PETER BARNES AND THE NATURE OF AUTHORITY Liorah Anrie Golomb A thesis subnitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Centre for Study of Drarna in the University of Toronto @copyright by Liorah Anne Golomb 1998 National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliagraphiques 395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington OttawaON K1AW Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à fa National Libmy of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loaq distriiute or sell reproduire, prêter, distri'buer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. PETER BARNES AND THE NATURE OF AUTHORITY Liorah Anne Golomb Doctor of Philosophy, 1998 Graduate Centre for Study of Drama University of Toronto Peter Barnes, among the most theatrically-minded playwrights of the non-musical stage in England today, makes use of virtually every elernent of theatre: spectacle, music, dance, heightened speech, etc- He is daring, ambitious, and not always successful. While he obviously does not share the staging sensibilities of Renaissance playwrights, Barnes does share their perspectives on authority. He writes predominantly about the outward self and the private self, the significance of representation and the power of public display, corruption and innocence, order and chaos. 1 explore such questions as what attraction these themes hold £or Barnes, what connections exist (economically, socially, and politically) between Renaissance and post-industrialized England, and how Barnes and his Renaissance mentors use their work as cultural barometers and/or forecasters. But Barnes is still a modern playwright, and the discussion is not limited to his connection to the Jacobeans- I have identified five subthemes into which his plays fall. The first chapter, dealing with The Rulins Class and The Bewitched, is concerned with the continuity and preservation of the status quo through inherited power, even though it is decayed, corrupt, and anachronistic. The next chapter features two simple, unambitious priests, Father Flote in Red Noses and Father Morrone in Sunsets and Glories, who reluctantly accept positions of authority; paradoxically, empowerment cornes £rom rejecting power. In Chapter 3, featuring LeonardorsLast Sup~erand Clap Hands Here Cornes Charlie, we find that authority is not necessarily held by the strong, wealthy, or educated, and we see how some members of the underclass react to sudden empowerment- The construction of a persona1 identity, which would seem to be the one act over which we have inviolable control, is threatened when characters meet their likenesses in the four one-act plays discussed in Chapter 4: Noonday Demons, The Real Lons John Silver, Nobodv Here But Us Chickens, and The Three Visions. Chapter 5 compares two kinds of tyranny, autocratic and bureaucratic, in Laucrhter!. And in the concluding pages we glimpse at another, surprisingly uncynical , side of Peter Barnes as exhibited in one of his more recent plays, Heavenfs Blessinqs. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION - - . - - . - - . - - . , , . CWTER 1: Keeping Authority in the Farnily: The Rulins Class and The Bewitched . 8 CHAPTER 2: Inriocence in Charge: Red Noses and Sunsets and Glories . - - - - . - 56 CHAPTER 3 : The Bite of the Underdog: Cla~Hands Here Cornes Charlie and Leonardofs Last Surmer - . - . 109 CHAPTER 4: The Crisis of Identity and the Double: Noondav Demons, The Real Lons John Silver, Nobodv Here But Us Chickens, and The Three Visions . - . - . - 151 CHAPTER Power Perfected: Laushter! CONCLUSION: Things Are Looking Up: Heaven's Blessinas - . - - . - - . - . 231 WORKSCITED .............245 INTRODUCTION Sorne are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em. Twelfth Niqht 1I.v-145-46 During the past £ive or six years, whenev~rI have been asked the subject of my thesis by anyone who doesn't have an unusual interest in contemporary playwrights, the answer "Peter BarnesI1 elicits a blank look- sometimes there is some faint recognition of The Rulins Class, Bames's first theatrical success (5t was done into a movie with Peter OfToo1e"),and sometimes someone has seen an amateur production of Red Noses. Since 1993, the mention of his Academy Award nomination for the screenplay adaptation of Elizabeth Von Arnim's novel, Enchanted A~ril,gets a relieved smile - which disappears when 1 inform the person that screenplay adaptations are Barnes's hack work, and his original work is much different. Besides, he didnrt win. That is the reaction to my subject's mere name. When I've stated my thesis to be about "Peter Barnes, a living English playwright, and his psycho-socio-economic-political connection to the Elizabethan-Jacobean mindset (as we understand it)," 1 am looked upon with profound suspicion. Peter Barnes is almost better known for his obscurity than for his plays. His lack of recognition is brought up in nearly every interview he has given and in much of the small body of criticism on his work. You can count on one hand the number of surveys of contemporary British theatre or theatre generally that include him.' His dramaturgy puts him at a disadvantage: his language is lavish; his staging, spectacular; his settings are as broad as the history of the world. He is daring, ambitious, and not always successful. Barnes gives us magnitude (of theme, character, costume, idea) at a time when Britainfs playwrights have largely focused on the minutiae of the ordinary lives of ordinary characters, from aison Porter's ironing in 1956 to Kyra Hoiiis's preparation of a spaghetti dimer in 1995.~ "One of my tasks, Bames has said, has been to try and get us back to the days when the audience went into the theatre not to get a slice of life, which they get anpay (and they don't have to pay for it) but to get something extra. If there is any rnotto 1 have over my desk it is the one word MORE. 1 want more of everything. More of comedy, more of drama, more of tragedy, more of parody, more of music, more, more, more, more. Not less, less, less . His work demands, and gets, highly skilled actors and directors, but often, the pieces cal1 for production values found today only on the musical stage: complicated lighting, reverberating sound, and deep wings and high fly space to accommodate huge set pieces. Phantom of the O~erahas its chandelier; The Bewitched has its eight-foot-long phallus. Unfortunately, a play by Peter Barnes does not generate the revenue of an enterprise like Phantom, and more, more, more also costs more, more, more. Needless to Say, he is seldom produced . 3 Considering his appreciation of and frequent reliance on the visual elements of the stage, it rnay seem odd that the theatre Barnes most admires is that of the Elizabethan and Jacobean public playhouse. One draw is the language; he has often declared his admiration for the writing of early modern England, and he acknowledges being inspired it. Good work has been done on the origins and functions of Barnesfspeculiar neologisms, unexpected metaphors, and kenning14so there is no need to focus on them here except to let the reader know that what may look like the result of my having fallen asleep over the keyboard is likely to be an accurate quote. Rather than scour for any technical or stylistic affinities Barnes rnay have with his Renaissance predecessors, 1 examine his work chiefly in tenns of the various ways in which it reflects his one overriding concern: the nature of authority. This aspect of Barnes's oeuvre is illuminated in part by linking it to the thematic and sociopolitical preoccupations of the Elizabethan and Jacobean playwrights and in making this link, 1 explore such questions as what attraction Renaissance themes hold for Barnes, how he appropriates them, what connections exist (economically, socially, and politically) between Renaissance and post- industrialized England, and how Barnes and his Renaissance mentors use their work as cultural barometers and/or forecasters. 4 For Barnes, the world turns on the constant shifting of power. Every relationship, from the one we have with ourselves to how we fit into the world power structure, is based on authority - who has it, how to get it, how to keep it, how to get rid of it, how to avoid being the victim of it. Like the Elizabethans and Jacobeans, Barnes mites predominantly about the transfer of authority, the outward self and the private self, the significance of representation and the power of public display, corruption and innocence, order and chaos. His characters succeed according to how well they understand the basic immutable elements of human nature: people are self-senring, as we see in Leonardors Last Sup~er; we are cowards, unwilling to take risks to help one another, as Auschwitz shows us; when we do help our less fortunate brothers we are repaid with ingratitude, as Aylmer is in Cla~ Hands Here Cornes Charlie; in The Rulins Class we find that when love is offered, we reject it; and when we are given a chance to be independent and responsible, as in The Bewitched, we beg to be ruled. But although he is steeped in the Renaissance, Bames should not be seen as a Renaissance playwright out of his time; he is a modern playwright writing on modem themes, and doing so with a Briton's-eye view.