Issue 24, 2006
Prompt Corner 
Let's begin with a bumper batch of apologies: to Charles Spencer, whose Daily Telegraph review of The Sound Of Music has so far (this issue included) managed to elude our reprinting process; to Michael Coveney and anyone else tempted to send a similar e-mail pointing out that, contrary to my rash piece of pedantry last issue, the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions of "novitiate" do indeed include a sense in which it simply means "novice", it just happened to be further down the entry than I had the wit to read; to all those inconvenienced by our previously incorrect press details for the King's Head production of Peter Pan, including Sue Hyman (who we mistakenly claimed was handling the press for it) and Julia Hallawell (who actually is); and in general for a smaller than usual issue. It's simply that, at this time of year, reviews of some productions get held over for the Christmas-shows mega-blitz in our final issue; it just so happens that into that category falls virtually every out-of-London show opening during this issue's dates. We promise you'll get to read about them all in the cold light of mid-January - see the note on the Contents page opposite.
Contortions
In other news, sources close to the Guardians of the Theatre Museum (in fact, sources close to the back page of this magazine) report that the Guardians web site has been getting over 1000 signatories a day, which is terrific. Public figures and major institutions these days seem to be growing more and more brazen, increasingly difficult to embarrass, so we really need to do all we can to show up the ludicrous contortions of the V&A's decision to close the Theatre Museum.
And, indeed, of the government's complicity in it. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has (as Ian Herbert notes) been assiduous in refusing to get drawn into the matter, not even to the extent of making the most general comment. So, as one of culture minister David Lammy's constituents, I tried to book an appointment at one of his constituency surgeries to discuss the topic. I discovered a remarkable thing: Mr Lammy is not prepared to listen to a constituent lobby him on a matter which affects his constituents, or to consider a request to him as a constituency MP to try to gain the ear of the minister responsible, even when that ministerial ear is attached to his own head. His office claims that he's not allowed to care about how his ministerial decisions affect his own constituents, which seems to me to rather defeat the point of having constituency MPs. I await a response to my e-mail to him in his ministerial manifestation, inviting any kind of comment on the closure. Let's see whether he's prepared to come out with even the most insipid, platitudinous remark about it being sad or unfortunate; if so, it might raise my opinion of him almost to zero.
Antithetical
Which leaves little space to talk about the fortnight's shows. I was rather less charmed by the Korean Romeo And Juliet than many. All the wedding-bed comedy and the closing scenes of civil war... well, yes, interesting ideas in general, but if you want to portray matters quite so antithetical to the primary fabric of the play, well, why not choose a different play instead of stretching this one so far to make it fit that it never twangs back into shape?
Little Shop Of Horrors is by and large a delight, regardless of one's feelings about the current availability of musicals (I think this is a non-issue anyway, a simple batch of coincidences in scheduling rather than a sign of any underlying tendency in London programming as a whole), and also in my case despite certain reservations. To my shame, it was only a while into his career that I came to appreciate the strengths of Paul Keating as a stage-musical performer (probably much the same way many Australians felt about his namesake as a political performer). For me, he just has one of those faces that always look rather truculent, which can hamper certain characterisations, such as that of the downtrodden Seymour here. But his acting and musical skills (and a wonderfully naff wardrobe) largely overcome this factor; if he is outshone by Sheridan Smith as Audrey, well, there's no shame in that - so is much of the night sky. It was my companion who pointed out that, delightful as Jasper Britton's shtick is, he doesn't really differentiate between his various cameo roles; maybe that's part of the joke, but if so, we didn't get it. And the pop pedant in me was disappointed that one of the girls in the chorus didn't hit the right rhythm on the spoken line "He's a dentist and he'll never ever be any good": it's a reference to the Phil Spector biggie He's A Rebel - the clue being that the character who says it is called Crystal! Duh! Hey, if a knowing pop-culture reference is worth making, it's worth making properly...
Disdainful
One of my biggest letdowns of the fortnight, though, was the relative restraint of Quentin Letts' review of Drunk Enough To Say I Love You?. Surely, I thought, this play embodied everything he and his imagined readership loathe, both theatrically and politically. Alas, he opted for the disdainful chortle rather than the full broadside. Perhaps he'd expended too much excoriation the previous evening on Dennis Kelly's (altogether better) Love And Money. Interesting, though, that in neither case did he appear to notice that the play had a plot, or else he didn't think that plot worth reporting... which has some interesting implications for what the job of theatre reviewing is considered to involve. For myself, my inclination is to defend Caryl Churchill's play a little more, but I can't in all conscience find grounds to do so. Particularly not when she begins to mangle language: most critics have noted that virtually every sentence in the play is incompletely uttered, which isn't a problem, but no-one comments on the fact that, when she can't find a way of leaving a line unfinished, Churchill resorts to extremely contrived ways of not starting it properly instead.
Connoisseurs of hatchet jobs on reviewers may care to read the article in the Independent hosted on that paper's web site at http://news .independent .co.uk/media/article2019063.ece.
It strikes me as a fairly transparent piece of work: praise your own paper's incumbents and alumni, add a bit of cursory research (consisting mainly of leafing through reviews of Behind The Iron Mask and A Right Royal Farce), skip blithely past a howler or two of your own (what on earth has Mark Ravenhill got to do with Therese Raquin, as is claimed in the misattribution of a quotation from Alastair Macaulay?), and try to sound more daringly bitchy than you actually have the courage to be. Oh, no, hang on, those are my "Notes To Self"... Ah, well: goodwill to all men, eh? Seasons greetings.
Ian Shuttleworth | Ian@theatrerecord.com
At the Back
Can You Hear Me at the V&A?
It seems a long time since I drew Record readers' attention to the Victoria and Albert Museum's scandalous attempt to close its dedicated Theatre Museum in Russell Street, Covent Garden. Look again at what I wrote in Issue 4 and you will see the issues set out in a way that I wouldn't alter now, because they haven't really changed all year. Basically, the V&A has always found the Theatre Museum difficult to comprehend, since it deals with a living art rather than dead collectibles. V&A bosses have tried many times over the years to close this awkward branch office - it would have been stifled at birth if it were not for a vigorous campaign by the Evening Standard. The individual bosses may have changed, but the latest batch still will not listen to reason. They don't like things that move.
Since I wrote that piece, when the closure was only a rumour, the V&A have come out into the open, ducking and weaving all the way. Yes, we want to close Russell Street. No, there is no alternative. Yes, there is an alternative: we will share it with the Opera House. No, we can't find the money, so we'll close it as planned. Yes, we would let someone else run it if anyone came forward. No, the theatre community hasn't come up with any money or ideas so we'll have to close. In any case, what's wrong with having a theatre gallery in the main building in South Kensington? Wait, we've had an offer from Blackpool: of course a separate Theatre Museum is a great idea, especially if Blackpool pays for it. Deliberate or not, this havering has made it difficult to speak out about the closure.
Serious costing
When the collaboration with the Royal Opera House was announced, the V&A published a 'consultation paper', setting out the background as they saw it and describing what they planned to do, either with or without the Opera House's input. A lot of individuals and organisations produced responses to the document, including the Society for Theatre Research. I sent that one in, as the Society's Chairman. It asked a lot of questions about how the plans had been constructed, and whether any serious costing and fact-finding had gone into them. There was little sign of serious financial thinking in the paper itself, and one wondered whether the Theatre Museum's own staff had been asked for any input. After a while the Society, and most of those who had sent in submissions, received a short note thanking them for their contribution - but not addressing any of the points raised. A week or two ago I discovered that the STR's points, and those of the other concerned parties, had all been carefully summarised on the Theatre Museum's website. You'll find them at http://theatremuseum.org/files/consultation_digest.pdf. What you will not find on the website is any attempt to address or answer them. Something you will find on the Theatre Museum website, rather surprisingly, is a thread of public discussion about the closure. Intrepid surfers might like to take a look at this, too, by going to http://theatremuseum.org/news_and_views/forum.php. It makes fascinating reading, principally because in all the reactions there is only one supporting the closure of the Russell Street site. The rest give very strong reasons why it should not close. Several have good ideas on how to improve it. And the V&A have taken no notice.
Wholehearted support
When it became clear that the V&A were not interested in talking to small fry like the Theatre Researchers, we got together with the Save London's Theatres Campaign to try and set up some kind of resistance movement, and at a meeting in Equity's HQ in late November the Guardians of the Theatre Museum were born. Representatives from theatre bodies large and small, from the Noel Coward Society to the Musicians' Union, most of whom were at the meeting, immediately and wholeheartedly offered their support. Leading theatre names offered to join the Guardians' Council. If you look at our website www.theatremuseumguardians.org.uk, you'll see almost every organisation of significance and a very impressive bunch of individuals putting their weight behind the Guardians' agenda: to stop the closure, to suggest ways of improving what the Theatre Museum already does pretty well, to help find funds, and in the long term to look for bigger and better ways to preserve and present Britain's performing arts heritage.
Open to suggestions
Let me quote from some information put out by the V&A last week, when they suddenly came up with the idea of a Theatre Museum in that centre of culture and casinos, Blackpool:
- Q: Is the V&A is still open
to other suggestions for the Theatre Museum?
A: Yes, the V&A will consider any new initiatives so long as there is funding attached.
- Q: Does this mean that the Theatre Museum might still be 'saved' if the
funding is found?
A: The Theatre Museum in Covent Garden is closing unless there is an offer of significant funding to redevelop the site.
How can they say they will consider new initiatives, when they are closing the site in less than a month? Do they seriously expect funding to arrive in that time? The V&A talk a lot about funding. They say they approached the theatre community and got nowhere. Leaving aside whether the theatre community should be responsible for funding its own museum (do archaeologists pay for the British Museum?), they haven't actually asked the theatre community at large about it. The Guardians will certainly help to look for funding, but would prefer to do so without the shotgun of imminent closure at their heads. With the V&A itself giving out such negative vibes, it is hardly surprising that donors should be reluctant to come forward. And are the V&A themselves any better at finding funding for (eg) the Liebeskind extension? Are they going to close because of it?
Vandalism
You will notice that I use the expression V&A to refer to the group trying to close the Theatre Museum. The staff of the Theatre Museum themselves are privately and most emphatically not in favour, but they appear to have been prevented from expressing opinions in public, or offering their skilled advice in private - this act of what Derek Jacobi calls 'cultural vandalism' is very much V&A-led. Unfortunately, it also has the tacit backing of the DCMS - or at any rate the DCMS is trying hard not to get involved in any attempts to rescue the building. They are fully tied up with the hugely over-budget Olympics, conveniently forgetting that those Olympics have to have a statutory cultural component and that London's most visible cultural component is theatre.
Another quote from the V&A press release:
- Q: Would Blackpool own the collection - or will
this remain with the V&A?
A: The V&A cannot devolve its collection and the V&A would continue to own it. It might be leased to Blackpool. V&A curators would continue to care for the collections, and the new V&A National Theatre Museum in Blackpool would operate to the very high standards already associated with the V&A.
This opens up the interesting idea of leasing Russell Street, too. The V&A are prepared to talk to Blackpool well into 2007 about what some would see as a rather distant possibility. Why won't they talk on the same basis about the very real possibility of making Russell Street work, freed from their dead hand?
DO something
Meanwhile, DO go to the Guardians' website, DO get everyone you know to sign up, DO help give the Guardians enough clout to be taken seriously by this obstinate bunch. Together, we can not only save the Theatre Museum - we can make it work! IH
Ian@herbertknott.com
Contents / Reviews
London |
||||
| AMY'S VIEW Revival of play by David Hare (T R Bath) | Garrick | 20 Nov | 1408 | |
| THE BIG ENDING Mew musical with book, music and lyrics by Peter Shrubshall and Richard Free | Rosemary Branch | 21 Nov | 10 Dec | 1437 |
| THE BITCHES BALL New piece by Penny Dreadful | Hoxton Hall | 23 Nov | 10 Dec | 1413 |
| BLONDEL Revival (revised) of musical by Tim Rice and Stephen Oliver | Pleasance | 23 Nov | 31 Dec | 1424 |
| CALIPER BOY New piece by Dante or Die / Left With Pictures | Camden People's | 22 Nov | 10 Dec | 1433 |
| CARRIES WAR New adaptation by Emma Reeves from book by Nina Bawden | Lilian Baylis | 28 Nov | 6 Jan | 1443 |
| THE CHAIRS Revival of play by Eugene lonesco in version by Martin Crimp | Gate | 23 Nov | 16 Dec | 1425 |
| THE CRITIC New play by Robert Shore | Pentameters | 28 Nov | 17 Dec | 1428 |
| DITCH DIGGER New play by Nathan Osgood, based on his own film | Arcola | 21 Nov | 9 Dec | 1423 |
| DRUNK ENOUGH TO SAY I LOVE YOU? New piece by Caryl Churchill | Royal Court | 22 Nov | 22 Dec | 1419 |
| THE FABULIST New play by Tim Whitnall | Old Red Lion | 23 Nov | 9 Dec | 1412 |
| GATES OF GOLD Return of new play by Frank McGuinness | Trafalgar Studio 2 | 23 Nov | 16 Dec | 1427 |
| GBS New play by Jason Hall | Theatre 503 | 21 Nov | 9 Dec | 1416 |
| THE GLASS ROOM New play by Ryan Craig | Hampstead | 28 Nov | 23 Dec | 1431 |
| HYPHENATOR New piece by Ken Campbell | Drill Hall | 25 Nov | 3 Dec | 1426 |
| I SING! New musical by Eli Bolin/Sam Forman/Benjamin Salka | Union SE1 | 30 Nov | 23 Dec | 1413 |
| LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS Revival of musical by Alan Menken and Howard Ashman | Menier Chocolate Factory | 29 Nov | 25 Feb | 1438 |
| LOVE AND MONEY New play by Dennis Kelly | Young Vic, Maria | 21 Nov | 16 Dec | 1414 |
| THE MARRIAGE BED - AN UNCIVIL PARTNERSHIP New play by Nona Shepphard | Drill Hall | 1 Dec | 22 Dec | 1445 |
| THE PROPOSAL Revival of short play by Anton Chekhov in version by Michael Frayn | Etcetera | 28 Nov | 17 Dec | 1437 |
| THE RAT TRAP Revival of play by Noel Coward | Finborough | 30 Nov | 23 Dec | 1444 |
| ROMEO AND JULIET Revival of play by Shakespeare (Mokhwa Repertory Co) | Pit | 23 Nov | 9 Dec | 1429 |
| SCHWARTZ STORIES Revival of compilation musical of the songs of Stephen Schwartz | King's Head | 10 Nov | 3 Dec | 1430 |
| SIX DANCE LESSONS IN SIX WEEKS New play by Richard Alfieri | T R Haymarket | 29 Nov | 1434 | |
Regions |
||||
| DO I MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU OR AM I JUST PASSING BY? New pay by Gerald Mclnulty | Edinburgh, Traverse | 21 Nov | 25 Nov | 1447 |
MOTHER COURAGE AND HER CHILDREN Revival of play by Bertolt Brecht (Benchtours) |
Glasgow, Arches / touring |
23 Nov |
25 Nov |
1446 |