As I have always understood it, the point of acting is to inhabit the world of another person, and to portray that person. The actor may have something in common with their character; they may not. But actors are supposed to be able to empathise and research and imagine and combine these elements to create a convincing portrayal.

When Jude Law was cast as Hamlet, for all the fascination in the decision and the debate about his thespian capabilities, I didn’t see anyone complaining that he’d never been a depressive prince of Denmark, so he wouldn’t be able to understand the character. Alec Guinness was never a duke, a parson, a banker, an admiral, a general, or even a lady, but nobody said he couldn’t take that multiple role in Kind Hearts and Coronets. And for all my reservations about Diana Vickers taking on Little Voice, none of them include the fact that she’s never been a terminally shy repressed young women tormented by the absence of her father, reassured only by the great singing divas, and forced into showbiz by her mother and her bit on the side.

Yet James Beddard’s article this week (www.guardian.co.uk) triggered a lot of debate among theatrical types as to whether only disabled actors can play disabled characters – or if the very notion of it is offensive, like a white actor “blacking up” to play Othello.

Harvey Fierstein famously said that he wanted gay actors to play Albin/Zaza in La Cage Aux Folles for reasons of authenticity, declaring, “If you stand up and sing ‘I Am What I Am’ without feeling your sexuality and your persecution right down to your painted toenails, it’s never going to be quite the same thing.” But sharing an emotion with a character isn’t quite the same as acting – and nor is it all there is to it. Surely the primary thought of any director or casting panel should be whether an actor can play the role – not who he sleeps with.

And the same principle must apply to disabled actors and characters. If Beddard’s argument is that there should be more opportunities for disabled actors, and directors shouldn’t automatically opt for an able-bodied actor “disabling up”, then I totally agree. If the logical conclusion of this is a kind of positive discrimination, where actors are cast for their physical disability rather than their acting ability, this can’t be the future of theatre – can it?

What is it about depressive Dane princes with Oedipal complexes and unnecessary fuss? Whenever there’s a high profile production of Hamlet, off-stage drama seems to spring up all around.

The Donmar’s production of Hamlet starring Jude Law has been attracting harsh words since its inception in 2007. The Guardian’s Andrew Dickson suggested that Law’s casting was perhaps not the wisest, describing the actor as “at best, mediocre.”

That blog was written a fair old while ago, back in the heady days of 2007 but recently it’s been resurrected and it’s causing a whole new round of controversy.

According to a far more recent blog on the Guardian, Jude Law’s people contacted the paper and requested they take down their earlier blog which suggested that Law might not be all that good.

Does this strike anyone else as utterly ridiculous? Surely the good people at Premier PR are aware how freedom of speech works? Fair enough they did not demand the blog was taken down but even the request is pretty offensive. To me it basically translates as:

“We appreciate that you have an opinion but we’d be really grateful if you didn’t express it on the interwebs. People may read your opinion and lose their ability to form one of their own”

It’s insulting to Mr Dickson to request his work be removed and it’s insulting to the general public to assume that we are incapable of seeing that the blog was written years ago. Yes the offending blog was still rather high up on google but people are more than capable of discerning between a recent review and an out-of-date opinion piece regarding one particular actor.

Urgh, as if this little hiccup was not enough, who remembers the David Tennant using a human skull online drama? I’ll refresh your memories, when it came out that the skull of André Tchaikowsky may be used on-stage in the RSC’s Hamlet, a little flurry of very well timed publicity blew up around the production. The skull was never used in the end but ticket sales were incredible. Quelle surprise!

Well guess which other high-profile Hamlet now has its own human skull?! You guessed it, the Donmar’s version. Unfortunately being over the age of 7 prevents me shouting COPYCAT! all over the place. I’m sure the Donmar’s team have a very legitimate and arty reason to obtain their own former human bonce but it strikes me as borrowed interest.

I feel at this point that I should say that both of these problems have absolutely nothing to do with the artistic content of the show. My grievance does not lay with Mr Law, The Donmar or Shakespeare, it’s with the PR and marketing folk, surely the Donmar could do better?!

For an actor, playing Shakespeare can be the defining peak of an illustrious stage career. However, if it doesn’t work out it can be a right gruelling ordeal. Show and Stay^® look through some of the Shakespearean performances we might wish never were…

With Jude Law and Lenny Henry about to attempt the supreme English poet, we have a look at some of the dud performances that have left the actors with a good deal of eggy-weg all over their Chevy-Chases. Even reputable actors like Law have come unstuck in the past, forsooth. Check out what Nicholas de Jongh made of luminaries Alan Rickman and Helen Mirren’s performance of Anthony and Cleopatra (respectably… naturally):

“They rose to erotic ardour last night with little more enthusiasm than a pair of glumly non-mating pandas at London Zoo, coaxed to do their duty.”

Not exactly earth shattering was it? One can’t imagine one being picked to play Her Majesty on the back of that one, could one? Well saying that, tell the Queen she’s approaching anything akin to ‘erotic ardour’ and you’re liable to get your head lopped off.

Anyway, as it turns out, there’s more. Highlighted in The Guardian last week, some of our most respected actors have received utter pannings when they’ve ventured into the Shakespearean realm. The loveable Richard Briers’s stab at Hamlet went down with WA Darlington as follows:

“Richard Briers last night played Hamlet like a demented typewriter”

Blimey.

Obviously Hamlet is a whole can of horribly indecisive, vaguely suicidal worms, but Macbeth has been a sticky wicket in the past too I’ll have you know. Take a look at how the following came a cropper trying their hand at the Scottish bloodbath:

Anthony Hopkins: “He gives the impression he is a Rotarian pork-butcher about to tell the stalls a dirty story.” (Felix Barker)

Peter O’Toole: “Chances are he likes the play, but O’Toole’s performance suggests that he is taking some kind of personal revenge on it.” (Robert Cushman)

Simone Signoret (as Lady Macbeth): “A concial bell-tented matron who moves on wheels like a draped Dalek surmounted by a beautiful Medusa head.” (Alan Brien)

And again,

Peter O’Toole: “He delivers every line with a monotonous tenor bark as if addressing an audience of deaf Eskimos.” (Michael Billington)

Well, well, well. Is this a dagger I see before me? No, just a bunch of hot, twisty knives stuck in your back!
So, Lenny, Jude, Listen up: don’t mess up or you’ll get slammed! No, that’s not the lesson; the lesson is: even the greats get it wrong sometimes.