British Theatre Guide Blog

“I know I sound blimpish, but I do feel the straight play is a doomed species. And what I get really angry about is the terrible starvation of the theatre out of London. You can see it in insidious ways. The death of regional work is very serious. You pick up the programme of the average rep company and you find no individual voice - it’s all co-productions with other theatres. Or it’s ‘devised’ work, and most of that is rubbish.”

So said Alan Ayckbourn to The Times earlier this week.

What he says about the straight play is a subject for another time, as is his comment about devised work, but the subject of co-productions is one which is worth taking up now.

He is absolutely right that co-productions between regional theatres are becoming more and more common, as are regional theatres’ co-productions with companies like Headlong, Kneehigh and Frantic Assembly, and the reas0n is obvious - money.  Plays, and particularly plays wth a cast of more than three or four, are expensive to put on.  Not as expensive as musicals, of course, but then the potential returns are much smaller.  By sharing the costs, theatres  are able to do more productions than they could otherwise afford and those productions have a life outside of the originating theatre.

It does, however, mean that, as Ayckbourn says, the “individual voice” is reduced because the theatres are doing fewer productions of their own.  However, given the financial constraints that theatres are suffering from, it seems to me that co-production enables more adventurous - and more expensive - plays to be presented.

The ideal, of course, is what Ayckbourn wants - each theatre developing its own voice, its own style and even its own stable of writers - but financial pressures are making that very difficult, if not impossible, so in a way the co-production route is the least worst of all possible worlds.

I know and accept that language, being a living thing, has to change - although I do mourn some of these changes: to lose the distinction between “uninterested” and “disinterested” can only encourage sloppy thinking - but when it happens because one group of people simply don’t know, then it is something to be resisted - and complained about loudly!

Such is the misuse of the colon and semi-colon by press officers and others who write press releases. In their desperation to write like the lowest form of tabloid journalist, they actually exceed the tabloids’ twisting of the language and have started coming up with their own mutilations.

It started with writing sentences such as A spokesman said: “We do not…”   It’s a comma, boys and girls, not a colon.  It always has been and there is absolutely no reason to change it.

And then, because of the half-understood rule that a colon introduces a list, they started writing The cast includes: Joe Bloggs, Fred Smith…  No!  Not at all!  There is no need for that colon: it is included, by implication, in includes. 

Now they have started replacing commas in a list by semi-colons, so we get The cast includes: Joe Bloggs; Fred Smith; Anne Onymous…  Now there is a good reason for using semi-colons in some lists - where, for example, each noun is followed by a subordinate phrase or clause, so we could write, The cast includes Joe Bloggs, who, at the age of three, played Hamlet; Fred Smith, about whom Peter Lathan, the world’s greatest Shakespearean critic, said, “This man is a rubbish actor”; Anne Onymous…  In this situation, sticking to commas only would lack clarity, so the semi-colon is needed, but it isn emphatically not needed simply to separate items in a list, whether a list of things, nouns or verbs.

And while I am on the subject of press release writers, many years ago, before the advent of the personal computer, it was conventional to put names and titles in capital letters, to draw attention to them.  But now it is no longer necessary: word processing software allows us to use bold or italics and also allows the release recipient to copy and paste whole chunks of text into the story, thus cutting down on all the tedious retyping that we used to have to do.  So why do press release writers feel it necessary to use caps?  It just means the names, titles or whatever have to be retyped, thus displeasing the editor/journalist.

And another pet hate of mine: why put the name of the character an actor plays in single quotes, thus creating silly sentences like He played ‘Hamlet’ in the RSC production of “Hamlet”. 

Yes, I know you wouldn’t use the same word twice in such close proximity but I am merely making a point.

I know that the voice of one crying in the wilderness will not make a difference, but I just wanted to get it off my chest.  And that comma, by the way, is known as the “Oxford comma” and is perfectly acceptable.  Just because you have been taught that a comma replaces a conjunction does not mean they can’t be used together. Sometimes we do pause (for emphasis) before a conjunction.

End of rant!

I’ve just been reading Mark Shenton’s Blog in The Stage, or rather, a comment by one Mark W on what Shenton was talking about (which was, incidentally, the success of musicals such as High School Musical - which Lyn Gardner describes as a “product”, not a “production”: wish I’d thought of that!).  Mark W wonders if it’s time for the formation of a National Musical Theatre, seeing that the National Theatre is “now (shamefully) neglecting this art form”.  This, he says, “could be an excellent catalyst for nurturing UK talent in musicals, push the boundaries of the art form, stage the best new productions from around the world that otherwise would never be seen in the UK, and occasionally revive forgotten gems.”

It’s an interesting idea, particularly in view of the claim (made in pre-Nick Hytner days) that a National Theatre should not produce “commercial” musicals. But, of course, that is not what Mr W is suggesting.  As he says, we get musicals from, for example, the Donmar occasionally and from the Menier, and, of course, he instances Marguerite at the Haymarket. He doesn’t mention the “Lost Musicals” seasons at Sadler’s Wells, nor does he refer to Mercury Musical Developments, which is devoted to helping British music theatre writers. And that, in itself, is significant, for although all the things he believes a National Musical Theatre should do are actually being done, they are being done in a fragmented way and, generally, without any kind of public subsidy.

There is, then, a pretty good argument for bringing all these strands together under, as it were, one roof.  There is also, I think, a pretty good argument for public subsidy for non-commercial (or “non-coach party”!)  musicals development.  My only reason for hesitation is the obvious one: where is the money to come from?

We’ve already had Lottery money raided (and there is no other word for it) for the Olympics and Lord Lloyd Webber (who we now hear is richer than the Queen) continues to  press for public money to refurbish decaying West End theatres (what was RUT’s profit last year? If Cameron Mackintosh can do it, why can’t the Noble Lord? - But that’s another subject)…

On the other hand, we have the very successful National Theatre of Scotland model: a commissioning body which is not building-based.  It would still be expensive but nowhere near as much as a new building.

Food for thought, Mr W, and well worth raising.