An Australian theatre company has taken the highly unusual step of issuing a blistering public response to a theatre critic whose review it labelled “cruel and unfair”.
The Age critic Cameron Woodhead gave Bell Shakespeare’s current production of Macbeth a withering two stars in a recent review – and he singled out actor Hazem Shammas’ performance in the titular role for the most derision.
Shammas, Woodhead claimed, “belongs in the Richard III ward of Monty Python’s Hospital for Over-Acting”.
In the review, he called the Logie-winning actor’s portrayal of Macbeth “so cartoonish”, lamented that he was “stalked by the inappropriate silhouette of the clown,” and called his portrayal “unhinged”.
He finished the 500-word review, which is largely concerned with Shammas’ performance, wishing the play’s lead actor had reined in his “vein-popping excess” and been “more willing to trust in the words” of Shakespeare.
The review was published online on April 27. One week later, Bell Shakespeare launched an impassioned defence of its lead actor with a lengthy statement on its social media accounts.
It reads, in full:
We have broad shoulders at Bell Shakespeare. As a theatre company, we want audiences to enjoy our productions. When they don’t, we accept our creative differences and move on.
The Age’s theatre critic, Cameron Woodhead, didn’t like our current production of Macbeth (May 1 edition). That’s his prerogative; many critics have provided favourable reviews of this production and Macbeth means many things to many people. One of the joys of seeing Shakespeare’s works is to debate them afterwards.
This time though, we must call out conduct which, in our view, was cruel and unfair.
Cameron’s targeting of the lead actor Hazem Shammas was, in our view, belittling and contemptuous. The lampooning included language such as, “Monty Python’s Hospital for Over-Acting”, “By interval you half expect a nurse with chloroform to come in”, “Shammas leaves himself nowhere to turn that isn’t stalked by the inappropriate silhouette of the clown”, and so on. Whether it be the actor’s manner of vocal delivery, his physical appearance (“vein-popping excess”) and even his restraint, all were held up for ridicule.
Whilst Cameron may have issues with the production, we do not consider a response should ever be draped in language like this.
In our view, no actor deserves to be dismissed so personally in a theatre review.
Hazem Shammas is a Logie-winning Palestinian-born actor for whom Macbeth is particularly resonant. “Macbeth is driven by something that finally breaks him,” he has said. “And that story became my dad’s story in terms of coming to this land and then pursuing his dreams at all costs, in terms of the costs to himself and breaking the hearts of the ones he left behind.” (Credit: ABC radio Melbourne, April 29, 2023)
Actors don’t have a voice when critics write negative things about them. It has long been thus. However, the stage is their workplace. And they are entitled to a safe space at work just as much as anyone.
Accordingly, in our view, Cameron’s decision to use such language crossed a line.
The statement has sparked further debate on Bell Shakespeare’s social mediaposts about whether or not Woodhead went too far – many have applauded the theatre company for standing up for their star, while others argued criticism should be copped on the chin.
“Cameron Woodhead gave one of my novels a bruisingly rude review a few years ago. I think he enjoys unleashing the poison pen occasionally. I have finally managed to laugh about it, but it took me years,” wrote author Jane Caro. “And I loved Macbeth and Hazem.”
“Well done Bell Shakespeare for standing beside your actors,” said theatre performer Katherine Tonkin.
“Good on you got biting back … I think that is amazing of you to do,” wrote actor Colette Mann.
Others weren’t so sure.
More Coverage
“It’s concerning to me that the arts in Australia is so scared of criticism,” read one top-rated comment under Bell Shakespeare’s Instagram post. “Shammas is an actor whose performance is reasonably up for review here. A critic’s writing is totally within reason to use language that entertains its reader and evokes strong imagery. Personally I think it’s weird you’ve decided to get up in arms about this. Arts discourse is good for the industry; please stop trying to stifle it.”
Another commenter agreed: “I don’t think theatre companies are accustomed to bad criticism really. Nothing in that article was particularly compelling or funny (like it was trying to be) but it was also not full of personal attacks and it was not ‘unfair’, so I think if these are your broad shoulders you haven’t spent a lot of time doing press-ups.”
Woodhead has not yet publicly responded to Bell Shakespeare’s statement.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7r7HWrGWcp51jrrZ7xKernqqklravucSnq2iblaGyo77IrbBmpJmbsnCt1Kyqop1dqbWmrdOrnGabn6K9orrYZqynpJWWwKmx0mamp2WTp8KmuIyrnK%2Bhlayys3nIp2SbpJmowaa%2ByKeeZquklsGmucSnq2imlazAbr%2FTqKmyZ5NtgXSAlXKccm1lba53sZGbnZxwY2mFea%2FEn2dtmWGZ