What to say about ... Design for Living

There are times – and this is one of them – when it feels as though it might be fun to kidnap a pair of theatre critics, lock them in a room together, with gin, and then make them read their own reviews aloud to one another. The idea would be to force them to agree on who is right, or else they both get seconded to the business section. A cruel measure, certainly, but a necessary one, if they are going to persist in being so unhelpful about productions like Design for Living. This once-banned Noel Coward comedy, about a boy-girl-boy menage, has just been revived by London's Old Vic, its once unmentionable gay undertones now promoted into overtones. It is long, it is sleek, and everyone agrees that the scenery looks pretty. Yet the show itself has generated a batch of reviews so mutually antagonistic that they bring the whole business of theatre criticism into disrepute. First up into the rage cell are Kate Kellaway and Charles Spencer. "Anthony Page's sublime production of Design for Living has a free-for-all naturalness that intoxicatingly offsets Noel Coward's artifice and control," Kellaway kicks off , sounding elegant and assured. But Spencer biffs her one with : "God, this is a long and largely unrewarding slog". "Anthony Page directs with a plodding ponderousness that turns this disconcerting comedy into a three-hour trudge. I've seen productions of Ibsen that offered more laughs." So who is right? Perhaps if we peel away the gaffer tape from the mouths of Henry Hitchings and Quentin Letts we'll get some clues? "The success of Anthony Page's revival of one of Coward's most provocative plays has everything to do with its three central performances," gasps @henryhitchings , "especially the remarkable and, yes, turbulent chemistry between Tom Burke and Andrew Scott." @quentinletts , however, splutters: "Andrew Scott's Leo, with his rolling eyes and licking pout, could only be a creature of the 21st century […] We expect Adonises. Instead, we here have two male lovers who at times have all the flair of Ant and Dec." Oh well, let's put the gaffer tape back on. Meanwhile, even the milder voices reveal stark differences of detail. "Page's production emphasises the sexual and psychological honesty in the piece […] by emphasising the impact of success and distance on the characters and grounding their frailties and fears," says Sarah Hemming , oh so plausibly, in the FT. Hang on a minute, though. Kate Bassett is sneaking up behind her with a chair leg: "Overall in this production, one hankers for more psychological depth," she yells, splintering it over Hemming's head. Amid the tumult, there is a soothing blandness in the opinions of Julie Carpenter in the Express, who found that "the whole thing is wonderfully good fun, [which is] helpful given that the running time is over three hours". And of course, one can always rely on the great, avuncular Michael Billington . "I once suggested that Coward was a puritan dandy with a Martini in one hand and a moral sampler in the other," he reminds us. "And this shrewd and lively production suggests there may be more than a grain of truth in that remark." In other words: "I love it because it proves I'm right." At least he's honest. Do say: It must have been so brave to explore these sexual taboos in the 1930s. Don't say: Wait a minute… You mean Noel Coward was gay? The reviews reviewed: This is definitely either good or bad.