Culture

Criticizing the critics (I)

January 26, 2009
article header image

The other day Benedict Nightingale reviewed the RSC's production of A Midsummer Night's Dream. He began: "It’s time Gregory Doran got more credit for work at the RSC that almost always outshines productions by showier directors in and out of town."

This is tosh. Gregory Doran was the director of the appalling RSC production of Hamlet which was shown in the west end over Christmas, the "David Tennant Hamlet." It is true that the production sold out immediately (the Dr Who factor) and that there were several very good performances (Oliver Ford Davies was the best Polonius I have ever seen, Patrick Stewart was a good Claudius doubling up as Hamlet's father and Tennant was good). But the direction was lamentable. The production had no coherence, no motivating idea, no sense of time or place. It was a dreary muddle from beginning to end and it was impossible to imagine why Doran had wanted to direct Hamlet. By contrast, just over a week ago I went to see a student production of Hamlet at Cambridge which was buzzing with inventiveness and ideas, full of vivid images and clever use of music and sets.

It is no surprise that Doran's Hamlet sold out and it is no surprise that the audience attracted by David Tennant had such a good time. What is completely baffling is why theatre critics praised the production in the way they did. Going to see plays in the west end is a hugely expensive business these days (never mind the costs of babysitters, transport, programmes, a bite out). Critics never seem to take this into consideration and gush over their favourite directors and writers. Doran's production was a disgrace and the Times's critic should know better.