|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
Politicians Are Killing TheatreDateline: 30th November, 2003They are! Not by denying it sufficient subsidy, although, in spite of the improvements of recent years, we are still not funding theatre properly in the way in which it is funded elsewhere in Europe, or indeed was here in the sixties and seventies. And not because they keep treating it as an industry, as if making theatre is the same as making widgets, although they are doing that, too. Nor because they have a Gradgrindian attitude towards education, being more focused on producing the 21st century version of "hands" than they are on what we used to call, with pride, "educating the whole man" (or woman). They are! In spite of paying lip service to the importance of the arts, whilst refusing to remove one of the major burdens on theatre, the imposition of VAT on tickets, and continuing the Thatcher demand that theatres should charge what the market will bear, thus causing that vicious spiral of forcing up prices, thus reducing the number of people who can afford to buy tickets, which in turn forces up price yet further, thus reducing... and so on. They are doing all this - and it all has a deleterious effect on theatre - but they are also contributing to - in fact, I would say, leading - the dumbing down of language and public discourse so that the central pillar of theatre, its language, is becoming more and more divorced from everyday life. No matter what one may think of Winston Churchill - and, the War apart, his record as a democrat is not exactly sparkling - at least he could speak and write in a language a little more elevated than that of a shopping list or a door-to-door salesman. Todays' politicians - and along with them, the press, although who follows whom is open to question - speak in soundbites. Complex ideas are reduced to the language of the Sun reader, which reduces the ideas to the level of the language. Complexity, layers of meaning and density of language have become things of the past and it is this dumbing down which has made Shakespeare difficult for the modern man or woman in the street, not the Elizabethan sentence structure or the change in meaning of words. Indeed, the language of TS Eliot and WH Auden are as foreign to the modern ear as Shakespeare. We have, it is said, become much more visually sophisticated than in the past, thanks to the influence of television and film, but this visual sophistication has been at the expense of language. Perhaps it isn't the fault of the politicians, perhaps they are merely reflecting society, but the problem remains: language, the lifeblood of British theatre (which has always been text-orientated) has been debased, or at least dumbed down, and that inevitably will either dumb down the language of theatre or reduce its appeal, making it even more of a minority interest than now. You may think that it is modern English that I am criticising, but that isn't the case. Modern English is as capable of depth and richness as the English of Shakespeare's day, or of any other for that matter. It is not the language itself but the way it is used. If anyone doubts that, they should get hold of a copy of Sean O'Brien's Keepers of the Flame, the RSC/Live Theatre co-production which has just finished its Newcastle run. Here is a play with a density and rich use of language which is comparable to any writing of any other period, and yet it is as understandable as any episode of EastEnders (and a thousand times more rewarding). The problem is, it's a language which is becoming increasingly foreign to Joe and Josephine Public and so Keepers - and other similar plays - is likely to be enjoyed by a decreasing number of people. Sad but true. This is the first of a series of articles which will look at outlook for theatre in the 21st century. You can buy Keepers of the Flame from our Bookstore. Just click on the link. Articles Indices:
|
|
|
|