Copyrighted material – 9781137590794 Copyrighted material – 9781137610270 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Some Key Terms and Ideas viii The introduction offers the reader some definitions of key terms and theo- ries, as well as seeking to explore what might be meant by ‘contemporary’. It also explains the importance of analysing critical and scholarly commen- tary, introduces some of the plays explored later in the book and provides an outline of the structure of the volume. CHAPTER ONE The Rise of Political Theatre 1 The book starts by analysing the rise of left-wing socialist theatre in the late 1960s to the early 1980s, exploring the relevance of these key dates and examining the theatrical and political landscape at this time. The chapter explores the work of Bond, Hare and Brenton, and then Pinter, analysing the critical response to their work in first performance, as well as some relevant modern revivals, and also offers commentary on the relationship between ‘real’ politics and theatrical response to them. CHAPTER TWO The Gendering of Political Theatre: Women’s Writing and Feminist Drama 25 Following on from analysis of political playwriting in chapter one, this chapter examines the rise of feminist theatre in the 1970s and 1980s. Focusing on Daniels and Churchill, the chapter analyses the meaning and definition of feminist theatre, and seeks to locate these dramatists’ work in the context of feminist socialist writing more widely. The chapter explores the often hostile critical reaction to this work, and reflects on feminist theatre’s attempts to restructure dominant forms of theatre into more fluid and deconstructed structures. v Copyrighted material – 9781137610270 Copyrighted material – 9781137610270 vi CONTENTS CHAPTER THREE In-Yer-Face Theatre: The Shocking New Face of Political Drama? 48 In the 1990s, a ‘new’ and shocking form of theatre appeared to erupt on the British stage – so-called ‘In-Yer-Face’ theatre. This chapter analyses three such plays by Kane, Ravenhill and McDonagh, and asks whether this theatre was radically new and different, or simply a different way of repack- aging more familiar political theatre. CHAPTER FOUR The “New” Political: Verbatim Theatre and Theatre of the “Real” 73 This chapter asks the reader to reflect upon the relationship between fic- tional theatre and ‘real’ journalism as it explores the performance of real political events on stage. Seeking to offer some definitions of terms such as verbatim, documentary and tribunal theatre, this chapter discusses the work of Hare, Norton-Taylor and Frayn, probing the sometimes fraught rela- tionship between fact and fiction, dramatist and journalist. The chapter explores these ideas in the context of overtly political theatre, which pro- vokes questions about the nature of the author, be they editors of others’ words, or the creator of their own political message. CHAPTER FIVE Global Theatres: Representing Race, Religion and Identity 100 Chapter Five examines the complexities of racial, ethnic and religious iden- tities on the contemporary stage, examining some moments of controversy, and reflecting on the relationship between offence and freedom of expres- sion. Examining plays by (amongst others) tucker green, Bhatti, Williams and Bean, the chapter self-consciously takes a multi-cultural approach, exploring the meaning of nation, identity and belonging on the stages and televisions of contemporary Britain. Copyrighted material – 9781137610270 Copyrighted material – 9781137610270 CONTENTS vii CHAPTER SIX New Theatre Forms: Adapting the Novel and Filming the Stage 124 The final chapter considers the shifting nature of theatrical experience in the future, exploring both live-casting and adaptation. While one might appear technologically forward-thinking, the other recalls Victorian aes- thetics, suggesting a potential split in the future of contemporary British theatre. CONCLUSION 148 The conclusion reflects upon the usefulness of exploring critical commen- tary in understanding readings of the contemporary British stage. It also explores shifting critical understandings of different playwrights, exploring how writers emerge as part of the accepted theatrical canon of contempo- rary British dramatists. NOTES 151 WORKS CITED 152 INDEX 166 Copyrighted material – 9781137610270 Copyrighted material – 9781137610270 CHAPTER ONE The Rise of Political Theatre What is political theatre? The aim of this chapter is to provide the reader with a critical overview of political theatre in Britain from the late 1960s to the 1980s. This is clearly a potentially vast undertaking, so it will necessarily focus on specific playwrights and critical perceptions. However, in exploring the ways in which playwrights from this time responded to their political environment, the hope is to offer the reader a broad understanding of the relationship between theatre and politics during this period, theatre’s role as a commentator on society and theatre’s place within the wider political setting through an examination of critical response to the plays under consideration. In starting to explore this topic it is useful to first discuss some possible definitions of political theatre. Michael Patterson defines it as “a kind of the- atre that not only depicts social interaction and political events but implies the possibility of radical change on socialist lines: the removal of injustice and autocracy and their replacement by the fairer distribution of wealth and more democratic systems” (2003: 3–4). The first section of this quotation is relatively straightforward – theatre that responds to its social and political context and offers potential for change, but it is worth pausing for a moment to consider the second half of this citation – British political theatre is (nearly) always left- wing in emphasis and often overtly Marxist. Critics and playwrights are surprisingly unified in their view that political theatre in Britain during this period is more or less synonymous with socialism or Marxism. Dorrian Lambley argues that “Marxism… has provided the dominant reference for the development of a radical oppositional theatre since the end of the Second World War” (1992: 34). Howard Brenton, a key political dramatist of the 1970s and 1980s describes in an interview from 1987, “a red theatre… under the theatre’s bed” (Mitchell, 1987: 196), suggesting Marxist principles in the underbelly of all theatre. During the late 1960s and 1970s, power changed hands between the Conservative and Labour party frequently; however, socialist 1 Copyrighted material – 9781137610270 Copyrighted material – 9781137610270 2 CONTEMPORARY BRITISH DRAMA principles are not always best served under a Labour government. As Brenton goes on to explain, “The Labour Party comes into power, dithers, hits obstructive tactics from the City, the Civil Service, and goes to pieces” (200). Catherine Itzin elaborates, “the Conservative government of 1970, and the Labour government of 1974, finally crushed […] hopes on the left, and fuelled the fire of political theatre” (1980: 7), suggesting that both political parties failed to offer a “clear Marxist alternative” (7) and therefore true political theatre involves an active stance against all conventional party politics in the search for a more radical socialist revolution. Political dramatists of this time were hopeful, not just of raising and debat- ing what they saw as social inequalities, but of creating the possibility of radical change through theatrical performance. When asked “Do you think theatre can have an active role in engaging in political struggle and bringing about social change”, Brenton’s reply was “No doubt about it” (Mitchell, 1987: 198). Edward Bond, a playwright under discussion in this chapter, was extremely active in providing a political education for his audiences, stating in interview, “My plays are fundamentally political because they say you cannot change anything unless you understand what you are doing” (Nicolás, 2016: 261), suggesting that revolution will come from understanding political injustices. Reflecting on this period, Patterson writes, “Given the sense of a changing world and the apparently very real possibility of restructuring society along socialist lines, it was predictable that these writers would turn to the most pub- lic and most immediate forum for expressing their concerns and aspirations, that of live theatre” (2003: 13). Theatre’s position within society as a possible revolutionary force was also noted by those who would have motivation for suppressing its radical potential. Exploring the state of theatre under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, D. Keith Peacock notes that Arts Council funding of theatre can have a political agenda. Howard Brenton’s The Romans in Britain (1980) caused considerable controversy when it was first performed for its juxtaposition of the Roman invasion of Britain and the British military presence in North- ern Ireland. Receiving its premiere at the National Theatre, some felt that taxpayers’ money should not be financing such politically sensitive theatre: “Calls were made in parliament for [the minister of the arts] to cut Arts Council’s Grant for partly funding such an ‘outrage’. This seemed to be the first evidence that the new right-wing government would resort to censor- ship of the arts under threats of the withdrawal of subsidy” (Peacock, 1999: 70). Over time, this approach led, Peacock argues, to an erosion of funding for radical theatre, with government policy “to offer support predominately