There is something seriously weird about the hoo-ha surrounding the new production of Hamlet at the Barbican, starring Benedict Cumberbatch, and the decision of certain of our national newspapers to review it at the first preview performance.

No, stop there: this is not what they were doing, or so they said.

Serena Davies, writing in the Daily Telegraph, told us: “A first preview is not the place to offer analysis of the performances. This play has three weeks to run-in before it opens to the critics. Cumberbatch’s interpretation of the title role is going to shift and develop.”

Kate Maltby, of The Times, was singing from the same hymn sheet when she appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme to defend the decision to carry her critique.

“I don’t think it’s fair to judge every piece of interaction,” she told interviewer James Naughtie.

He, by the way, had prefaced his interview with the observation that this was the first time in living memory that newspapers had not all reviewed a production at the same time. (Not true, actually, as critics often go early so a polished piece can appear the day after press night).

In fact, neither Davies nor Maltby held back on giving their opinion of the production, under director Lyndsey Turner.

The first wrote: “[Cumberbatch] already commands and surprises, there are laughs and shocks, and... he is ably supported.”

Over at the Daily Mail, meanwhile, Jan Moir was giving a five-star rave to the show, and to Cumberbatch. She wrote: “His Hamlet in a hoodie was electrifying, a performance that veered from moments of genuinely hilarious comedy to plunge down to the very depths of throat scalding tragedy.

“Taking his triumphant bows at the end, Cumberbatch thanked the audience then headed off into the wings. He looked happy but exhausted and no wonder. Goodnight, sweet prince. You were completely amazing.”

My readers will probably realise that none of these reviewers is the chief drama critic of the newspaper she was representing. Moir is a muck-raking columnist and Maltby an academic who writes on various topics, including theatre. Davies – I learn from the internet – is the Daily Telegraph’s radio and TV editor.

Were Dominic Cavendish (Telegraph), Dominic Maxwell (Times) and Quentin Letts all away on holiday? Possibly.

Was a female angle required on this important event in the career of the Sherlock Holmes heartthrob, much beloved of hordes of Cumberbitches, as fans are oddly proud to call themselves? Maybe.

Or were the theatre main men unwilling to face the opprobrium that would have resulted from their venturing an opinion in print on a preview performance? I rather think so.

The massed ranks of luvviedom arose on the Twittersphere to condemn the early reviews. Among the outraged were Sam West, comedian David Baddiel and designer Les Brotherston.

They and everyone else (almost) in theatreland are staunch in their defence of previews, which in the case of this Hamlet extend to 17 performances.

Seventeen! “What need one?” I am tempted to enquire, borrowing the question asked in another great Shakespeare tragedy, King Lear, when Regan is about the business of reducing her father’s retinue.

The West End producer Howard Panter, co-owner of the Ambassador Theatre Group, told The Times he did not think 17 excessive.

“Live shows aren’t like a movie or a painting, which is presented to the public when it’s finished,” he said. “Previews are the only way a living piece of work can evolve.”

The only way, Sir Howard? How about the alternative of a good, long period of rehearsal, monitored if desired by invited members of the public to provide the necessary interaction with an audience? Not so much money in that, of course.

I write this on the morning following the first night of Love, Loss and What I Wore at the Mill at Sonning. This was indeed the first performance to which the press, as ever here, was invited. Led by Rula Lenska and Louise Jameson, the cast looked in no need of a run-in period.