After having witnessed Jodie Whitaker prove that Jacobean drama is far beyond her scope (in a production of The Duchess of Malfi which felt like it had been put through blender), I was in some trepidation about how far another Jacobean play featuring another high-profile actor who has distinguished herself in the cinematic medium would cope with The Tempest. Would Shakespeare prove too alien for Ms Weaver?

Sigourney is on stage for the whole of the duration of the play but despite this she brings very little to the role and it as though deciding whether to play Prospero as malevolent or benevolent (or moving from one polarity to the other) was thought to be a minor concern that could not detain actor nor director. It is impossible to guess from her performance what the director actually thinks of Prospero, and there was no sense of any development of the character. (S)he is at the end as (s)he was at the beginning. More like Milton’s God than Shakespeare’s Prospero.

The star turn was actually Matthew Horne– he who plays Gavin to Stacey. Here he partnered the drunken butler Stephano and both actors brought something memorable to the roles.

It is strange to me that in a post-colonial climate there remains an appetite to depict Caliban as a grotesque being. Wokery instead has led in recent years to a succession of female Prosperos. This seemingly radical gesture disables productions which adopt it from exploring patriarchal power or the father/daughter dynamic which is at the heart of the play.

I was impressed by the special effects – faint praise, I know, but apart from very much enjoying Matthew Horne’s star turn as Trinculo and Jason Barnett as Stephano, it is as far as I can go.