An Attempt at a Book Review...

My apologies for not having blogged for nearly a whole month! I can't quite believe it myself, or indeed believe how busy I have been to justify this terrible lack of enthusiasm towards writing. And for shame, it is not because I have been busy writing elsewhere.

It occurred to me on the train to work the other day that perhaps I could branch out from theatre reviewing. As I know next to nothing about art, except from whether it is aesthetically pleasing, and love too many of the crappy films slated by critics, I decided to try my hand at a book review. This is typical of me - to turn something I love into work, but whenever I finish a book, if the book is good, I always feel a wave of sadness wash over me in the knowledge that it is over. This way, I get to tell people about it, so here it goes...


'One Day' by David Nicholls

David Nicholls, best known for 'Starter for Ten', has created a cleverly structured and all round interesting concept with 'One Day'. The story follows Emma and Dexter, two friends who meet after graduation and spend the next twenty years in each other's company. We meet the pair, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes apart, on one day of each year from 1988 until 2008 until the story comes to its natural end. In this respect the story doesn't drag, nor does it cut short where you wished it would continue; the framework within which Nicholls writes is a wonderful technique for providing the audience with a unavoidable connection to these characters.

The characters themselves, more casually referred to by each other as Em and Dex, couldn't be more different, and yet compliment each other so brilliantly. The depth in which these characters are created is ingenious in drawing the reader in; one feels at various moments throughout that you can relate to Em, Dex or both, in their quest to fulfill life expectations. In Emma's case, these are self-inflicted aspirations to 'change the world'; fighting for what is right which includes not paying for a hair cut and wearing dodgy NHS glasses. For Dexter, whilst he feels the pressure of his parent's expectations, he goes through life grasping at success for being 'cool'; fame and money drives his life and often the wrong way. The pair are perfect for each other and yet fail to see it for the majority of the novel. There is a certain (sexual) frustration to this for both characters and reader, which is only aided by the often disruptive nature of the book; the cliff hangers are infuriating at times and often left unresolved- one craves the knowledge of the 364 days that bridge each chapter. Nevertheless, one does get a full sense of a life lived and at least Nicholls stays true to his structure, choosing the same day every year, no matter how menial and dull that day is for one of the characters.

The significance of such a magnificently crafted book is most felt when reaching the end. I certainly felt greatly upset by the story coming to a close, whilst finding myself questioning my own life in relation to the circumstances explored. Nicholls writes so true to life with such a natural flare that I found myself easily absorbed by the story from beginning to end; I eagerly await his next masterpiece.

Reviewing Peers

It is an issue for me, whether or not to review my peers if I am given the choice and in most circumstances I have turned down the opportunity. This problem has been in the back of my mind since I recently (for the first time I hasten to add) told my editor that I could not review my good friend's production of Arturu Ui for the unsubstantiated fear that if it were not successful I would be unable to set aside my allegiances and give an honest report. It is my belief that when reviewing, one should not be influenced by the relationship they have with the people involved in what is being reviewed, loyalty should remain with reader; this is the critic's job. However at this point in my career I have not yet had the ability to separate the two.

After a pleasant evening spent at a double bill dress-rehearsal performance, both written, directed and created by friends of mine, I have decided to confront my fear and write a fair and honest response to each show:

'Until She Showed Me Otherwise'

The night begins with a relaxed atmosphere as Lisa Ellis welcomes us into the intimate space she has created in order to perform a one woman show in which she engages us with stories of lesbian and bi-sexual women. As a lesbian herself, Lisa has a strong connection to the verbatim material and she shows a passion and respect for the women she embodies as well as revealing her own personal 'coming out' story. Her persona is one which is comparatively a cross between the carefully constructed persona of Lian Aramis in 'Swimming to Spalding' and Kristin Fredricksson's relaxed amicability in 'Everything Must Go'. There are also elements which strongly resemble the form of 'The Vagina Monologues' and work magnificently.

Ellis' characters and the stories they tell are intriguing and yet heart-breaking; Ellis has an ability to draw the audience in, at times using us, without expectation or pressure, to read out individual stories of women which are capable of inducing shock and dis-belief. It is an eye-opening experience for anyone who refuses to accept that there are still problems in the acceptance of gay women in our society today. The effect is one similar to DV8's 'To Be Straight With You'; you leave the theatre feeling ignorant of the issues still plaguing the gay community and at times, this realisation brings a tear to your eye.

Some of the less effective elements of the piece includes the total ignorance of the elaborate set behind Ellis (constructed mainly for the second part of the double bill, 'Toast') to the point where one forgets that it is even there, and the placement of an onstage dramaturg. The dramaturg, Gemma Williams, becomes more of a distraction than a help, as she is used to dress Ellis in the various costume pieces and to occasionally clear up after her. It seems to be a case of anything Williams can do, Ellis could do better, which begs the question; why is she there?

The show itself, however, is strong, engaging and full of impact. Ellis raises issues that need to be raised without preaching or running her audience into the ground with overly-emotional lesbian horror stories. There is a careful balance of humour and integrity which keeps the audience amused and involved.

'Toast'

The second half of the show, although presented in a very separate format with different directors, continues along the theme of homosexuality, exploring the relationship between gay men and straight women. Through a text created part from Verbatim material and part from cast improvisations, the play introduces the space as a wake for Dixie Spartan; a drag queen who has seemingly left his best friend Maggie in the lurch by not acknowledging her in a letter he has written before he died. The dedication to delving deeper than the label 'fag hag' makes this piece interesting in it's new perspective, however some plot holes diminish the impact of this by diverting the audience's attention to what is not justified by the end.

The cast are superb in their very natural characterisation of Dixie's friends and one by one they make their own arena of debate on the subject through beautifully delivered monologues created from the Verbatim material. Unfortunately, at times, it is rather too obvious what has been improvised and what is other peoples' words; there is a missing connection between the two which creates a barrier between the humour of duologue's and the more serious nature of the monologues. The audience interaction is plausible and does not intimidate the audience, rather one feels a part of the celebration for Dixie, who is present throughout, mounted on the stage surrounded by glittering trees, shoes and over sized apples. It is a shame that this arena is not used by the other characters as instead we are diverted around the space to various tables at which they sit.

Whilst there are flaws at this stage of the rehearsal process, with development and attention to the finer details, this play, with it's fantastic array of colourful characters (in particular Dixie) and superbly fabulous set, has the potential to be thought-provoking whilst remaining thoroughly entertaining.

The day flies by... when you're with Ian Rickson

Today I had the pleasure of spending a full 6 hours with the inspirational Ian Rickson. This was my fourth and final session with the former Artistic Director of the Royal Court Theatre and I must say I was sad to say goodbye. One might expect the reputation Rickson has earned to have had some effect on the man's ego, yet his calming presence and gentle voice put me at ease immediately; he is neither patronising or self-absorbed, nor did I get the impression he was killing time to get the work day over and paid for.

As a former teacher I believe that this is the most positive influence on his work as a director. He clearly has an understanding of people, he is an excellent listener and extremely patient. Here is where the key to his success lies; he is a people person and undeniably has a passion for what he does. Furthermore, his investment in people obviously informs his character work which is detailed, precise and well thought-through.

The workshop itself was a balanced melange of script work and textual exercises (surrounding a new play by Joe Penhall) injected with ball games which saw us all laugh and relax around each other. Throughout, Rickson maintained a level of respect and admiration without demanding either. It is refreshing to meet such a big name in the theatre industry without feeling at all intimidated by their career history. In fact, this pressure was non-existent, rather I felt that this was how all workshops should be; fun and thoroughly enjoyable.

Rickson has a way of meeting everyone in the room's needs. I was impressed that he remembered all of our names from last year and took the time to listen and get to know each of us individually in a one to one tutorial.

His advice to me seemed to be rooted in a real belief that I could actually achieve my dream of becoming a theatre critic. What a wonderful feeling to be complimented by Ian Rickson! My time with him today and the advice he gave me has reaffirmed my self-belief and boosted my confidence in what I do. If I can perform well in an Ian Rickson workshop and be pointedly thanked for my contribution, why could I not convince any editor of my capabilities? Hard work and passion is all I need, he said. I have both, I just need to demonstrate them to the right people now.

How far is too far?

Smoking Bans. I can understand them in certain circumstances. Nobody wants to be coughing down a mouthful of smoke with their dinner. Nobody wants to wake up after a night out and realise that that smell is coming from the clothes you wore the previous night. And nobody wants to pay good money to see a film, or a performance only to be stuck in that space breathing second-hand smoke from an audience dotted with smokers. But what happens when it comes to the arts? How far is too far when it comes to smoking on stage?

These questions have arisen in my mind due to being presented with the issue myself. 'Pornography' requires cigarettes to be smoked; it is written in the script on a number of occasions and to my fellow directors and I, fake cigarettes will just not cut it. We want the visceral effect of the smoke, the smell of it drifting downstage, the sight of smoke rising up to the rig and the sound of a performer inhaling a long drag. The atmosphere someone smoking creates is irreplaceable. Yet, to achieve this effect, we must first gain the permission of the Council, then the University and finally, if we do break down these authorities and are allowed to smoke on stage, a complaint from an audience member could see us facing a fine! Is it just me, or is this ludicrous?

It was not so long ago that people smoked on public transport and only recently was our country made completely smoke free, yet attitudes to smoking and smokers have changed to such a dramatic effect that it instigates outrage. What used to be a part of a culture, has now been eliminated for health and safety reasons. Health and Safety regulations may be in place to protect, yet most times they seem to restrict and limit artistic vision. What is surprising is that these rules are even more imposing at University. Particularly one such as ours which ironically pushes us towards the contemporary, the experimentational and the original. However we are stifled by these boundaries and the endless paperwork that has to be done just to smoke on stage. When did society get so uptight to the point where art is suffering? A line needs to be drawn at some point, the question is where? However, until it is realised that it is more practical to use discretion in these matters, art will continue to struggle against such rules and we will continue to go through the many motions to ensure that our artistic vision is not compromised.

The Future of Theatre Criticism...

A few days ago I attended 'Leading London Theatre Critics In The Spotlight' at Royal Holloway University. This event was, for me, an exciting one. Lyn Gardner, Mark Shenton, Ian Shuttleworth and Kate Bassett in one room? I entered the dark studio with an anticipation rivalling that of a child on their first day of school; I was ready to be inspired. I was not disappointed, particularly with Lyn Gardner. Her contribution as a theatre critic to the theatre world is not only insightful, but it is admirable. Unlike other London critics, she ventures outside the big city to support regional theatres and shows which do not boast the likes of Jude Law of Keira Knightley. Although this is not to diminish the respectability of the other critics. It is the sad truth of the situation that under the pressures of the recession, theatre critics are not provided with the expenses to travel out of the city. Worse news still, with no money in the newspaper business and the rise of free blogging sites such as this, why is there a need to pay struggling theatre critics when there are so many online going unpaid?

Now this is not the first time I have heard all of this. In fact, this is the third time I have been warned off my career path, and even though this time it is by the top end theatre critics who even worry about keeping their jobs, I am not going to give up before I have even begun. This could be a terrible mistake that sees me near enough wasting a year of my life with no income or means of supporting myself, but who knows? I could just get lucky.

What worries me more in fact is how the lack of 'expert' theatre critics will affect the reception of theatre and performance. With The Times employing in-house staff such as culture columnist Libby Purves to replace Benedict Nightingale as the new drama critic (a position that comes around once in a blue moon) to cut costs, it is difficult to see how, at age 60, she can even find the working years left in her to fill his almighty boots. It takes years of experience, preferably some notion of what it is like to work in the theatre world, and a great interest in performance to be heard and respected by someone like myself, a mere student. I listen to the experts because they are exactly that. They know more about it than me, they have been around longer, seen many more shows and written tens of thousands of words in their time. They know what they are doing. Who do I listen to if all the experts die out?

What is of even further concern is how contemporary theatre will be affected. It is my belief that there will always be some instances where contemporary performance is better understood or appreciated by someone who has experience with new styles of theatre; someone who can contextualise a company with other works they have produced; someone who understands what the whole point of a piece is. It is true that in some cases contemporary theatre fails, and this can be determined by most audience members, with or without the background knowledge, but do we want to risk not going to see a new and exciting piece of theatre because the reviewer (through no fault of their own) just didn't get it? Even the critics who have been around a while have got it wrong from time to time so what chance does anyone else have? My theories are yet to proved, but I know that if the reviews of an ignorant, inexperienced critic become detrimental to the progress of contemporary theatre, the editor will have a lot of people to answer to. Lets just hope Livvy Purves does justice to her new title.

It's all coming together!

We now have our cast for our production of Simon Stephen's Pornography and I couldn't be more excited!

There were problems with auditioning this year. The situation is that usually all Masters student directors hold group workshop auditions and from these we call back the people we are interested in. Of course this means that people may be called back for more than one production and inevitably some of these auditionees will be sought after in casting. We call this discussion 'The Big Fight' which took place last night for nearly two and a half hours, including a cooling off period to alleviate the tension in the room.

The problem this year was the lack of auditionees. I remember auditioning myself in first, second and third year for the fourth year directors auditions because back then they were considered a big deal and I wasn't the only one to think so; there were always plenty of people to pick and choose from. So I am wondering, what happened this year? Why are the students, particularly in a university with a strong drama department seemingly uninterested in performing? I have considered the possibility of this being a generation thing, perhaps the younger years are becoming more complacent in getting involved with extra-curricular activities. Or, perhaps the drama society are becoming increasingly popular and casting potential fourth year cast members. Whatever the reason is, it means that no one sat in that room last night was able to cast everyone they wanted to.

Luckily we came out of the whole process well off. We have a talented and dedicated ensemble of performers who are perfect for their roles and extremely good physically. By melding character with physical theatre we set ourselves a task and a half. Not only did we have to find talented actors, but ones which were also interested or had experience in physical theatre as well as looking right for the part. But as I have said previously, I am sure that we have a winning team in our hands, along with brilliant designers and an on-the-ball dramaturg to ensure that we do not let Stephens' writing down. Rehearsals begin tomorrow when finally we will be able to hear the script come to life - it is moments like this that remind me why I love what I do and why it is worth all the hard work and stress.

A Break-Through!

Whilst I try my hardest to convince what I call 'non-theatre people' to go to the theatre, I rarely succeed, or when I do, the performance itself undoes all my good work through being an utter disappointment.

But... last night... a break-through!

My partner is one of these 'non-theatre people' and has always been highly critical of theatre. Me being me refuse to accept the fact that he quite simply does not like it, particularly as it is often on my mind and therefore often on the agenda for some aspect of our conversations. So to begin with I shall tell you the story of how it takes one woman a year and a half to convert one man into a theatre goer and why this has led me to blog about it.

I began by taking him to see DV8's To Be Straight With You at The Barbican. Big mistake. This was me taking him by the hand, leading him to the deepest end of the pool, climbing a ladder to the top diving board and telling him to jump. This led to a dry spell of around a year, bar him coming to watch me in performance, or my own theatre creations. So what could I do? He didn't want to come to anything with me and to be honest I didn't really want to torture him. DV8 were far from disappointing, in fact, the production blew me away, yet somehow left him firmly in the camp of 'non-theatre people'. Actually I think my taking him to this performance made him more stubborn not to be a part of the theatre world.

So back to the break-through...

Firstly, there was the pantomime to which he went with his little brother and sister. That went smoothly enough. Next, there was Oliver! A step up from pantomime, more talent involved and at least a good strong Dickensian storyline to follow. And now... Cat on a Hot Tin Roof he tells me on the phone last night! Now I do not pretend that he is anywhere near the stage where I would say he loves theatre. The reason he wants to see Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is because of his love of Adrian Lester, and not because of his performance in Peter Brook's Hamlet, or indeed anything to do with his theatre career, but because he plays Mickey Stone in the BBC's Hustle. So I have some work to do. But oh, how relieved I am that he is finally taking some sort of interest!

What this has got me thinking is, why didn't To Be Straight With You communicate? Is it true that you need some knowledge or at least appreciation of contemporary theatre to understand the forms of what is on stage? Indeed, my parents did not fully understand the modes of performance used for a production of Attempts on Her Life by Martin Crimp I was part of last May. Is this because they haven't studied for a theatre degree? This led me to re-read a feature I wrote in January last year about the McMaster's Report and how it aims to get new bums on theatre seats. I have copied and pasted the article below for your contemplation. I personally think that many of the points I raise are still relevant and have still not been adequately addressed. How can we get people interested in theatre and performance?

Where have our young audience gone?

And what has the McMaster’s report achieved in the last year to bring them back?

Over one year on since Sir Brian McMaster’s report on arts funding was ‘widely welcomed’ into the arts world and it seems his propositions are still waiting to be fully realised. Hailed as ‘one of the most important cultural policy documents to emerge in Britain for years’, one has to wonder how serious arts representatives are in tackling the problems of the art world, in particular that of attracting the ‘it’s not for me’ audience;

“One of the biggest barriers to audience engagement is the notion held by many that the arts are simply not for them. The ‘it’s not for me’ syndrome is endemic and conspires to exclude people from experiences that could transform their lives” (McMaster Report)

Of all the issues raised by McMaster in his report, it is upsetting to discover that few have jumped on the bandwagon of drawing in larger audiences; a problem which I believe to be the most crucial in determining the future of theatre as a continuing important element of British culture.

“I think the stereotypical British culture... yeah, theatre is probably a part of it, but the stereotypical British culture is really not relevant to people living in Britain today”

Theatre goers are a dying breed; theatre itself is losing its cultural and certainly political meaning to many, and has been lost entirely to a great deal of the younger generation. Through the advice made by Brian McMaster, the Arts Council need to focus on bringing these young audiences in to the theatre world.

“Because I’m not immersed in the theatre culture, I have no idea when things that I would enjoy are being produced”

There does seem to be one saviour in the midst of Arts Council bureaucrats that most in the profession have become accustomed to, in the form of Andy Burnham. The successor of James Purnell (the culture secretary who took the initiative to commission McMaster in the first place), Burnham has proved to bring a broader viewpoint to Brownite reforms, for, as Norman Lebrecht points out, he is the first culture secretary to resist becoming a part of ‘metropolitan cliques’ from within the containment of London. Last month, Burnham’s £2.5 million scheme, first unveiled in December came into play. The plan was to make available 618,000 seats for 18 - 26 year olds free of charge for two years across the UK in a total of 99 theatres, building on other cheap ticket schemes by the RSC and The National. This follows on from McMaster’s proposal to make theatre free for one week of the year, and if all goes to plan, the scheme will continue until 2011. But whilst free tickets are all well and good for Drama students in their masses, what about those who do not factor theatre trips into their lifestyle, it is doubtful that they will make use of the tickets, no matter if they are free, despite Burnham commenting that “It’s about young people broadening their horizons and opening up to new experiences”. At least this is what one initially assumes, but let us never forget, to assume is to make an ass out of you and me. I conducted some research into the matter, consulting a number of British students of whom I considered to be part of the ‘it’s not for me’ audience, wishing to know where they stood. Is it all downhill from here, or do they want to be recruited back into the new and enticing land of theatre McMaster has dreamt up in his report, which claims to be no longer associated with the pretentious old-hat British culture that some interviewees admitted to ‘heartily sneering at’? Yes they do, it seems, but the issue is that most don’t understand theatre, so they ignore it. Good education is vital in reviving enthusiasm amongst young people for the theatre, as Ed Balls acknowledges with his statement that “participating in cultural activities can have a huge impact on a child’s development”. Nicholas Hytner has recognised in his running of The National, a growing and ‘powerful hunger’, which has developed amongst those adults who did not receive a great amount of cultural education, for a ‘deeper and wider experience’.

“If theatre was more heavily marketed and they maybe put on shows that were unique and individual, and pressed that point, then maybe that would draw in bigger audiences. Maybe I might even show up”

McMaster argues that art does not need to dumb down, rather raise its level of excellence to draw in the crowds, but in order for this to happen surely the audience will need some level of theatrical awareness? As McMaster states, “It is vital that young people are given the chance to experience culture within and outside school” and this is where the Shakespeare School Festivals and The National Youth Theatre can be commended for their work with children outside school from all walks of life. Whilst in school, Burnham has again stepped in to try and make improvements in British schools with regards to Arts and Culture. However, Arts-in-schools ideas and apprenticeship schemes have tended to fail with their dependence on a thriving economy, an obstacle of money that the arts world has become used to facing. Despite these trying times however, in the last year Mr Brown has prioritised the arts more than his predecessors, perhaps because according to official statistics, in the last ten years, the 7.3 per cent of UK GDP that is representative of creative industries has grown twice as fast as the rest of the economy. It is a shame that the same cannot happen as it did in 2002, when £25 million was handed out by the government to try and revive regional theatres. As Magnus Linklater points out, the handout produced bigger audiences that arrived at more ambitious productions which had the freedom to experiment with new work. It seems the answer is, as always, money. One area that McMaster picks up on and thoroughly intrigues me is the lack of advertisement, particularly through broadcasting. Almost all of my interviewees stated that they didn’t go to the theatre simply because they didn’t know what was on, where and when. They look to the West-End musicals when they think of theatre, which is seen as expensive and often lacking in the sort of depth they would hope for in a theatre experience. As Mark Ravenhill argues, we live in a culture, particularly at this time of economic crisis, when people would rather make use of their TV licence than go out to the theatre. Ravenhill goes on to argue that “Good arts programming in the media is crucial in cultivating discriminating and demanding audiences”. It would make the theatre much more accessible to those who want to experience it but don’t want to have to go looking for it. Unless you are a part of the theatre world, it seems to be hard work to find out where to go, what show is good at the moment and what it is about. Even after all this, if their first experience is not a good one, who is to say they will ever brave it again?

McMaster claims that “The best person to communicate with audiences is the artist”, indicating an end to the traditional hands-off approach to arts funding. Peer review would encourage excellence in the arts, allowing a broader range of judgement and diminishing personal grudges against an artist’s work. This new level of excellence would aim to bring in new and bigger audiences and would ensure that the funding is going towards what the audience wants rather than the artist’s ego or established name. One would not gamble money on the mediocre, so why should the Arts council?

So what do the younger generation want from theatre? From the evidence I have gathered, one can feel assured that McMaster’s theories of what the audience want are right, as supported by the Arts Council’s inquiry into public value and the arts in England, which proved a desire for a “focus on the quality of artistic experience”. The younger generation want a theatre that appeals to them, something relevant, diverse and educating. In short, it has to mean something to them. There is plenty of theatre out there that would appeal (had they known about it), with new and innovative ideas coming through from DV8, Complicite and Katie Mitchell, with their use of multi-media theatre. As Hytner argues, the use of technology broadens means of communication about complex ideas tremendously and gives the opportunity ‘to build bridges between artist and audience’. Not only this, but it reflects the technological world that the younger generation now live in, it is what they understand and can relate to. In any case, theatre has always been on some level a reflection of the world within which it exists. Therefore, the content material should be topical and relevant.

Interactive theatre with audience participation is another creative path to making theatre accessible. One young lady, who has asked not to be named, suggested that more theatre should be brought out on the streets, if not on television, as a taster for the show, where it is able to intrigue and capture its audience. An advertising deal met with a food company executive of a local town would not only boost takings for the theatre, but help out a fellow business in this time of recession, harking back to a sense of community once warmly felt in this country. Obviously this is concerned with regional theatre, that suffers more with audience numbers than the West End, however if these regional theatre’s could find more creative ways to advertise what they are doing then it would help diminish a need for government subsidy and allow any money that is received to continue in good advertising.

The McMaster Report favours innovation, risk-taking, diversity, relevance, excellence and controversial material over that which merely ticks boxes and lies within the constraints of political correctness. It argues, and rightly so, that “culture is for everyone; that it has the power to change people’s lives, regardless of class, education or ethnicity” and so last year was celebrated as a catalyst for British theatre being “on the brink of a ‘new Renaissance’”. Yet still the Arts Council seems to be up to its old “book keeping tricks”. This failure to comply with the report, teamed with the exam-driven state school system and a huge lack of advertising is steering possible audience candidates away from the theatre. I do not propose that every member of the ‘It’s not for me’ younger generation will, upon witnessing what McMaster describes as excellent theatre , instantly fall in love with what they see.

Of course many people prefer the cinema or television. Rather, I hope that with the right education and background knowledge, most young people will at least be given the opportunity to experience what is (or should be) considered to be a significant constituent of not just traditional, but modern British culture and be able to make that decision for themselves.