‘The stage is not a sheltered workshop’: theatre critics reject Adelaide Fringe mental health intervention
Critics have rejected a “naïve and insulting” invitation from the Adelaide Fringe to consider the feelings of performers in their reviews. But are negative reviews really the problem?
In early February an Adelaide Fringe publicist circulated an invitation to an event titled ‘The Impact of Reviews on Artist Wellbeing”.
A partnership between the Adelaide Fringe and South Australian Mental Health Commissioner, the information session promised “an open conversation about the intersection of critique and artist wellbeing” that would include insights from mental health professionals and advice on writing “fair, honest, and mindful” reviews.
“As a reviewer, your words carry weight, and this discussion will offer valuable insights into maintaining critical integrity while fostering a supportive arts ecosystem,” the message read.
The testy symbiosis between artists and reviewers has often stoked controversy during festival season, from Lawrence Mooney’s stream of tweets at an Advertiser journalist in 2016, to the use of racially insensitive language in a Scenestr review of Smashed – The Brunch Party in 2021. The latter saw the reviewer apologise and withdraw the offending remark, which its subject, Drag Race Australia star Kween Kong, later reclaimed for the title of their subsequent 2022 Fringe show ‘Black Puddin’’.
The tenor of this invitation, however, was met with concern and derision from prominent Adelaide theatre critics.
“Theatre is not meant to be easy”
Writing on Substack, former Advertiser arts editor Tim Lloyd called the proposal a request to be “inoffensive”, and reflected that a “new world order has arrived in the tradition of theatre criticism”.
You might like
Samela Harris, a veteran journalist, critic and InReview contributor who has also served as a mentor in the Helpmann Academy InReview mentorship program, called the proposal “naïve and insulting”.
“As a veteran mainstream media critic, and mentor to upcoming critics, I operate on the understanding that the critic has a responsibility to the ticket-buying public,” Harris told InReview.
“One cannot recommend that people waste money on ill-prepared or lacklustre work. Theatre is not meant to be easy. It takes training, during which performers should learn that they are exposing themselves to others, critics among them. That is the whole deal. The stage is not a sheltered workshop. It is public exposure with expectations of skill and quality.”
Asked if the information session was in response to any particular incident or trend, a Fringe publicist told InReview that while there has been an increase in listed shows that explore mental health themes, the proposed session was part of a number of initiatives being rolled out by the Fringe and Mental Health Commissioner. These include a “Staging Change” grant program that has offered $3000 grants to performers, and “Wellbeing Check-Ins” held in collaboration with Support Act.
Along with a growing awareness of mental health among artists, the proposal echoes long-held conversations about the role of a critic. Do reviews exist merely as a consumer guide? Should they offer deeper engagement with craft, themes and wider cultural conversations? Or are they a source of cultural boosterism to be strip-mined for poster quotes?
From newspaper critics to Bow Chicka Wow-Wow
In recent decades Australia’s critical landscape has transformed; professional criticism has all but vanished from mainstream media, while a proliferation of blogs and semi-professional websites empowers anyone to begin reviewing. It’s a change that has brought welcome democratisation to the form — but can also see enthusiasm outweigh scrutiny.
Subscribe for updates
Statistically, at least, negative reviews seem a rare occurrence. Of the 3458 accredited “media reviews” posted on the Adelaide Fringe website since 2021, only .02% offered less than three stars. Only 10 shows received one-star reviews, four of which were published as part of mindshare, a platform created through another partnership between the Mental Health Coalition of SA and the Media Resource Centre.
Four- and five-star reviews, on the other hand, account for 2581 or 74 per cent of reviews – a remarkable grade curve.
More recently, the primacy of these “media reviews” has been ceded to Facebook-style “audience reacts”, where members of the public can leave reviews and ratings with fields including “ROFL”, “Bang For Your Buck”, “Standing Ovation”, “Emotional Rollercoaster”, “Mindblowing”, “Bow Chicka Wow-Wow” and “Hidden Gem”.
“Three [stars] is more offensive to me than one or two”
In 2021, comedian Yoz Mensch was part of the team behind The End is High-Concept, a show that earned one of the few one-and-a-half star reviews on the Adelaide Fringe website.
“To be perfectly honest, I don’t remember who said it, but I remember what I thought at the time: ‘these guys don’t get it’,” Mensch tells InReview.
“If anything, if someone is so bold as to give you one or two stars or less, if they actually have some critique, it can be either emboldening or eye-opening – both of which I think are important.”
Mensch returns this month to the Adelaide Fringe with their award-winning solo show No Babies In The Sauna. Partly inspired by their lived experience of autism, the show has toured to Edinburgh and Prague Fringe festivals and earned its share of glowing reviews. It’s a stressful time of year, and Mensch appreciates the Fringe’s attempts to encourage artists to look after themselves physically and mentally.
“I haven’t really partaken in a lot of the mental health initiatives that they’ve pushed,” Mensch says.
“But what it does is make me more aware that it’s something I need to do. It reminds me to go to that forty-minute walk because I’m stressed about my tech rehearsal tomorrow – even if I don’t want to.”
While Mensch says that critics who comment on things a performer can’t control – like their gender, appearance, or race – can be problematic, ultimately they would prefer a memorably cutting review to a forgettable warm one.
“I would say I’m more affected by three-star reviews; to me, a three-star review is, ‘there was a show’. Like, make a statement with your review. Three is more offensive to me than one or two,” Mensch says.
In the end, when InReview attempted to RSVP to the session we were informed that it would not be going ahead. The reason? Not enough critics could attend.
Read more 2025 Adelaide Fringe coverage here on InReview.