Newcastle University e-prints
Date deposited: 9th December 2011 (uploaded 1st November 2012)
Version of file: Published
Peer Review Status: Peer reviewed
Citation for item:
Haslett R. Architecture and New Play Development at the National Theatre, 1907-2010 . New Theatre Quarterly 2011, 27(4), 358-367. Further information on publisher website: http://journals.cambridge.org
Publisher’s copyright statement:
The author retains the right to post the definitive version of the contribution as published at Cambridge Journals Online (in PDF or HTML form) in the Institutional Repository of the institution in which they worked at the time the paper was first submitted…no sooner than one year after first publication of the paper in the journal, subject to file availability and provided the posting includes a prominent statement of the full bibliographical details, a copyright notice in the name of the copyright holder (Cambridge University Press or the sponsoring Society, as appropriate), and a link to the online edition of the journal at Cambridge Journals Online.
The definitive version of this article is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266464X11000674
Always use the definitive version when citing.
Use Policy:
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not for profit purposes provided that:
• A full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • A link is made to the metadata record in Newcastle E-prints • The full text is not changed in any way.
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Robinson Library, Univ ersity of Newcastle upon T yne, Newcastle upon Tyne. NE1 7RU. Tel. 0191 222 6000 Rosalind Haslett
Architecture and New Play Development at the National Theatre, 1907–2010
In recent criticism a perceived dichotomy has emerged between ‘new writing’ and ‘new work’ for the theatre. In this article Rosalind Haslett contends that this dichotomy is often reflected in the infrastructure of theatre organizations and theatre spaces themselves. Thus ‘new writing’ is seen to refer to a literary process which takes place in a conventional theatre building, while ‘new work’ tends to occur in non-traditional forms and spaces. The relationship between non-conventional spaces and the performance work that might take place in them has received some critical attention, but there has been less exploration of the ways in which theatre architecture can inform the processes which surround new writing for the theatre. Tracing the history of the National Theatre in London back to its origins, long before it occupied a building of its own, Rosalind Haslett explores the relationship between the policies and processes taking place within the organization and the physical and architectural development of actualizing its building. She suggests that, if the layout of a theatre building has the power to influence the kind of work and the modes of production which take place within it, the activities of the individuals and organizations residing within such structures can also drive architectural change. Rosalind Haslett is Lecturer in Dramatic Literature at Newcastle University. Her research interests include dramaturgy and literature management, theatre architecture, and theatre history.
THEATRE BUILDINGS are an important spaces might be viewed as the physical marker in the landscape of Western cities – marker of a perceived dichotomy between indeed, Marvin Carlson notes that they are modes of production: those supporting ‘new one of the most ‘persistent’ parts of the work’ as opposed to those supporting ‘new ‘repertory of architectural objects’, which writing’. 3 The influence of performance space characterize the modern urban environ- on the dramaturgy of non-conventional ment. 1 Yet the ‘spatial turn’ of recent criticism modes of production has received critical has led to a displacement of the theatre attention, but there has been less exploration building as an essential element of the pro - of the ways in which theatre buildings might duction and reception of theatre. In Britain influence the processes surrounding new this is apparent in some of the more recent writing for the theatre. In this article, there - Arts Council literature, which has aimed to fore, I will consider the ways in which the concentrate funding on ‘people and art’ architecture might inform processes of new rather than ‘buildings and institutions’, and play development by considering the work which celebrates ‘new ways of working’, of an institution which is housed in one of particularly ‘the work that happens outside the most iconic (and contentious) theatre build- of traditional theatre spaces and infra- ings in the United Kingdom: the National structures’. 2 Theatre, London. If the ‘new ways of working’ commended The National Theatre was the first place in by the Arts Council are seen to be taking the United Kingdom to employ an officially place outside the theatre building, however, titled literary manager, so when we address it also follows that more traditional models its play development processes we must of text-based theatre – including ‘new writ- necessarily also consider changing attitudes ing’ – remain the preserve of building-based to literary management, and the somewhat companies. As a result, the division which broader and contested concept of drama- has emerged in attitudes towards theatre turgy in the British theatre.
358 ntq 27:4 (november 2011) © cambridge university press doi: 10.1017/S0266464X11000674 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67 When the National Theatre building on National Theatre of Scotland (NTS). 8 Unlike London’s South Bank was formally opened the National Theatre, the NTS has no fixed in 1976 , Richard Findlater argued that ‘the building but rather operates as an umbrella real history of the National Theatre [could] organization or a ‘dynamic enabler’ which be said to have begun’ 4 – this in spite of the draws together the existing Scottish theatre fact that the National Theatre company, as system and leaves room for range and distinct from the building which now houses variety within this. 9 Nor is this concept an it, had been fully operational since 1963 in anomaly. Rather, the organization of the NTS the Old Vic. Indeed, in the thirteen years is emblematic of a general shift in UK fund- between the company’s inauguration and ing patterns, with a greater focus on suppor - the completion of the theatre building, the ting companies and individuals as opposed National Theatre had established itself in to buildings and institu tions. Accordingly, it is what The Observer described as ‘the meteoric currently de rigueur for the National Theatre rise of [an] amazingly varied company’. 5 building in London to be viewed as ‘inacces- Nevertheless, in emphasizing the organiz- sible and impermeable’, a drain on the insti- ation’s physical home, Findlater chose to tution’s resources, and a barrier to potential locate the essence of the National Theatre in ‘new audiences’. 10 While it was once thought the building, rather than the artists who a shining beacon for British drama, the inhabited it. National Theatre building is now widely seen as an obstacle which the institution is constantly striving to overcome. Housing the Arts: the National Theatre Whether it is perceived as a benefit or a The creation of a dedicated building had been drawback, however, the National Theatre central to the National Theatre campaign building remains a fact of the institution’s from the very start: Effingham Wilson’s 1878 existence. Furthermore, the physical reality of pamphlets were both titled A House for the National Theatre building has undoubt- Shakespeare . Nor did the campaign’s fixation edly influenced the workings of the organ- upon the theatre building end here. Indeed, ization – often in ways unforeseen by its the long, fraught prehistory of the National architects and artistic directors. Not only has Theatre can largely be traced in the battle to it dictated the kind of work that is performed secure for it a suitable site. 6 Yet, even at the there, and informed who has access to this point of the building’s completion (which work, it has also had an enormous impact Findlater identified as the true beginning of upon the shape of the company’s organiz- the institution’s history), doubts were being ational structure, as well as the roles and raised about the desirability of a building- functions of individuals working within it. based theatre. Only a few years after Find- This is particularly true of the institution’s later’s grand claim, Benedict Nightingale literary department, which is responsible for was arguing that by the time the National managing the National Theatre’s commis- had become ‘concrete . . . many of the cog- sioning and new play development processes. noscenti had decided it was precisely what Finding a suitable site to lay foundations for they didn’t want’, because the inflexible build- the building may have been the first concern ing was incompatible with the increasing of many National Theatre campaigners, but emphasis upon experimental, multicultural, creating a forum in which to develop and and site-specific performance within emerg- present a national repertory has always been ing theatre practice. 7 the raison d’être . As a result, these two ele- If anything, this suspicion of the ‘fixed, ments of the institution can be seen to have irreducible costs’ associated with running a developed in tandem, and the association theatre building has become more pro- between the National Theatre’s physical nounced in recent years – a suspicion which structure and its commissioning processes is perhaps best demonstrated by the ‘inno- has percolated through the institution’s vative model’ of the institutionally itinerant history. Often the correlation is understood
359 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67 and acknowledged by the individuals con- toire of plays, ‘as an official answering to the cerned, in other cases the points of connec - German Dramaturg ’. 13 In this way, their tion remain unrevealed. proposal introduced the novel concept of a Although in the early years of the National dedicated literary official to the English Theatre movement it was concern for the theatre. The idea in itself was not, of course, institution’s repertory which dictated the a new one: in Germany the role had been design of the building, since the National established following Gotthold Ephraim Theatre has been made ‘concrete’ it is the Lessing’s appointment as dramaturg of the building itself which has arguably shaped Hamburger Nationaltheater in 1767 , and it the organization’s new writing policies. This was also common in the theatre cultures of can be seen by close examination of three Eastern Europe, Scandanavia, and the Neth- distinct periods of the National Theatre’s erlands. In fact literary management and the development: first, William Archer and Gran- related concept of dramaturgy have always ville Barker’s 1907 plans for the building and been closely connected with the drive to its repertory; second, the period between create a ‘national’ theatre, and Mary Luck- 1963 when the National Theatre was inaugu- hurst has argued that: rated and 1977 when the building was com- pleted; and finally, from that time to the The first official appointments of dramaturgs or present day, with the close relationship literary managers in any country, East or West, have always come about in the context of a cam- between the architectural restrictions of the paign for a national theatre or desire to identify National Theatre and its attitude towards the characteristics of a distinctively home-grown ‘new writing’ and/or ‘new play develop- dramatic literature. 14 ment’ made evident by the refurbishment of the National Theatre Studio and the literary But if Archer and Barker’s inclusion of this department’s relationship with this new role in their Scheme indicates that repertoire ‘powerhouse’ of play development. selection – including the development of new British drama – was central to their plan for a National Theatre, this was also reflected Archer and Barker’s National Theatre Plans in their vision of the theatre building itself. In the early years of the twentieth century, In the Introduction of their Scheme , Archer William Archer and Granville Barker took up and Barker outlined the kind of theatre they the campaign for a National Theatre, and envisaged, which was to be ‘large, elastic, their 1907 publication, A National Theatre: and independent’. 15 Size, therefore, was a Scheme and Estimates (first circulated as the crucial aspect of the design. The theatre they ‘Blue Book’ in 1904 ) outlined a clear proposal proposed was to operate on a repertory basis for the running of such an institution. 11 As and needed a large backstage area to accom- had been the case for Effingham Wilson two modate scenery. Moreover, they felt the build- decades earlier, the erection of a dedicated ing itself might serve as an advertisement for theatre building, or ‘house’, was an essential the institution and that it ‘must impose itself aspect of Archer and Barker’s plans. 12 Yet on public notice, not by poster and column they were also concerned with the internal advertisements in the newspapers, but by workings of the organization and laid out the very fact of its ample, dignified, and detailed schemes for staffing and finances, liberal existence’. 16 casting, and, crucially, the selection of plays. Finally, they believed it was of the utmost Archer and Barker’s plans were heavily importance that the organization be housed influenced by existing European models in in its own premises so that it might operate which repertoire selection and the produc- on a rent- and tax-free basis, and therefore be tion of new writing were central concerns. given every opportunity to succeed finan- They therefore designed the new role of cially. However, in spite of their unequivocal ‘literary manager’, an individual who would call for the theatre building to be ‘large’, the take responsibility for designing the reper- auditorium they proposed was considerably
360 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67 smaller than those of most theatres of their or potentially unpopular play with a popular time. And their plans for the theatre’s archi- one, thus providing a greater flexibility in the tecture were led by the repertoire they had in choice of plays’. 20 In actuality, Barker’s mind. revised design served as the basis for the It was Archer and Barker’s aim that the existing National Theatre building, which institution be ‘visibly and unmistakably popu- has not two but three auditoria of varying lar’ and their proposed repertoire therefore sizes and design. included a great deal of Shakespeare and classical drama. 17 Yet both men were also Literary Management, 1963–1973 champions of the more avant-garde ‘new drama’ which included the work of play- Archer and Barker’s dream of a National wrights such as Ibsen, Shaw, and, indeed, Theatre was not realized until 1963 , when Barker himself. Therefore, although Archer the ‘new drama’ they did not dare to impose and Barker did not request that the National on the British public had become established Theatre act as a ‘pioneer’, neither did they and had even been overtaken in terms of its wish to create a theatre auditorium that ‘newness’. In spite of this, the National would prohibit the presentation of this kind Theatre that came to fruition was not dis- of work. 18 A more modestly sized audi- similar to the imagined theatre of Archer and torium was ideal, because not only would it Barker’s Scheme – including the appointment ensure ‘full’ houses on a regular basis, but an of Kenneth Tynan to the role of literary intimate environment would better accom- manager. modate the increasingly naturalistic style of Tynan, like Archer and Barker, was greatly the new drama and support the work of influenced by European theatre, and he had emerging playwrights. spent some time in Germany prior to his Archer and Barker’s plans did not come to appointment to the National, observing the fruition during their own lifetimes (it took work processes of the Berliner Ensemble. more than fifty years before a realization of Having spent most of his working life as a the National Theatre in London), but they theatre critic, he was particularly excited by continued to campaign tirelessly well beyond the possibilities of the role of dramaturg, the publication of the Scheme . Furthermore, which he viewed as ‘a natural progression as their work continued, the connection they from observer to active participant’. 21 Accord- had observed between auditorium size and ingly, when he was appointed to the repertoire design became more prominent. National he requested the job title ‘drama- Thus, when they were approached to take on turg’ which he hoped would confirm his role the positions of literary manager and artistic as similar to the ‘play-chooser[s]’ and ‘semi- director of the New Theatre, New York (an director[s]’ he had observed while in American institution, loosely based upon Germany. 22 their Scheme ), they turned the opportunity The National Theatre Board’s understand- down because ‘the theatre . . . [was] too big ing of his role was somewhat different, how- and the proscenium [arch] too wide’. 19 ever, and Tynan was ultimately required to Indeed, by the time that Barker published drop the title ‘dramaturg’ because it was felt a revised version of the Scheme in 1930 , this to be incompatible with the additional idea had evolved to the point that he now ‘public relations’ duties that had been tacked advocated the design of a building with two on to his job description. 23 Indeed it soon separate auditoria: one which would sup- became clear that Tynan’s hopes of func- port productions with a larger cast, the other tioning as a ‘semi-director’ were at odds accommodating small-scale productions. This with the administrative implications of his was an idea that held credence well into the preferred title, which was understood to 1970 s, with John Elsom and Nicholas Tomalin focus on the activity of ‘generally super- noting that this design had the virtue of vising the literary side of the theatre’s enabling ‘a director to schedule a “difficult” activities’ rather than being involved in the
361 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67 directorial process of making theatre. 24 For room because they felt that directing is ‘not a this reason Tynan settled upon the job title of theoretical thing, but . . . [a] commitment to ‘literary manager’, as had first been pro- writers’. 30 Tynan posed a problem because posed by Archer and Barker over half a he not only critiqued the process as well as century earlier. the product of theatre-making, he was also a As an established theatre critic, Tynan’s vocal critic of the structure underpinning the position within the theatre system was under- National Theatre – including matters relat- stood to be, necessarily, outside the theatre- ing to the Board. making process. In 1970 , for example, the Tynan first publicly questioned the posi- editors of Theatre Quarterly asked: tion of the Board during a dispute over Rolf Hochhuth’s Soldiers , which suggested that Surely the critic is speaking for an audience that is Winston Churchill had ordered the assassi- not thus in touch [with the writers, the directors, nation of the Polish wartime leader General and the actors]. Mustn’t both judge theatre by its end product, the play as staged, which has noth- Sikorski. Luckhurst has described Tynan’s ing to do with the personalities of directors or promotion of the play as ‘a deliberate attempt actors or authors? 25 to force a political showdown with the Board’, and the language he used in a memorandum Yet Tynan contended that it was impossible of 1967 implied that he believed the Board’s for the critic to know ‘what ought to be hap- attempts to prevent its performance was pening in the theatre’ without this kind of akin to the actions of a ‘totalitarian’ regime. 31 privileged knowledge. He also pointed to This critical analysis of the theatre-making 26 other participant-critics, such as Shaw. structures and systems within the National was, perhaps not surprisingly, unwelcome. The Limits to ‘Literary Management’ After a brief sabbatical in 1969, Tynan returned to the theatre to discover that he Other National Theatre executives were had been demoted from the role of literary suspicious of the artistic contributions Tynan manager to that of ‘literary consultant’, and volunteered, however, and several members that he was to share this new position with of the directing staff regarded him as an Derek Granger. 32 In 1973 , when the Board 27 ‘intruder’ in the rehearsal room. William appointed Peter Hall as Laurence Olivier’s Gaskill, for example, recalls a disagreement successor without consulting any member of he had with Olivier, in which he argued: the National’s executive, Tynan once again spoke out against the Board, arguing that I can understand that you have to rely on Ken ‘a theatrical organization is an organic thing, [Tynan]’s advice about the choice of plays. But I don’t think in any circumstances he should be and must develop by evolution rather than 33 allowed to dictate the choice of actors. That’s not imposition’. In doing so, Elsom argued, his business as literary manager. 28 ‘Tynan was questioning the status and func- tion of the Board, and, by implication, the Similarly, George Devine was unhappy with way in which state organized and financed Tynan’s interventions during his production theatres should be run’. 34 His call to arms of Samuel Beckett’s Play and consequently was fruitless, however, since Hall had made wanted him ‘removed from the theatre’. 29 artistic autonomy a condition of his appoint - Episodes such as these indicate that Tynan’s ment and this led to Tynan’s replacement. 35 attempts at engaging with elements of the As the first officially appointed literary theatre-making process beyond play selec- manager in the UK theatre, Tynan’s term at tion were not always successful or welcome. the National must still be considered a land- They also suggest a resistance to theories of mark – particularly given the rapid increase and reflection on the theatre-making process, in the appointment of literary managers since directors such as Gaskill and Devine, and/or dramaturgs in the last few decades. following their work at the Royal Court, did And his contribution to the profession is all not want to admit a critic into the rehearsal the more important because, through his
362 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67 disputes with members of the Board and the tion was similarly inconvenienced, and they associate directors, he tested the parameters were compelled to work as a unit in order to of his role within the context of a building- be effective. What Callow notes here, then, is based repertory theatre. Indeed, Tynan’s the levelling effect of the space. grand ambitions to seek ‘excellence’ and ‘a And so, while at times his borderline posi- theatre of intelligent audiences’ revealed the tion left Tynan vulnerable and ineffective, inherent possibility of the literary manager the democratic arrangement of the space to challenge and expand theatre practice. 36 may have made it easier for him to agitate That said, his problematic position within and interfere in all aspects of the organiz- the National Theatre executive not only ation’s workings. In sharp contrast, the cur- demonstrated the revolutionary potential of rent literary department operates within a such a role, but also the limited capacity of purpose-built building in which specific this particular kind of theatre structure to creative territories are delineated architect- accommodate it. As Rachel Shteir has argued, urally. This not only influences its relation- in seeking ‘excellence’ the dramaturg or ship with departments whose offices are literary manager must, by necessity, ‘be located either nearby or at a distance, it also oppositional . . . and it is difficult to insti - has an impact upon their involvement in the tutionalize the oppositional’. 37 Ultimately, development of new work – much of which Tynan’s location ‘betwixt and between’ takes place in a separate building, known as revealed the ‘liminality’ of his position both the National Theatre Studio. metaphorically and physically. 38 While he hoped for complete artistic freedom, the The National Theatre Takes Shape organizational structure of the theatre limited this. While he wanted to enter the rehearsal When Denys Lasdun was selected to design room, the directors wished to keep him out. a permanent home for the newly inaugurated Although both personal and professional National Theatre in 1963 , his brief was to relationships frustrated Tynan’s vision of design a flexible theatre which could serve as what the National Theatre might become, both a proscenium and an ‘open theatre’ in the physical structure and working realities the style of an amphitheatre. Such a design, it of the organization during this period was of was thought, would enable the National to benefit to him in certain respects. He worked present a rich and varied repertoire since the at the National Theatre before the dedicated theatre could accommodate plays requiring theatre building on the South Bank had been different styles of staging. completed, while the National Theatre was However, after a two-year consultation using the Old Vic as a temporary base. This process with the ‘Building Committee’ (which meant that Tynan worked from a makeshift included notable theatre-makers such as Portakabin rather than an office. Conditions Peter Hall and Peter Brook, as well as key were cramped, but Simon Callow has argued personnel of the National Theatre), these that ‘these constrictions were part of the plans had changed substantially. Lasdun spirit of the enterprise: the Battle of Britain ultimately drew up plans for three stages: feeling’, and he describes the atmosphere of the Olivier, a fan-shaped ‘open theatre’ seat- camaraderie in the canteen as underpinning ing 1,150 ; the Lyttelton, which is a pros- the entire venture: cenium theatre with a capacity of 890; and the Cottesloe, the smallest of the three The whole company piled into that tiny space, and auditoria, which is a flexible space and seats technicians and ushers and actors and designers up to 300. There was some disagreement as and directors rubbed shoulders and shanks, squeezing together round the little tables, feeling to whether a small, flexible space – in the that they were all part of the same enterprise. 39 form of the Cottesloe – was really necessary, but Lasdun settled the matter by making it While there were obvious inadequacies to indispensable architecturally. In his diaries, the facilities, every member of the organiza - Hall noted:
363 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67 The joke is that the South Bank Board cannot avoid the majority of the work has been written for having the Studio. Denys Lasdun has built it as the small spaces with tiny casts. . . . The artistic con - cornerstone of the building. The space has been finement has, in my view, affected the nature of created by the structure that actually holds up the the plays. The central vision has become small- two other theatres. Even if we can do nothing ex- scale. 43 cept put a wooden floor in this space and paint the brickwork of the walls white, it is there. 40 Ansorge is not alone in arguing that small stages have encouraged new writing for the Even at this time, the ‘small’ Cottesloe-to-be theatre to become narrow, provincial, or lay at the heart of the institution’s new domestic. In 2001 , a group of playwrights writing policy, for a number of reasons. First, established an organization called The Mon- it was thought that programming new plays, sterists in order to challenge this assumption. possibly by unknown writers, in such a small Collectively, the Monsterists applied for the space would minimize the financial risk. artistic directorships of some of the larger Indeed, John Russell Brown, who replaced London theatres in order to agitate for their Tynan as literary manager in 1973 , argued cause, which was to challenge the fact that that: ‘in the Cottesloe [the company] ought new writing was being kept ‘under house to be able to put plays on much more arrest in small black box spaces’. 44 The 41 cheaply’. Second, Hall, who had taken over group’s aim was ‘to encourage theatres to as artistic director of the National Theatre encourage playwrights to explore the theat- when it moved into the new building, argued rical potential of all stages’, thus implying that staging new plays in larger auditoria that it was the theatre organizations (in parti- puts ‘unreasonable pressure’ on the work cular literary managers and commissioning 42 and is ‘unfair’ to the playwright. directors) who were preventing playwrights Over the course of the National Theatre’s from being more ambitious. 45 history, this preference for staging new writ- It may be significant that the Monsterists ing in the smallest of the three stages has gathered in the National Theatre Studio, since become more pronounced and the Cottesloe in comparison to Ansorge’s ‘pub theatres’ is often viewed as a ‘new writing’ space. (such as the Bush, which has a capacity of 80 ) Arguably, therefore, Lasdun’s design has even the 300-seater Cottesloe can no longer located the Cottesloe, and ‘new writing’ be considered a ‘small space’. 46 Indeed, alongside it, as both the literal and meta- Sebastian Born, who has been Associate phorical foundation of the National’s work. Director (Literary) of the National Theatre However, he has also ensured that new plays since 2007 , argues that plays performed in are often tucked away in a small corner at the the Olivier, the Lyttelton, and even the very bottom of the theatre building. Cottesloe need big, substantial themes to sustain them in such large theatres. 47 Simil- Small Stages for New Writing? arly, Christopher Campbell, who acted as Associate Literary Manager until 2009 , has Small stages have been associated with new argued that the National ‘doesn’t really have writing since the early decades of the a small space . . . so it’s an unusual new writer twentieth century – when Archer and Barker, who can produce something we can do’. 48 among others, began making the connection Yet the signs are that this is beginning to between the naturalistic style of the ‘new change. Four of the playwrights involved in drama’ and a more intimate auditorium. the Monsterists have since had plays pro- Over the course of the twentieth century, duced in the Olivier Theatre, and one of many UK theatres have become so small that them, Rebecca Lenkiewicz, became the first Peter Ansorge argues this has dictated the living female playwright to have her work kind of new writing that is being produced: staged there in 2008 with Her Naked Skin .49 Since the late 1970s new plays in this country have Moreover, Arts Council England’s report of been premiered almost exclusively in small 2009 , Writ Large: New Writing on the English auditoria or pub theatres. . . . This has meant that Stage , notes that between 2003 and 2009 ‘new
364 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67 play productions [were] evenly divided ment work. While there is a smaller space for between auditoria of under and over 200 readings or short periods of rehearsal on a seats’ in the English theatre. 50 While the same new scripr, it is not necessarily a given that does not apply to Northern Ireland, Scotland, writers will be provided with access to this and Wales, these figures suggest that atti- kind of workshop – in fact, they are only tudes to the production of new writing are guaranteed ‘a desk and a computer’. 55 More- slowly changing. over, while part of the purpose of the reno- Even so, the success of the Monsterists vation has been ‘to house under the same notwithstanding, there is still an important roof our research and development together distinction here between ‘new writing’ and with Archive and Education’, it is significant the ‘new writers’ Campbell refers to, and it that the literary department remains in the remains unusual for the National Theatre to main building and therefore at a remove produce a play by an inexperienced ‘new’ from these activities. 56 writer in any of its spaces. Rather, the work Accordingly, the dichotomy between ‘new of young and emerging writers who are still writing’ and ‘new work’ for the theatre is in- developing their craft is in an entirely separ- built: the National Theatre’s dedicated ‘work- ate space, known as the National Theatre shop’ space is associated with an exploratory Studio, which is located a short distance approach to theatre-making; but the work of from the main building. playwrights – and indeed of the literary department – remains predominantly office- and desk-based. Yet the very fact that play- ‘New Writing’ and ‘New Work’ wrights are being brought in to this space When the Old Vic was sold in 1984 (after the and given the opportunity to ‘rub shoulders National moved to its dedicated building on and shanks’ with the other artists on attach - the South Bank), the ‘Annexe’, which is now ment there (which might include directors, known as the Studio, was offered to the designers, or composers) represents a degree National on a ‘peppercorn rent’. 51 Peter Gill, of integration not usually possible in a then Associate Director, began using it as a theatre institution of this kind. space where ‘running repairs’ could be done The inherent challenge presented by the on actors who were in the repertory company, National Theatre building, once described by and where directors were able to experiment its critics as ‘a cumbersome Dreadnought, with plays they would like to tackle. 52 dubiously relevant to the twentieth century’, According to former literary manager Jack and a ‘great grey mausoleum’, is its forebid - Bradley, this space continued to evolve until ding exterior and perceived inaccessibility. 57 it became somewhere that work could be This is true for audiences and prospective developed before being programmed at the playwrights alike. Moreover, the literary National. Indeed, following the Studio’s re- department is deeply embedded in the furbishment in 2007 , its function as a space organizational workings of this producing for development has not only been cem- theatre – not least because of its location ented, it has also been expanded to include within the building. ‘physical theatre and everything . . . ’, as Therefore, while part of the department’s evident in recent productions including War purpose is to act as the first point of contact Horse (2007 ) and The Cat in the Hat (2009 ). 53 for writers, it can do little more than offer But while there is space for ‘new writing’ playwrights it is interested in a ‘cup of tea’ or within the workings of the building, it is by a ‘chat’. In part, this is because there is no no means considered to be the ‘heartbeat’ of space to engage in anything more involved the Studio. 54 This is evident in the distribu- in the small, book-lined office within which tion of space within the Studio. The building it is housed; but it is also because the depart- comprises two large workshop spaces which ment must attend to its other function, which are reserved for ‘set-heavy, large cast’, is selecting the theatre’s repertoire. Conse- ‘digital’, or ‘physical exploration’ develop- quently, the physical division between the
365 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67 work of the literary department and the 2. Arts Council England, The Next Stage: Towards a Studio seems to demonstrate a division that National Policy for Theatre in England (London: Arts Council England, 2000 ), p. 3; Arts Council England, Cathy Turner and Synne K. Behrndt have Theatre Assessment 2009 (London: Arts Council England, also noted in their discussion of literary man- 2009 ), p. 7 and 11 . agement and/or dramaturgy in UK theatre. 3. Arts Council England, The Next Stage , p. 7. 4. Richard Findlater, ‘The Winding Road to King’s If the literary department, as in Turner and Reach’ ( 1977 ), in Simon Callow, The National: the Theatre Behrndt’s definition of the literary manager, and Its Work, 1963–1997 (London: Nick Hern, 1997 ). acts ‘primarily [as a] literary critic and 5. Bamber Gascoigne, ‘A Moor For All Time’, The Observer , 26 April 1964 , p. 25 . advisor’, then the Studio, like the role of 6. Five different sites were acquired between 1913 dramaturg, is an organization ‘more likely to and 1962 , when the National Theatre’s position on the be oriented towards the practical work of South Bank was finally secured. 58 7. Benedict Nightingale, ‘In London, the National production’ (their italics). And so, while Theatre Marks a Stormy Decade’, New York Times , 12 Tynan effectively conflated the roles when October 1981 . selecting his job title in 1963 , the emerging 8. The Scotsman , 20 December 2006 . 9. Scottish National Theatre Independent Working profile of the Studio creates both a physical Group, Scottish National Theatre: Final Report (Edinburgh: and conceptual cleavage between the funct - Scottish Arts Council, 2001 ), p. 9. ions of literary management and drama- 10 . NT Annual Report 2005–2006 (London: Royal National Theatre, 2006 ), p. 10 . turgy within the institution. 11 . Geoffrey Whitworth, The Making of a National But this is not necessarily a bad thing, Theatre (London: Faber and Faber, 1951 ), p. 50 –7. since it has permitted the National Theatre to 12 . Effingham Wilson, A House for Shakespeare; a support and present a multiplicity of work – Proposition for the Consideration of the Nation (London: Hurst, 1878 ; London: Mitchell, 1878 ). much of which might not otherwise have 13 . William Archer and Harley Granville Barker, A been seen on these stages. Indeed it was National Theatre: Scheme and Estimates (London: Duck- Archer and Barker’s original intention that – worth, 1907 ), p. 13 . 14 . Mary Luckhurst, Dramaturgy: a Revolution in eventually – the National Theatre might be Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 ), capable of producing the ‘new drama’, and p. 40 –1. as the definition of what is ‘new’ shifts, it is 15 . Archer and Barker, op. cit., p. xvii–xviii. 16 . Ibid. appropriate that the institution should change 17 . Ibid., p. xviii. in order to accommodate it. The creation of a 18 . Ibid. separate space for developmental work, then, 19 . ‘Granville Barker on Stage Prospects’, New York Times , 30 March 1908 . represents the institution’s ability to overcome 20 . John Elsom and Nicholas Tomalin, The History of the limitations imposed on it by the original the National Theatre (London: Cape, 1978 ), p. 34 . design of the building in which it is housed. 21 . Dominic Shellard, Kenneth Tynan: a Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003 ), p. 241 . So while traditional theatre buildings are 22 . Tynan, quoted in ibid. understood to support text-based theatre and 23 . Tynan was also given the function of Public non-traditional theatre spaces are seen to Relations Officer. See Luckhurst, op. cit., p. 160 . 24 . ‘Literary Manager for National Theatre’, The promote new ways of working, the National Times , 18 March 1963 . Theatre demonstrates that such distinctions 25 . Editors of Theatre Quarterly , ‘The Critic Comes cannot – need not – always be upheld. Full Circle’, Theatre Quarterly , I, No. 2 (April 1971), p. Indeed, if the building has informed the work 37–48; reprinted in Simon Trussler, ed., New Theatre Voices of the Seventies (London: Methuen, 1981), p. 12–22, processes and product that occur within it, and in Bert Cardullo, What is Dramaturgy? (New York: the activity of individuals working within Peter Lang, 1995 ), p. 198 . the theatre has, in turn, altered the landscape 26 . Ibid. 27 . Elsom and Tomalin, op. cit., p. 150 . of the building. 28 . Gaskill, quoted in ibid., p. 194 . 29 . Ibid., p. 195 . 30 . William Gaskill quoted in Gresdna A. Doty and Notes and References Billy J. Harbin, Inside the Royal Court Theatre, 1956-1981 : Artists Talk (Baton Rouge; London: Louisiana State 1. Marvin Carlson, Places of Performance: the Semiotics University Press, 1990 ), p. 74 . of Theater Architecture (London: Cornell University 31 . Luckhurst, Dramaturgy: a Revolution , p. 181 ; Press, 1989 ), p. 6. Carlson borrows the term ‘repertory of Kathleen Tynan, ed., Kenneth Tynan: Letters (London: architectural objects’ from Martin Krampen, Meaning in Weidenfield and Nicholson, 1994 ). the Urban Environment (London, 1979 ), p. 69 . 32 . Editors of Theatre Quarterly , op. cit., p. 201 .
366 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67 33 . Elsom and Tomalin, op. cit., p. 235 . 38382 /literary/literary-department-overview.html> 34 . Ibid., p. 236 . accessed 29 April 2010 . 35 . John Goodwin, ed., Peter Hall’s Diary: the Story of 48 . Christopher Campbell, interview with the a Dramatic Battle (London: Oberon Books, 2000 ), p. 23 . author, 6 March 2007 . Hall recounts that he ‘categorically’ refused to work 49 . The plays were: David Eldridge, Market Boy with Tynan. (2006 ); Rebecca Lenkiewicz, Her Naked Skin (2008 ); 36 . Editors of Theatre Quarterly , op. cit., p. 200 ; Tynan Richard Bean, England People Very Nice (2009 ); and quoted in Luckhurst, op. cit., p. 179 . Moira Buffini, Welcome to Thebes (2010 ). Roy Williams 37 . Rachel Shteir, ‘The Dramaturg’s Progress’, and Ryan Craig, also of the Monsterists, have had work Theatre Topics , XIII, No. 1 (March 2003 ), p. 166 . staged in the Cottesloe. 38 . Tynan quoted in Luckhurst, op. cit., p. 188 ; 50 . Arts Council England, Writ Large: New Writing on Victor Turner, ‘Are There Universals of Performance in the English Stage (London: Arts Council England, 2009), Myth, Ritual and Drama?’, in Richard Schechner, ed., By p. 6. Means of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and 51 . Nicholas Wright, ‘The Studio: the Gift of Ritual (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990 ). Renewal’, available from 367 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Nov 2011 IP address: 128.240.229.67