controversy around the world premiere of One Day: The Musical at Edinburgh’s Royal Lyceum Theatre, he breaks down the mechanics of critic invitations, reasons producers might restrict reviews, implications for transparency, and the debates raging within the UK theatre community. The episode is candid, humorous, and takes a nuanced look at the evolving relationship between productions, critics, and audiences.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Clickbait Title & Clarification [01:21]

• Mickey Jo confesses up front that the episode's title may come off as clickbait, but asserts, “There is no succinct way in which to articulate the topic today... it’s not specifically shows I have been barred from reviewing, although that has happened.”
• The core issue: "Shows which critics en masse have been told they are not permitted to review... Does every show which charges a price of admission owe its audiences the scrutiny of reviews?"
  (01:54)

2. The Review Invitation Process [03:00]

• Step-by-step explanation of how reviewers are invited to shows:
  • PR reps (not producers or creatives) manage reviews and send press releases, images, and invitations.
  • Major venues in London like National Theatre or Old Vic have in-house PR; regionals may use agencies or in-house staff.
  • For major critics, there’s “a little bit more power” as PR wants to maintain lasting relationships.
• Describes the mutual “symbiotic, reciprocal relationship between PRs and reviewers.”
  • “PRs invite critics to review the shows that don’t need the exposure, in exchange for critics coming to review the shows that do...”
    (06:02)

3. Local vs. National Critics [07:30]

• Explains the often arbitrary binary between “local” and “national” critics.
• Notes national critics are usually London-based, cover multiple locations, and—due to budget cuts—are now reviewing less regional/fringe theatre.

4. Common Reasons Productions Exclude Critics [09:00]

• Shows in early development or workshops (e.g., Todrick Hall’s Midnight at Sadler’s Wells East) often opt out of critic reviews.
• One-night concerts or “work-in-progress” runs may or may not allow reviews, sometimes to get early feedback.
• Some big commercial “premieres” or pre-West End runs (like Kinky Boots, A Knight’s Tale) also restrict national reviewers, while sometimes leaving the door open to local/regional outlets.
• Describes gala/celebration performances for long-running shows (e.g., Cabaret) where critical review of every new cast iteration isn't expected or wanted.

Notable quote:

“It may feel like a review but it’s not branded as such, and I don’t deliver a new star rating every single time. It’s my way of sharing something that feels a little bit less like a verdict and a little bit more like a personal response.”
(11:44)

5. Case Study: ONE DAY in Edinburgh [14:04]

• Reacts to open letter from Scottish critics decrying the exclusion of national critics from reviewing the One Day premiere.
• Reads and analyzes Guardian coverage on the controversy:
  • Only Scottish publications were invited to press night, with a London/West End press night planned for later.
  • The incident has ignited debates about London-centric theatre culture and the perceived status of "Edinburgh’s" audience/reviewers.

Notable quote:

“A letter from 15 critics... condemns [the] divisive move that saw non-Scottish publications excluded... If we are entitled to write open letters every time certain critics are invited and certain others aren’t, here in London we’d be writing an awful lot of letters.”
(14:47)

• Argues the real issue is less about Edinburgh per se, and more about the practice of reserving national reviews for finalized, commercial “premieres” (usually in London).

6. Comparison to U.S. Practices [16:53]

• Draws a parallel to Broadway’s established “out-of-town tryout” system, where New York critics don’t review pre-Broadway productions in other cities.
• Suggests American theatre’s tradition helps contextualize these practices for the UK, though UK geography makes it more of a gray area.

Notable quote:

“In the US ecosystem, the model of the out-of-town tryout is a little bit more of an established concept and they understand what it is.”
(17:56)

7. Transparency, Audience Rights & Ticket Prices [19:36]

• Notes ticket holders for “previews” or “tryouts” are still paying full prices (e.g., £55 for One Day), so transparency is crucial.
• Should shows be clearer that these are unfinished or “preview” runs?

Notable quote:

“It is at this point, quite transparently, just that—an unfinished production and a preview for dates to come... That is essentially what One Day is. It just wasn’t branded that way, which is a separate conversation about transparency.”
(20:30)

8. The Critics' Open Letter & Responsibility towards Artists [23:03]

• Scottish critics argue that public theatres should foster public critique and debate.

• Mickey Jo pushes back, stating the production was open to local review, and questions whether all criticism must be open or timed for marketing priorities.

• Tackles the misconception that critics are only upset about free tickets:

  • “Contrary to popular belief, we aren’t all obsessed with free tickets all the time. Arts criticism is not the most lucrative field... To lose out on a payday is going to come as something of a blow.”
  • But also, “Is it the responsibility of a buzzy new show to support the income of local freelance writers? Or is the show’s responsibility to themselves?”

9. Star Ratings and Multiple Reviews Dilemma [25:21]

• If a publication reviews a show twice (e.g., pre-West End and again in London), which star rating does the production get to use in marketing?
  • Cites the example of Operation Mincemeat receiving both 5-star and 3-star reviews from the same outlet at different points of its journey.

10. Official Response from the Royal Lyceum Theatre [27:40]

• The Lyceum expresses appreciation for Scottish critics but also underscores that commercial partners need to “create a buzz” in the national press at the time of the London run.
• The theatre values dialogue about financial and artistic pressures faced by co-productions.

Notable quote:

“We are highly appreciative of our Scotland-based critics who make up an integral part of the UK’s art and culture ecosystem and appreciate their concerns. We also understand the rationale from our commercial partners.”
(27:57)

11. Conclusions & Final Reflections [29:00]

• Mickey Jo remains nuanced: sees the merits and flaws of all sides.
• If a show is charging for tickets, it should be open to some level of scrutiny—but productions also have the right to manage when/how national attention falls upon them.
• Worries about the trend of large-scale commercial shows increasing their exclusion of critics, and wonders whether the industry will recalibrate or continue down this path.

Notable quote:

“If a show is charging admission, it is open to some level of scrutiny... I do believe there are certain producers, certain shows, and certain PR companies who are beginning to push their luck just a little bit.”
(30:15)

---

Memorable Quotes (with Timestamps & Attribution)

• On What Criticism Owes Audiences:

  “Does every show which charges a price of admission owe its audiences the scrutiny of reviews?”
  — Mickey Jo, (01:54)

• On PR-Reviewer Relations:

  “It’s the symbiotic, reciprocal relationship... PRs invite critics to review the shows that don’t need the exposure in exchange for critics reviewing the shows that do.”
  — Mickey Jo, (06:15)

• On Scotland’s Critic Exclusion Letter:

  “A two-tier invitation suggests not only that critics in Scotland are less important than critics in London, but also that audiences in Edinburgh are less important.”
  — Quoting Guardian article, (15:24)

• On Transparency:

  “It is at this point, quite transparently, just that—an unfinished production and a preview for dates to come... That is essentially what One Day is. It just wasn’t branded that way, which is a separate conversation about transparency.”
  — Mickey Jo, (20:30)

• On Responsibility to Critics:

  “Is it the responsibility of a buzzy new show to support the income of those local freelance writers? Or is the show’s responsibility to themselves?”
  — Mickey Jo, (24:39)

• On Star Ratings Dilemma:

  “Which star rating is Mincemeat allowed to credit to The Stage in its marketing?”
  — Mickey Jo, (25:50)

• On the Theatre’s Response:

  “We are highly appreciative of our Scotland-based critics... We also understand the rationale from our commercial partners who need to create a buzz in the UK press at the launch of the London run.”
  — Royal Lyceum Theatre statement, (27:57)

• Summary Reflection:

  “If a show is charging admission, it is open to some level of scrutiny. That doesn’t mean they need to invite every critic who wishes to attend... but I think ticket buyers deserve that.”
  — Mickey Jo, (30:15)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------------| | 01:21 | Introduction to today’s topic and clickbait caveat | | 03:00 | How press invitations and reviews work | | 07:30 | Local vs National critics’ roles and challenges | | 09:00 | Why productions restrict reviews | | 14:04 | The One Day controversy background | | 15:24 | Open letter details and Guardian coverage | | 16:53 | Comparison with US/Broadway practice | | 19:36 | Ticket prices, transparency, and audience rights | | 23:03 | Critic’s letter and economic context | | 25:21 | Star rating and multiple reviews dilemma | | 27:40 | Royal Lyceum Theatre’s official response | | 29:00 | Host’s concluding thoughts and call for discussion |

---

Overall Tone & Style

Mickey Jo is humorous, conversational, occasionally self-deprecating (“Oh my God, hey!”), and approaches the subject with both empathy and skepticism. He tries to see multiple sides, often poking fun at industry euphemisms and offering practical, lived-in perspectives from his own career as both a “fan” and a professional critic.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode acts as a primer for anyone interested in the practicalities and politics behind theatre reviewing in the UK, especially as the scene evolves and commercial pressures threaten transparency. Mickey Jo frames critical coverage as a public good, but recognizes the complexities faced by producers, PRs, critics, and audiences. The discussion around One Day serves as a microcosm for larger trends in theatre, journalistic opportunity, and regional vs. national cultural discourse.

---

For more theatre industry analysis and updates, Mickey Jo encourages listeners to chime in with their opinions and tune in for future episodes.

Transcript

[Commercial Advertiser 1]

Are you noticing your car insurance rate creep up? Even without tickets or claims, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry handles the legwork by comparing quotes side by side from over 50 top insurers so you can confidently hit buy. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Jerry even tracks rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1300 a year. Don't settle for higher rates. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI acast today.

[Boost Mobile Representative]

Knock knock.

[Boost Mobile Customer]

Ooh, who's there?

[Boost Mobile Representative]

A boost mobile expert here to deliver and set up your all new iPhone 17 Pro, designed to be the most powerful iPhone ever.

[Boost Mobile Customer]

You call that a knock knock joke?

[Boost Mobile Representative]

This isn't a joke. Boost mobile really sends experts to deliver and set up your phone at home or work.

[Boost Mobile Customer]

Okay, it's just that when people say knock knock, there's usually a joke to go with it.

[Boost Mobile Representative]

Like I said, this isn't a joke.

[Boost Mobile Customer]

So the knock knock was just you knocking?

[Boost Mobile Representative]

Yeah, that's how doors work.

[Boost Mobile Customer]

Get the new iPhone 17 Pro delivered and set up by an expert wherever you are. Delivery available for select devices purchased at boostmobile.com, terms apply.

[Commercial Advertiser 1]

Performance comes down to controlling what you can. For Jessica Pegula, it starts with the air around her. A blueair user for over five years, she trusts blue signature air purifiers engineered to perform and designed to impress. Shop blueair.com and use code signature30.

[Mickey Jo]

Okay, now, before I say absolutely anything else, I am going to have to apologize because I can only assume the title I end up giving. This video is gonna feel a lot like clickbait. And I promise you that is only because there is no succinct way in which to articulate the topic that I am discussing today, which is not specifically shows that I have been barred from reviewing, although that has happened on at least one occasion, some years ago now. And that producer is no longer mad at me, I believe. Actually, it's been a while since I've checked in. What I like to talk to you about today is the shows which critics en masse have been told they are not permitted to review. Shows which have decided they are not going to be reviewed. And occasionally there is a good and understandable reason for this. However, it does seem to be this creeping phenomenon with the industry that more and more shows are declining critical scrutiny in spite of the fact that they are continuing to charge audiences what feel like very full ticket prices. And so the question that arises to my mind is this does every show which charges a price of admission owe its audiences? Is the scrutiny of reviews? That is one of many parts of this conversation that we're going to dig into today. But before we begin, a quick introduction to me for those of you meeting me for the very first time. Oh my God. Hey. Welcome to my theatre themed YouTube channel. Or hello to you if you are listening to this on podcast platforms. My name is Mickey Jo and I am an independent theatre critic as well as a content creator here on social media. I've been doing this for a few years now. I have seen theatre all around the United Kingdom as well as around the world, and within the last year or so I have noticed more and more productions inviting me to attend but specify that they do not wish to be reviewed at this time, or on occasion they are not planning to be reviewed indefinitely. And it's a topic about which I've been developing increasingly complicated feelings. So I was very fascinated when it all came to a head this week when an open letter was signed by several Scottish critics about their inability to review the world premiere production of One Day, the musical currently playing at the Royal Lyceum Theatre in Edinburgh. Now, I actually traveled up to Scotland last week to go and see the show for myself. There is an exciting One Day in Scotland vlog coming your way very soon if you're subscribed here on YouTube. But I have already been asked why I haven't reviewed the show. Someone literally commented, why haven't we seen your One day review yet? Was it that bad? And for the record, a show being bad doesn't mean that my review gets delayed. If anything, I run back here to tell you about it as quickly as I can. Around the same time though, articles were coming out in the stage in the Guardian about the outrage that the show wasn't open to reviews other than from local critics. So we're going to talk about this today and I just might name and shame a couple of productions which have refused to be reviewed over the last 12 months or so. Of course, if you have any thoughts and opinions on this, as I'm sure some of you might, please let me know your thoughts in the comments section down below. And if you would like to hear my thoughts on other industry conversations, there will be many more coming soon. Make sure you're subscribed or following me on your favourite podcast platform. In the meantime, let's talk some critical discourse and the shows which would rather critics didn't review them. So as promised then, let me tell you how I normally end up reviewing a show and how this works. I think I've kind of suggested a little bit about this process before, but let's really break it down because it's something that I as an individual had to learn within the industry. I had to figure out how this actually worked. And the first thing you need to know is that every sort of major theatrical production has a PR representative who will liaise with reviewers. Generally speaking, you don't directly email the producers or the creative team or even marketing necessarily. You usually talk to pr. It's it is their job to secure and manage critical coverage of a show. And often, especially in the West End, that can be an external PR company regionally, which is to say outside of London and around the country. It might be somebody in house. There are exceptions to this. You have venues within London like the National Theatre or the Old Vic, for example, which have their own in house PR team. Also, on occasion you have regional venues whose PR is managed or sometimes jointly managed by those external companies who also work across a handful of London venues. For the commercial West End, it's sort of like four to six big PR companies who tend to share those shows between them, not always evenly. Now, ahead of a show being reviewed, those PRs will also distribute press releases, information about newly announced shows. This is how you see the key information about them being published on websites like what's onstage or the stage, as well as on a handful of different blogs. Occasionally when I talk to you about a newly announced show here, I'm reading from my phone because I'm reading a press release. They will also send out rehearsal images and production images and then critically they will send out press invitations or sometimes you have to be a little bit more proactive and you talk to them for press invitations because they prefer for you to inquire or perhaps they're, you know, reaching out first to the bigger outlets who they really want to come. There's a lot of politics involved, which we're not going to talk about. But it's those PR representatives who will liaise with the critics, working for different outlets and who will manage the tickets that have been allocated to them, either for a single press night performance or possibly for a handful. They will either send you tickets, tell you to pick them up at the box office, or they will meet you on a little press desk, a little table they've set up at the performance where they hand you a little envelope with your name written on it. If you're lucky, it's spelled correctly and inside of it there is a single ticket, or two tickets if you have a plus one, which is another whole point of contention, which I'm not going to go into, as well as the much talked about drinks vouchers and the controversial free glass of house wine, which I promise you is not the reason that anybody is in this business. And maintaining a good working relationship with these PR representatives is key. Of course, if you're the head theatre critic of a major newspaper or a representative from one of the few massive theatre dedicated websites, then you have a little bit more power because they are going to continue to come to you because they're going to continue to need you. Which brings us towards a conversation about this symbiotic reciprocal relationship between PRs and reviewers. And I often say, stay with me here, that PRs will invite critics to review the shows that don't need the exposure, that don't necessarily need reviews. Sometimes it's a limited run which is already sold out prior to press night. There's no need to invite critics in order to boost a show's profile and try and sell tickets, but they will invite critics to review those shows in exchange for the understanding that the critics will come and review the shows that do need the exposure. But the critics don't really want to because it's not going to do anything brilliant for their platforms, for their outlets. Because what the people on this side of the fence really want is clicks and circulation and engagement. And so they want to cover the buzziest, most exciting shows. They're not as interested in covering smaller regional openings, perh a play revival that has just been done in another part of the country. Perhaps the cast is not full of a list talent, but to my understanding at least, it's part of the symbiotic relationship that the critics will in good faith try and cover as many of these shows as possible in exchange for access to the productions that really don't need to invite critics if they don't want to. Now, essentially this works the same way when it comes to regional theatre theatre outside of London. However, there is a distinction to be understood here between local critics and national critics. It's not terminology that I think is particularly up to date or effective or meaningful. And it's a binary system that I've never necessarily understood how to fit myself into. In some email exchanges I am precluded from reviewing shows because I am thought of as a national critic. On other occasions I am definitely not. But the terminology national critics here refers to outlets or individuals who will cover theatre in a number of locations Usually they're London based and London centric. And increasingly those outlets are covering less and less regional theatre as well as less and less fringe theatre because everyone is feeling a financial pinch, the world's on fire, nobody has any money, print journalism is dying, etc. But the difference between national critics and regional critics is key to understand as we begin to talk about those shows which have said they would rather not be reviewed, at least by nationals. And one of the most common reasons why a show would ask not to be reviewed is because it is an early developmental, even workshop version of the material. Todrick Hall's Midnight recently at Sadler's Worlds east wasn't officially reviewed because the material was still developing. The same goes for a handful of one night only concerts, though some of these do elect to be reviewed so that they can gain the perspective of critics in order to further hone the material so they can gain that insight. Sometimes these productions already have a future life planned and they know that that is going to be a more meaningful and more fully realized version of the material. And if they invite critics along to the earlier outing, it's very hard to get them back again the second time around. Unless there has been substantial change, then critics usually won't want to go back and re review something. So a mistake that some developing shows have made over the last few years is actually bringing in reviewers too soon. Where this gets a little bit more complicated is where we move away from the idea of early developmental sort of fringe situated work and we start to talk about big commercial ventures which are technically world premiere productions, still likely to change and evolve further and not yet at their final commercial destination. Sometimes this is a limited run regional production, an out of town tryout if you will, prior to an aspirational or confirmed West End run. On other occasions it's an entire UK tour. A Knight's Tale was one example of this in Manchester, Kinky Boots was another. And both of those productions, if I recall correctly, were not open to reviews from national publications, but they were able to be reviewed by local publications. While I can just about get it for a major out of town tryout production, I do think think that it's asking an awful lot for a tour, even one that ends up subsequently heading to the West End as Kinky Boots now has, as I sit here this evening, they are playing their first preview performance at the London Coliseum. However, the producers of this production and the PR representatives who they are working with, all of whom are fantastic people who I know well, are also the same team who are working on the new UK tour of Legally Blonde, which, though they may have something secret in the pipeline, currently has no confirmed further run beyond its tour dates, and yet has said similarly that it is not open for reviewing during its tour. Which is why I bought a ticket a couple of weeks ago to go to the show as a fan, but I didn't review it fully. Same with the developmental run of the Greatest Showman. That's a world premiere out of town tryout currently happening at the Bristol Hippodrome. I tell you all of this because I feel like on multiple occasions recently I have sat down here and said, I'm going to talk to you about a show, but I'm not going to review it because I haven't been able to. Another example of this, a slightly less controversial one, is shows that are long running and have gala celebrations to welcome new cast members, but don't want to be consistently and ongoingly reviewed again and again and again. Cabaret does this, what, every four months when they rotate the actors playing the MC and Sally Bowles. It would make no sense for every publication to come back every four months and give them a new star rating and say, yeah, it's still a good show. So what I tend to do is I tend to head to the show and I sort of respond to it and I tell you my thoughts about the new cast. It may feel like a review, but it's not branded as such and I don't deliver a new star rating every single time. It's my way of sharing something that feels a little bit less like a verdict and a little bit more like a personal response to an evening at the theatre. And at this particular moment, I haven't begrudged this on any occasion, though I am growing slightly concerned about the frequency with which it is happening. At which point I think we should talk about everything that is going on with one day. The musical in Edinburgh.

[Fin AI Representative]

AI is transforming customer service. It's real and it works. And with fin, we've built the number one AI agent for customer service. We're seeing lots of cases where it's solving up to 90% of real queries for real businesses. This includes the real world, complex stuff like issuing a refund or canceling an order. And we also see it when FIN goes up against competitors. It's top of all the performance benchmarks, top of the G2 leaderboard. And if you're not happy, we'll refund you up to a million dollars, which I think says it all. Check it out for yourself at fin.AI

[Mint Mobile Spokesperson]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistants assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail]

[Mickey Jo]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3

[Boost Mobile Representative]

month plan equivalent to $15 per month

[Mickey Jo]

Required intro rate first 3 months only

[Commercial Advertiser 1]

then full price plan options available.

[Mickey Jo]

Taxes and FE teethful [e-mail]. Okie dokie. So this has been reported in both the Stage and the Guardian, possibly elsewhere. I'm going to read from the Guardian because I think that's a very interesting perspective because they're not exactly impartial here. They are one of the outlets who was precluded from being able to review the production. This was published on Monday 16 March by Chris Wiegand, assuming a German pronunciation of that surname. Apologies if not from somebody whose French looking surname is not pronounced that way. The headline is this Theatre critics in Scotland decry London Centric reviewing policy for One Day Musical Decry Great word. Not enough is decried anymore. We as a society ought to decry more. And politically speaking, we absolutely should. Anyway, a letter from 15 critics to the Royal Lyceum in Edinburgh condemns divisive move that saw non Scottish publications excluded from reviewing the musical's press night Already I have opinions, but we're going to carry on. Theatre critics in Scotland have written to the Royal Lyceum Theatre in Edinburgh condemning a divisive and London centric decision to not invite reviews from UK national publications for its new musical version of One Day. This was an occasion when regional critics were able to review locals but not nationals. In other words, a Scottish specific newspaper or website or blog ought to be able to, but somewhere like the Guardian, which has wider national reach, wouldn't. Likewise, what's on stage and the Stage did not review one day. The show, based on the 2009 novel by David Nichols, held a press night on Wednesday, but only critics writing for Scottish publications were invited to review it. If you're wondering why I was there, I was invited via the social media team. I believe as somebody who wears multiple different hats. As it happens, I was never actually partial to a conversation about whether or not I should be reviewing. I don't know what the expectation was, and I only found out just before beginning the journey up to Scotland that nationals weren't allowed to review it, on which basis I decided that I wasn't going to. Also because I looked back at the email, realised I was invited by the socials team and not pr and that reviews had never been mentioned. Carrying on here is the clear detail and something of a spoiler alert for this production. A separate press night for other critics is planned for a later date when the show opens in London, which as of right now has not been officially confirmed, though it was something that I was sort of suspecting. In a letter sent on Friday for the attention of the Lyceum's board of directors, 15 theatre journalists working in Scotland expressed their concern that the invitation to review the show in Edinburgh was not extended to all of us. They labelled it a divisive move that raised uncomfortable questions. And I will say in general, if we are entitled to write open letters every time that certain critics are invited to review a show and certain others aren't, we would be writing here in London an awful lot of letters. I say that as someone who more often than not is now able to get into the press nights that I want to, but for many years wasn't took a lot of knocking on that door. They go on to say a two tier invitation suggests not only that critics in Scotland are less important than critics in London, but also that audiences in Edinburgh are less important than audiences in London. Which is a really interesting way of looking at it. Before I share my response to it, it's worth pointing out that when the co producers Melting Pot were contacted last week for an explanation as to why the Guardian was not being invited to review in Edinburgh. This is why it's interesting to read it here, they replied the presentation here in Edinburgh will be followed by a West End run. There's the confirmation. We appreciate there are critics for the UK nationals across the country, that is people who write for the Guardian but are based in Scotland. We're building a new piece of event theatre here and it takes time. Opening at the Lyceum has been fantastic and we're so looking forward to another moment when the show transfers to the West End. Now let's circle back a little bit because this has understandably attained a geographical component. And though the United Kingdom is united in name, I think there is an understandable resentment when Scottish critics in particular are told that this isn't the finished product, this isn't, you know, like the real press night. This isn't open for reviewing. That will only happen when it goes to London. And the theatre industry in general has, I think, a very understandable Resentment of London being treated as the center of the universe when it comes to UK theatre. What I'm wondering is would there be the same level of resentment if this were a collective of critics based in Manchester? Perhaps, but a little less than a collective from Scotland. Would there be the same level of resentment if it were a collective of critics based in Plymouth? And I think the answer there would be even less resentment probably than the ones in Manchester, because each of those places feels sort of decreasingly distinct in their own identity. Nothing against Manchester, nothing against Plymouth, but it's the extent to which they feel separated from London's ecosystem. And I say Manchester and Plymouth specifically because these are locations where we have seen unreviewable out of town productions. Previously in Manchester it has been shows like A Knight's Tale, I think when Mrs. Doubtfire was there that wouldn't have been reviewed, and Juliet, because they were prior to imminent West End runs. At the Shaft Spree in Plymouth. The Devil Wears Prada did their out of town pre West End tryouts there, getting the show on its feet, getting its right, but they weren't open to national review. And there would have been little point because the show was set to have a very buzzy gala a few months down the line when it opened at the Dominion Theatre in London. And so it isn't necessarily a personal slight against Plymouth's audiences or Manchester's audiences or Edinburgh's audiences to say we're not going to have reviews at this time. What it really is is decision by the producers based on when the show is going to be its fully finalized version, which after all is the version that ought to be reviewed. And I think there's a framing here of the Edinburgh run of one day and the London run day being two separate and distinct but equal parts of a co production, rather than Edinburgh being an out of town tryout, which is essentially what it is. It wasn't billed as that because there was no announcement that a West End venue was confirmed. And it still may not be officially. But I think there's less reason for a grudge when it's clear to critics that the thing is imminently about to go somewhere else. And this is where I find it very interesting because I've spent a decent amount of time in the US and there are plenty of of pre Broadway tryout runs like the Queen of Versailles tried out at the Emerson Colonial Theatre in Boston, Massachusetts, where it was reviewed by local papers. It wasn't reviewed by New York's critics. The Broadway critics didn't head over to Boston for one Tuesday evening in the middle of a week to go and review the Queen of Versailles, which was set to open at the St. James within the next few months. It wouldn't make sense, nor do I think they would particularly want to. I don't know if it's a question of distance and geography, because everything in the UK is that much closer together and so it feels less reasonable to expect national publications not to go and review something. I also think in the Broadway world and in the US ecosystem, the model of the out of town tryout is a little bit more of an established concept and they understand what it is. Let's carry on reading a little bit further through this article because there are more angles of this that we need to consider. It goes on to say the 15 critics state in their letter that the decision to allow some but not all critics to review creates the impression that One Day is not a finished production but a preview for dates to come. Despite this, Edinburgh theatre goers must pay up to £55 to see it. And I sort of think that it is at this point, quite transparently just that, an unfinished production and a preview for dates to come. That's the entire Bristol run of the Greatest Showman. That's what that is. All of those productions I told you about that played pre West End runs. That is essentially what they are. That is essentially what One Day is. It just wasn't branded that way, which is a separate conversation about transparency and whether shows ought to make that clear in their marketing. I will say up to £55 to see it. I don't know if within the landscape of Scottish theatre that's considered top dollar relative to the West End prices that it will inevitably be charging. It's absolutely not. And a show like the Greatest Showman is certainly charging audiences more for a preview version that is never going to be reviewed during its Brisbane Finally, Car

[CarGurus Advertiser]

shopping made for you Meet Cargurus Discover, a new search feature where you can look for vehicles based on the way you think, using your own words. No more being boxed in by filters. Whether you want great gas mileage for road trips or extra trunk space for the whole crew, simply type it in and Cargurus Discover will give you real shoppable listings that match. It's the smarter way to find the car that fits your life. With Cargurus Discover, you can skip the filters and describe what you're looking for in your own words. Simply type what you want and Cargurus Discover instantly surfaces real listings that match your exact needs. It's no wonder Cargurus is the number one most visited car shopping site according to SimilarWeb's estimated traffic data. Buy or sell your next car today with carguruscargurus.com go to cargurus.com to make sure your big deal is the best deal. That's C A r g u r us.com cargurus.com Howdy, howdy ho, and welcome

[Hayden]

to Fantasy Fan Fellas. I'm Hayden, producer of the Fantasy Fangirls podcast and your resident lover of all things Sanderson.

[Stephen]

And I'm Stephen, your bookish Internet goofball. But you can call me the Smash Daddy.

[Hayden]

And we are currently deep diving Brandon Sanderson's fantasy epic Mistborn. But here's the catch. Stephen here has not read Mistborn before.

[Stephen]

That's right.

[Mint Mobile Spokesperson]

Hey hey.

[Stephen]

So each week you'll get my unfiltered raw reactions to every single chat.

[Hayden]

And along the way we'll do character deep dives, magic explainers, and Steven will even try to guess what's next. Spoiler alert. He'll be wrong.

[Stephen]

News flash. I'm never wrong. Episodes come out every Wednesday and you can find Fantasy Fan Fellas wherever you get your podcasts.

[Mickey Jo]

Little run. Continuing it says. They note that the Lyceum Company is publicly supported and funded in Scotland, Scotland to create Theatre in Scotland. Its work should always be vigorously reviewed and debated as part of Scottish public life. And this is interesting in that sense. It sort of feels like the wrong venue for a tryout of this kind. If this was never their intention to have it reviewed there, there is, if you don't know, a connection between the setting of One Day and the city of Edinburgh, which is presumably what drew them to the Royal Lyceum Theatre in the first place. And as someone who really celebrates and understands the importance of criticism and artistic scrutin, I can't disagree with that notion. However, I think we're losing sight here of the fact that it was partially reviewed, that it was open to local critics. And if you're talking about Theatre in Scotland being, as they say, vigorously reviewed and debated as part of Scottish public life, to invite specifically Scottish press in to do that seems an almost appropriate response. There's a part of me that does think it's better to give that opportunity to local publications who have the best understanding of the local community that is going to go and see that show carrying on, they say. As critics, we all recognize the vital and enriching role that co productions now play in Scotland's theatre life and warmly welcome them. However, when co production leads to the exclusion of leading Scottish based critical voices from that public debate, we believe that a line must be drawn and we trust that the London centric attitudes reflected in this week's decision they're not happy with that will play no part in the future thinking and planning of Scotland's leading producing theatres. Interestingly, the letter was written by critics who were invited to review as well as those who were not. It was sent from Mary Brennan, Mark Brown, Anna Burnside, Neil Cooper, Dominic Kaur, Tom Dibdin, the Guardians, Mark Fisher, Joyce McMillan, the brilliant Fergus Morgan, the wonderful Natalie O', Donoghue, David Pollock, Arusa Qureshi, Alan Radcliffe, Hugh Simpson and Simon Thompson. And there is a response from the Royal Lyceum Theatre. But I would like to straighten out another detail of this because I've seen some people suggesting that is critics complaining about not getting a free ticket to the show and begrudging not getting an invitation. They could have bought tickets had they wanted to. That isn't what this is about. Contrary to popular belief, we aren't all obsessed with free tickets all the time. What you have to remember, I think, is that arts criticism is not the most lucrative field. And for a lot of these possibly freelance journalists writing for national outlets, this would have been potentially one of the biggest assignments of the next few months, if not of the year year. And so to lose out on what may have been an anticipated payday is going to come as something of a blow. At the same time, is it the responsibility of a buzzy new show to support the income of those local freelance writers? Or is the show's responsibility to themselves? Is it better for them to wait and be reviewed at the appropriate moment, rather than inviting critics in prematurely for a show that could, after this run, have sizable changes? Of course, if we turn this over another way and look at a different side of the die, a developmental production, which I saw last week and which I think does still need a little bit of work, would benefit surely from inviting in as many different critical voices as possible. Really, the only problem is the star ratings. And if it wasn't for the star ratings, they could have as many critics come and review and they could have different writers working for the same publication review it once it got to London. The problem is if the Guardians writer in Edinburgh gives it a five star review and the Guardians writer in London then gives it a three by the time it's opened a few months later, because they have different perspectives, they're different people, they saw the show at different Times. Which star rating is the production allowed to use in its marketing? Curiously, this is something I spoke about recently with Operation Mincemeat which has just launched a major tour because the stage newspaper has given the show five star reviews twice, once pre West End and once again at the Fortune Theatre in the West West End. But the critic Matt Barton, writing for the Stage, saw the tour at the Lowry and gave it a three star review. Begging the question, which star rating is Mincemeat allowed to credit to the stage in its marketing? Finally, here is the response from the Royal Lyceum Theatre on Monday. They responded saying we are highly appreciative of our Scotland based critics who make up an integral part of the UK's art and culture ecosystem and appreciate their concerns. We also understand the rationale from our commercial partners who need to create a buzz in the UK press at the launch of the London run. Co productions are a key way forward for the Lyceum to create new work at the scale and quality of One Day the Musical, which has allowed us to reach new audiences and delight our regular attendees. We're proud to be able to deliver world class theatre in Edinburgh and we welcome dialogue with our industry peers about the financial challenges of how we do so in the future. Certainly I think a robust conversation needs to be had here and there are valid points being made on each side. As I so often do. I see, you know, multiple different ways that you can look at this and I think while I understand the challenges for those freelance writers, it is also fair enough ultimately for commercial producers to ask major outlets to hold off on reviewing the shows until they reach their final destination. All of which depends on the exact timing and context of that. Because Mincemeat on its pre West End journey, which took multiple years, benefited from early enthusiasm from critics. It was getting reviewed before it made it to the West End End. It may not have made it there were it not for those reviews. And if One Day still hasn't secured a commercial transfer, then maybe enthusiasm from the critics would help it to do so. If One Day is opening at a West End venue as soon as this summer, then understandably it wouldn't necessarily make sense to have the Times and the Guardian and the Stage and what's on stage go and review it in Edinburgh. They may then not want to when it opens in London when if it's planning a longer, maybe even open ended run run, they might need a little bit more marketing and buzz ultimately for the One day of it all. I think a more transparent conversation may be needed to take place prior to Press Night when all of this was first being arranged. I also think, and I always have, that if a show is charging admission, it is open to some level of scrutiny. That doesn't mean that they need to invite every critic who wishes to attend or thinks that they are entitled to attend. But if they are opening themselves up to some level of criticism, then I think that's important. I think that's a responsibility that they have to their prospective audiences. I think ticket buyers deserve that. And I do believe that there are certain producers, certain shows, certain PR companies even, who are beginning to push their luck just a little bit in terms of the scale of production that they are trying to exclude reviewers from. Whether or not that is a situation that is going to continue to escalate within the industry is uncertain. As with the future life of One Day the Musical, we will have to wait and see. For now, those are some, but not necessarily all, of the thoughts that I have about this particular critical conversation. I am very intrigued to hear yours in the comments section down below. Which shows, if any, do you think are entitled to declare themselves off limits to reviewers? And what do you think about the current scandal in Scotland? Let me know what you think and if you would like to hear my thoughts on other theatre industry topics, stay tuned. Make sure you're subscribed or following me on podcast platforms. In the meantime, I have been Micky Joe and as always, I hope that everyone is staying safe and that you have a Stagey Day. For 10 more seconds. I'm Mickey Jo Theatre. Oh my God. Hey, thanks for watching. Have a stagey day.

[CarGurus Advertiser]

Subscribe.

[Hayden]

Howdy, howdy ho, and welcome to Fantasy Fan Fellas. I'm Hayden, producer of the Fantasy Fangirls podcast and your resident lover of all things Sanderson.

[Stephen]

And I'm Stephen, your bookish Internet goofball. But you can call me the Smash Daddy.

[Hayden]

And we are currently deep diving Brandon Sanderson's fantasy epic Mistborn. But here's the catch. Steven here has not read Mistborn before.

[Stephen]

That's right.

[Mint Mobile Spokesperson]

Hey.

[Stephen]

Hey. So each week you'll get my unfiltered raw reactions to every single.

[Hayden]

And along the way we'll do character deep dives, magic explainers, and Steven will even try to guess what's next. Spoiler alert. He'll be wrong.

[Stephen]

News flash. I'm never wrong. Episodes come out every Wednesday, and you can find Fantasy Fan Fellows wherever you get your podcasts.

[Grainger Representative]

When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Adam Grant]

Hey, this is Adam Grant, host of ted's podcast Rethinking with Adam Grant. Let me share with you why smart finance leaders turn to be Bill. They know that clarity isn't just helpful, it's strategic. As the intelligent finance platform, Bill uses AI to automate the busy work for nearly half a million businesses so they can focus on intentional growth, eliminate the friction and start scaling with the proven choice. Visit bill.compenven to talk with an expert about automating your business finances and get a $250 gift card as a thank you. That's bill.com proven terms and conditions apply. See Offer page for details.