|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
A Geographical AdvantageDateline: 7th March, 2005There was an interesting piece in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago about the "invasion" of Broadway by British directors, not just directing British companies in British plays but also American companies in American plays. It did make the point that it seems to be a lot easier for a British director to work on Broadway than for an American director to work in the West End, but that's another story! What really interested me about this particular piece was the sugegstion that it is much easier for a young British director to gain wide experience, both in theatre and film, than for an equally young American director, and one principal reason for this is geography. In Britain, the theatre and film industries are both based in London whereas in the US they could hardly be more widely separated - LA for films and New York for theatre. As a result an American has to make the choice between film and theatre right from the start of his/her career: "Do I base myself in LA or NYC?" is, for a young would-be director in the US, a basic career-defining question. And then, of course, Britain is so much smaller, and most theatre centres are an easy (and generally pretty quick) rail or air journey from London. Not only that, but directors (and, of course, actors) can very quickly become nationally known in the theatre world because the national papers - indeed all media - review all the major, and quite a few of the minor, regional productions. If we look at the current list of reviews on the Guardian website, there are nine London plays reviewed, two in Glasgow, and one each in Dublin, Sheffield, Liverpool, Nottingham, Leeds, Halifax, Stratford, Manchester and Bristol. And of these seven were reviewed by the chief reviewer, Michael Billington (five London, one Sheffield), and seven by the number two, Lyn Gardner (four London, one each Stratford, Manchester and Bristol). So Guardian readers get a pretty clear picture of what is happening in regional as well as London theatre. Not only that, but most of the London (all but two, in fact) reviews were of non-West End productions (only one if you don't count the Royal Court Theatre Upstairs). And it's not the case that the chief does the West End and leaves it to the rest to look at the smaller, Fringe venues. Yes, Michael Billington did the Royal Court and the Donmar, but he also did the Finborough, Stratford East and the Menier Chocolate Factory. Coming closer to home: there are numerous websites devoted to London theatre, but there are also quite a number which, like the BTG, cover theatre throughout the UK. And, of course, we shouldn't forget the Stage which reviews most professional shows throughout the UK. Thus it is that reputations of both directors and actors can be built much more quickly in the UK. A director like Thea Sharrock, for example, can work for Peter Hall in Bath (and bring a show into the West End) whilst also directing at the Gate, and a Stephen Daldry or a Sam Mendes can switch from theatre to film and back again in a way which would be inconceivable in the US. It was interesting, too, that when Trevor Nunn left the National, many of those who were touted as being possible successors were figures from the regions, not London-based directors. So the geography of Britain is very much a plus factor in the development of theatre careers in Britain. I was talking to a young actor only last weekend who finds it easy to split his career between Manchester and London. And even establish actors - even well established actors, in fact - are quite happy to leave London, knowing that it will not have an adverse effect on their careers. In the last couple of years we've seen Derek Jacobi working in Sheffield and, a few years back, Ian McKellen even joined the West Yorkshire Playhouse ensemble for a full season. There is another reason, of course - the subsidised theatre. But that's another story which we'll come back to in a future article.
|
|
|
|