20 replies to this topic

[Lynette]

My goodness, this is such an intellectual thread I can hardly breathe. I thought that well made [ old fashioned ] plays didn't get on in the commercial sector because producers are stupid. Do you mean there is another reason? As for KM, she ain't that bad, Jan. She does get us talking.

[Backdrifter]

No-one's denying anyone anything. There are a number of people on this board who wish to praise KM's work so it's perfectly acceptable there should be some who criticise it. That doesn't mean her critics are "denying her a voice in favour of more mediocre artists" as someone ludicrously said earlier. And as for

The people are to be denied their voice on how The National Theatre spends their money

- well, it's not their money; it was, and heaven help us come the dark day the public have any sort of say in a theatre's repertoire.

[Jan Brock]

Lynette: I agree KM is a good director - I have said several times that her "Uncle Vanya" (amongst others) was excellent - but her more recent work has been regressive rather than progressive.

As for the "inverted snob" comment - I don't think so. One of my favourite directors is Howard Davies who started in the same sort of monomaniacal style as KM (all those Brecht productions) but who developed into a director who could handle a whole range of material (including comedy).

Incidentally, did anyone see the KM production of "House of Bernarda Alba" ? Almost the perfect vehicle for her, I would have thought.

[Backdrifter]

On a general note, a few years before he died, John Osborne was interviewed on Radio 4 and seeing what was coming over the horizon spoke in glowing terms about the people he was supposed to have blasted off the English stage: Coward and Ratigan et al and how he'd underestimated what they were about. History seems to be proving him right.

In what way?

[Jan Brock]

I agree to some extent that a generation of writers have been unjustly ignored in the interests of promoting the new. For example, in reviews of "An Inspector Calls" the director, set, and actors were praised but few found themselves able to say that, actually, it is quite a good play after all, and that audiences seem to quite like a plot-driven play where you want to find out what happens next (rather than some sort of amorphous multi-media impressionistic event) - too embarrassingly reactionary a thing to say, I suppose.

[Backdrifter]

I go to the theatre 3 or 4 times a week and manage to enjoy most of it. I don't come away frowning and wondering where the new Cowards or Rattigans are, or shaking my fist at having sat through yet another formless multimedia experience. And virtually all of what I see comprises plot-driven plays. The kinds of things that are often railed against and held up as examples how theatre has lost its way, i.e. multimedia productions and site-specific stuff etc, seem to me to be few and far between. I'm not necessarily saying the last couple of posters are wrong, it's just that they express a view I hear quite often but in my 100 or so theatre visits a year I rarely see any of this stuff, and it's not as though I make a point of avoiding it (in fact I sometimes seek it out if I know it's there).

100 a year might be a lot less than others on this board, granted, but given the strike rate I experience, so far in about 15 years of continuous theatre-going I don't have a sense of any sort of malaise and in fact generally find it very enriching and entertaining.

[Snout]

"Guest" asks "where are the young writers" to succeed Coward and Rattigan.
Maybe we expect too much of "young" writers. How about looking at middle-aged ones such as Frayn or Stoppard, Hampton, Hare, even the younger Marber? They aren't bad.
We should let our "young writers" develop away from the West End until they reach a greater maturity. It would be fairer on them and we might get some more grown-up theatre less tarnished by silly excess and political naivety.