UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI VERONA DIPARTIMENTO DI CULTURE E CIVILTÀ SCUOLA DI DOTTORATO DI SCIENZE UMANISTICHE DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN STUDI FILOLOGICI, LETTERARI E LINGUISTICI XXXI CICLO / 2015 TITOLO DELLA TESI DI DOTTORATO A Map of the World The 4-Way Street of British Political Theatre 1968-1985 S.S.D. L-ART/05 DISCIPLINE DELLO SPETTACOLO Coordinatore: Prof. Paolo Pellegrini Tutore: Prof. Nicola Pasqualicchio Dottorando: Dott. Carlo Vareschi Contents Abstract ……………………………………………………….. p. 3 Introduction .....……………………………………………….. p. 5 Chapter 1 CAST ……………………………………………… p. 17 1.1 In the Beginning there was CAST (p. 18); 1.2 Rebels with a Cause (p. 21); 1.3 Revolutionaries on a State Pay-Roll (p. 49); 1.4 The Rise and Fall (p. 82); 1.5 The End (p. 93) Chapter 2 David Edgar ……………………………………… p. 107 2.1 Public Theatre in a Private Age (p. 108); 2.2 A Belief in Collaborative Production (p. 109); 2.3. An Aspiration to a Wider Audience (p. 113); 2.4 An Open Attitude to Form (p. 115); 2.5 A Concern with the Public World (p. 120); 2.6 Unlike Arnold Wesker or Brendan Behan (p. 123); 2.7 Unlike Bond, Arden and Brecht (p. 124); 2.8 Unlike Shaw (p. 125); 2.9 Dick Deterred (p. 127); 2.10 Destiny (p. 144); 2.11 Our Own People (p. 155) Chapter 3 Caryl Churchill ………………………………….. p. 173 3.1 Far from the Madding Crowd (p. 178); 3.2 Churchill’s Newspeak (p. 188); 3.3 Sometimes it’s Hard to be a Woman (p. 192); Snakes and Ladders (p. 211) Chapter 4 Howard Barker ………………………………….. p. 227 4.1 The Enemy is Marching at your Head (p. 230); 4.2 Oedipus at South London (p. 236); 4.3 We’ll Keep the Red Flag Flying Here (p. 241) Conclusion ……………………………………………………. p. 261 Appendix Destino di David Edgar ………………………………p. 265 Bibliography …………………………………………………...p. 351 Abstract This thesis will focus on four case studies in the landscape of British political theatre between 1968 and 1985. These two years are milestones in more than one way: 1968 marks the peak of the students’ protest all around Europe, and the end of the Lord Chamberlain’s censorship of the theatre in Great Britain; 1985 records the defeat of the miners’ strike and the definitive triumph of Thatcherism. This study considers the work of one company, CAST, and three authors, David Edgar, Caryl Churchill and Howard Barker. In Chapter One, CAST’s history is reconstructed from original documents from the East London Theatre Archive and the Arts Council of Great Britain Archive. The company’s history has been divided into two periods: the first one from 1965 to 1975, in which the company remained non- professional and the artistic bases of the company were laid, and a second one, from 1976 to 1985, during which the company was the recipient of an ACGB subsidy and was therefore allowed to become full time. In Chapter Two the first paragraphs have been devoted to a general assessment of the playwrights of the post-1968 generation. I have then focused on Edgar and examined three of his plays: Dick Deterred as an example of Shakespearean parody applied to contemporary politics; Destiny for its long-lasting relevance as an analysis of the growing influence of a fascist ideology on the working class; Our Own People for having been written for a small company, Pirate Jenny, and for its derivative relationship with Destiny. Chapter Three opens with an overview of women’s presence in theatre in general and in playwriting in particular during the period in question. I have then focused on three of Churchill’s early plays. Not Not Not Not Not Enough Oxygen has been particularly examined as an early example of Churchill’s use of dystopia in order to make powerful political statements; Vinegar Tom has been singled out for dealing with witchcraft – a central theme in feminist re-thinking of social history – and for being the result of a close collaboration with the Monstrous Regiment company; The After-Dinner Joke has been the subject of a close scrutiny as regards the strategies of humour employed: a certain kinship with Brecht’s Saint Joan of the Stockyards is also touched upon. In Chapter Four I have dealt with three of Barker’s early plays. One Afternoon on the 63rd Level of the North Face of the Pyramid of Cheops the Great is an effective depiction of life in a factory, chronologically dislocated in ancient Egypt; its relationship with two of Brecht’s poems is discussed. According to Barker, Cheek was written in reaction to Bond’s portrayal of working-class life in Saved: this relationship is therefore discussed. A Passion in Six Days is the last of Barker’s plays with a direct connection with British contemporary political reality: in staging a Labour Party annual conference, it stresses Barker’s view on the crisis of socialism in the UK. The latter play is also examined as a prelude to Barker’s Theatre of Catastrophe. In the Conclusion I have briefly assessed the creative production of the four subjects in connection to Britain’s muted political situation from the second half of the 1980s onwards. Barker has completely severed any link with political theatre. Ronald Muldoon and Claire Burnley have for twenty years run the Hackney Empire, a theatre in the East End of London, proving that socialist ideas and enterprising spirit are not 6 incompatible. Caryl Churchill has established herself as the most important British living playwright, showing an increasing experimental attitude. David Edgar has remained faithful to his political commitment; his latest play, Trying It On, is briefly reviewed. Introduction The Sunday Times of 11 July 1976 saluted the imminent premiere of Howard Brenton’s Weapons of Happiness at the Lyttleton Theatre with a preview by John Peter titled “Meet the Wild Bunch”. The event was truly a memorable one, since Weapons of Happiness was the first newly-written play staged in the complex of the National Theatre. The title of the article, with the reference to Sam Peckinpah’s masterpiece, made explicit a few things: that Brenton was not a one-off, but could be considered to be part of a larger group of playwrights; that these authors were perceived as outsiders and a not entirely welcome novelty; that the establishment, both political and theatrical, which The Times in a way represented (Bull 1994, 63), was trying to come to terms with those playwrights who, after having been for years restricted to the theatrical fringe, were reaching London’s ‘institutional’ theatres. This access to larger stages and audiences proved both that these authors were actually willing to test themselves in a new, unfamiliar environment, and that their theatrical worth was starting to be recognized outside the circuit of alternative theatre. Whether this group of playwrights constituted a movement or a school was debatable then, and will be discussed in the course of this thesis; they had in common a variously expressed belief in a socialist future, and an experimental attitude that distanced them from the traditional approach of other politically committed authors such as Arnold Wesker, just to mention one emblematic name. Elizabeth Swain, in her essay David Edgar Playwright and Politician (1986) mentions a few members of this “wild bunch”, besides Edgar: Edward Bond, David Hare, Steven Poliakoff, Howard Barker, Howard Brenton, Caryl Churchill, Barrie Keeffe. This is a very partial list, as at least Snoo Wilson, Trevor Griffiths and John McGrath should be included. It is even more important to point out that the presence of just one woman, Caryl Churchill, proved how difficult it was for women playwrights to get recognition, even by other women. Keeping just to the best- known names, Pam Gems, Michelene Wandor and Olwen Wymark should not be omitted, as their works gained wide attention and contributed to bringing feminism and identity politics into the spotlight. Another noteworthy point is that the progress of the above authors, male and female, was made possible by a flourishing, from the late 1960s onwards, of a crop of independent companies, some of them operating just for some months and others for a score of years, that were eager to stage and tour new plays. Behind this theatrical phenomenon there was not only the cultural climate of those years, but also the financial intervention of the Arts Council, a state organization aimed at distributing financial aid to various artistic forms, theatre included. In fact, the Arts Council was the first to acknowledge that something new was going on in the theatre, as asserted by its Chairman Arnold Goodman in the final report for the financial year 1969/70: “We had, rightly or wrongly, heard that a group of youngsters around the country had some new ideas and the rumour grew with disturbing persistence. Reverberations came from arts laboratories in London and nearby seaside resorts, from towns rarely associated 8 with artistic explosions”. (Quoted in Megson 2011, 64) Following this early acknowledgment, the Arts Council started to pay attention to this theatrical ferment, and, from the late 1960s to the end of the 1970s, increasingly supported the idea that drama should reach wider audiences, outside the established theatrical circuits. In dealing with the works of the above authors, it will be stressed how fruitful was their collaboration with independent companies, devoting also some space to the intricacies of the Arts Council’s system of assessing and financing. Everything started in 1968. All through Europe and the United States, the opposition to the Vietnam war acted as a catalyst of the youth’s dissatisfaction with the status quo, starting movements that had a long-lasting effect on political and social life.