There’s no accounting for taste, as they say, and it is refreshingly proved by the fact that yesterday’s overnight reviews for Priscilla, Queen of the Desert ranged across the full gamut from two stars (Guardian, Independent) to five stars (Daily Express), with a couple of four stars in between (Times, Telegraph).
It is sometimes misleadingly suggested that there’s a “critical cabal” that makes critics present a united front - most recently claims were made that we were somehow in cahoots over giving Nicholas de Jongh’s Plague over England an easy ride, but if the Guardian’s round-up of reviews of the play wrote that “the critical cabal had heaped it with praise”, Rhoda Koenig responded in a letter to the paper, “Your author may know where they meet to confer and cackle, but no one has told me.”
However, the rumour persists.
The Sunday Telegraph’s Tim Walker, publicly turning down an invitation to join the Critics’ Circle in one of his recent columns (but not having the courtesy to inform the circle itself), said, “The invitation from a group of individuals who have often chastised me in their columns and on their websites for being ‘out of step’ — which means, presumably, that I write for you rather than for them or the theatrical Establishment — was as surprising as it as flattering. Yet I couldn’t help but think that it was an honour that came with a price attached: an expectation that I would mind my Ps and Qs and generally become a bit more clubbable.”
As Ian Shuttleworth, secretary of the Circle’s drama section, replied in The Stage’s own Tabard diary column, “A lot of people seem to have bizarre and fantastical ideas about what membership of the Critics’ Circle involves, but usually they’re paranoid stage-folk - a paranoid critic is rather a novelty.”
But the reviews for Priscilla, Queen of the Desert prove that we can agree to disagree. But more curiously, we sometimes disagree not only amongst ourselves but even occasionally with ourselves: in his review for The Independent, Michael Coveney slammed it for featuring a “pretty strong blast of lethal elements” and said “it sort of stinks”, yet at the same time acclaimed the production itself for being “slick, well organised and fairly enjoyable”. But if the juxtapositions of those feelings seem somewhat contradictory, even more so is his review on Whatsonstage.com that seems to strip out most of his criticisms entirely. Jason Donovan, declared “rancid” in the Indie, is merely referenced as “underpowered” on Whatsonstage, and that’s about as bad as it gets.
Whatsonstage.com - who now operate out of offices on top of the very theatre where Priscilla is playing, and whose lead London producer The Really Useful Group are now major shareholders of the website - may have wanted to avoid uncomfortable conversations in the rickety old lift when their staff and cast collide…
On the other hand, one man’s meat is sometimes just another man’s poison. Lyn Gardner wrote a review in today’s Guardian that referred to the Lyric Hammersmith’s production of The Overcoat as feeling “like the longest 70 minutes of my life”, and I felt immense sympathy, as last night I sat through what felt like the longest three hours of mine, when I saw the opening of the National’s production of Dido, Queen of Carthage. Yet Michael Billington, in a four-star notice today, pre-empts this line of criticism by offering this calculated rebuke: “Sensation-seekers may find the play, at three hours, hard going. But I found it inspiriting to see a forgotten dramatic landmark rendered with such style and dignity.”
On this occasion, I’m with Quentin Letts, who in his review for the Daily Mail notes, “The show plods on for three hours. We are meant to feel slightly sorry for Dido, bunny boiler though she be, but 40 minutes before the end I was itching for her to get on and burn herself to a crisp.”
He wasn’t the only one, I’m sure. And things are not helped by a published running time in the programme of 2 hours 30 minutes, which in fact turns out to be three hours. The West End Whingers were in attendance last night, and left in the interval (their prerogative, of course, since they actually buy their tickets). Meanwhile, I spied the following notes on a colleague’s notebook: “Bread, fruit, salad”. It was the most articulate review of all.
I thought it was interesting to note that Priscilla itself, has quoted Michael Coveney on their website in praise of the show.
Last night some of us, instead of three hours of Dido, had three and a half hours of Twelfth Night! But it was Yukio Ninagawa's kabuki production...
Thank you for this, Mark. After reading Mr Billington's extraordinary review this morning I felt ready to give up theatregoing altogether, half convinced that I don't know my Aeneas from my Dido. But it's reassuring to know I'm not the only one who's suffered a thousand deaths sitting through this lousy production of a such a fascinating, unfairly neglected play.
Seems like the credibately of both Michael Coveney and whatonstage.com should be looked at.
Hmmmm - the plot is thickening here and I cannot yet see my way through it, and I don't mean the dreariness of Dido. Let's think this Priscilla business through Mark. If the reviewer's real view of Priscilla was diluted for What's On Stage because RUG now has a controlling interest in the website and is also a main producer of Priscilla, did someone at RUG pull the rug from under the reviewer? I've checked and Paul Vale is right, they've certainly grabbed hold of some favorable words for publicity purposes. But don't most producers do that? On the other hand, if it's true that RUG has taken over the What's On Stage website, and it looks as if it is true because I see they now promote the website in their theatre programmes (without saying it's a RUG spin-off), this is a worrying development in Theatreland where I have worked for years and seen many a dodgy deal go belly-up. What if Cameron Mackintosh's organisation or the ATG or NIMAX theatre-owning groups took a controlling financial stake in The Stage and then influenced your coverage of shows they have a financial interest in, or downplayed those of their rivals? You end up with weasel words. I see it clearly now, the Lord giveth his RUG money but taketh away your integrity.
Agreed as to the undesirability of such a thing, but then again, the most popular quality, mid- and mass-market newspapers are all those that peddle a party political line most strongly; let's not kid ourselves that art is of necessity sacrosanct.
Ian I agree - art uses the media to promote itself and the media latches on to art to sell papers sometimes. But don't you think an apparently private little website apparently now owned by one of the most powerful theatre groups on Earth ought to have worked out by now that reviews are not intended to be there to promote their shareholder's financial interests. Does the Financial Times censor your reviews Ian if they don't follow the owner's financial interests? I just think it's a strange move in show business for a giant theatre producer to take over a tiny website and not want to be pulling strings. They may have started tampering with reviews, but then will they manipulate the 'news' to suit their own promotional purposes. Otherwise why bother to buy it in the first place? I'd feel the same if Cameron Mackintosh were to take over my main web source of theatre information, The Stage.
With reference to speculation in the blog and comments above about Whatsonstage.com, no external censorship or manipulation of any kind has occurred here. Differences in tone between articles written by the same author for two different publications reflect nothing more than decisions in authoring and editing when producing content for different audiences – ultimately, here, both are two-star reviews and reflect the same verdict of this critic.
It’s true – and no secret – that Whatsonstage.com has recently moved into the 5th floor at the Palace, a theatre where other private companies are also based (many West End theatres house offices for other companies, of course). We had to move from our old address - shared with a theatre producer and ticketing company - and this coincided with the Palace offices being vacated by their previous occupants, the producers of Spamalot. So it was fortuitous timing.
We at Whatsonstage.com take our editorial independence very seriously; our credibility is not now and never has been in question.
Terri Paddock
Editorial Director
Whatsonstage.com