If the reviews for last week’s opening of Hairspray are anything to go by, it’s a smash hit. If there were any negative reviews, I’ve missed them: this was one of those rare occasions when the critical throng seemed to speak with one voice. (Literally so, it seems, in the case of Mark Ravenhill and me: just yesterday Mark added a comment to last Wednesday’s blog entry here to point out that he “said almost word for word” what I had written there on BBC Radio 4’s Saturday Review last weekend – but since I’d filed my blog four days earlier than his comments were being broadcast, great minds must have been thinking alike!)
But there was no collusion between us: just the happy coincidence that a big, warm, loveable show managed to cheer us all up equally. Even the usually dismally populated Shaftesbury Theatre must be smiling at last that it might, at last, have a hit. Indeed, that was another threat that seemed to course through many reviews: in The Times, Benedict Nightingale wondered aloud, “As I’ve battled through its tiny, gridlocked foyer into the cavernous auditorium below, I have often wondered if the Shaftesbury Theatre has a death-wish; but seldom more than last night. Whoever decided to bring the stage version of the film Hairspray to London immediately after its remake has come bouncing on to British screens, gaining rave reviews and, no doubt, audiences for whom one viewing is enough?” But then he added, “Well, if the impresarios have goofed, they’ve goofed happily, for the musical is as delightful as I recall it being on Broadway three years ago and more immediate than it could ever be in the cinema.”
Quite why the Shaftesbury has acquired its reputation as a musical graveyard was pored over in a Guardian blog entry last week by Matt Wolf, that drew this articulate response from one reader: “It’s not the theatre, it’s the shows. The last thing I saw there was the execrable Batboy. The Shaftesbury hasn’t been empty because of its location, it’s been empty because it put on shite.” But it’s a vicious circle: once a theatre starts getting a “bad smell” about it for housing mainly flops, it becomes the last theatre producers want to book for fear of being “tainted” by them, and in turn is only able to book the weaker shows that can’t find a home elsewhere. It’s also outside of the loop, not just in location terms, but also of the major theatre chains so doesn’t have as much booking leverage. But they’ve now forged a new longer-term relationship with Stage Entertainment, the producers of Hairspray (as well as the forthcoming tour of High School Musical), to house their productions – not that they’ll be looking for another tenant anytime soon. High School Musical may have to look elsewhere if and when it wants to set up home in town.
Not that good reviews are in themselves necessarily a guarantee of success. When Bad Girls – the Musical arrived at the Garrick in September, it seemed set for success, with a title that people recognised and reviews like Charles Spencer’s in the Daily Telegraph that declared, “it sure is a hell of a lot of fun” and concluded “For an entertaining night of salacious humour, strong songs and good old-fashioned melodrama, it’s hard to beat and deserves to thrive.” But it has struggled to find an audience, and last Saturday posted its closing notice for November 17. It’s one of the bald facts of theatrical life that it is the public who decide, even if the critics don’t deride.
And if we do? As the ongoing success of We Will Rock You has shown, critical disapproval can make no difference, either. It’s presumably that model that has led the producers of Never Forget, the Take That musical, to press ahead with their plans to head to the West End, where it will now open at the Savoy next May. Reviewing its summer tour in The Stage, I called it a “witless, pointless and largely joyless production, but clearly its creators think otherwise. Good for them to continue believing in their product to this extent; but I do hope that their baby grows up a bit in the intervening period. (And that they don’t bring in the TV cameras on the first night in London, either. As I wrote here, at the Manchester first night had “camera cranes swooping dangerously over the stalls” and “they also bathed the auditorium in the purple glow of additional lighting to make sure that the audience too was lit and visible to the cameras. I actually had to watch parts of the show with my programme held up to the right side of my face to stop the irritating glow; and far from being able to judge the show in the best light, in every sense, the entire experience was compromised.”)

The only sort-of-negative review I've seen is by the always-offensive Tim Walker in the Sunday Telegraph. His carefully considered critical commentary on Leanne Jones' performance: "She can't sing to save her life, poor sausage."
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z44/BensAngels/misc/IMG_0002.jpg
I hardly think the Sunday Telegraph article counts as a review. How can someone watch a musical with a message about equality for every one no matter your size or skin colour and insult the leading lady because of her appearance "Leanne Jones Looking like Miss Piggy". Did he just not get it? Next he will be complaining about all of black kids on stage.
But the best bit is where he then goes on to criticize a musical because "the cast burst into song every 5 minutes"
It’s like going to the ballet only to complain about the amount of dancing!
What’s wrong with you man! Or should I say Velma!
My own review was more ambivalent, particularly on the subject of fat (not least because I happen to know a thing or two about the subject), and its treatment compared with that of race. No point going into it all over again here - it's at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa1e70a2-8895-11dc-84c9-0000779fd2ac.html
"Always offensive"? I am sure there have been some reviews I have written lately that have actually been quite inoffensive - even complimentary to all concerned. One thinks of the excellent The Giant. If I were someone who were easily offended, I would find your remark quite offensive. I am, however, grateful to you for reading the column.