|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
A Diet of AyckbournDateline: 9th March, 2003I had a discussion - no, let's be honest and call it an argument - with a colleague a week or two back about the programming of the theatre of which we are both trustees. She objected to some of the plays we've done recently on the grounds that the language of at least one was too strong and that they do not appeal to the majority of our audience, which is predominantly middle class and over 45. When I asked what she would want in the programme, her reply was "Ayckbourn". I am not, I confess, a fan of Ayckbourn's work. Some I have liked, some I have disliked, but the majority leaves me totally indifferent. And I have also to confess that I have not seen nor read everything he has written: merely speak for the twenty or so plays I have seen or read. Since that is less than a third of his output, I recognise that I am not in the strongest position to pronounce on the value or standing of the whole of his work, but it is, I think, a large enough sample for me to say either "I like" or "I don't like". I would not be averse to including something by Ayckbourn in our programme - I do recognise that others do like him and we need to appeal to as broad an audience as possible - but I have to admit that a diet of Ayckbourn and his ilk fills me with some horror. And, of course, this is the dilemma that faces theatres both amateur and professional up and down the country. Should programming be aimed at the theatre's core audience or shold it cast its net much more widely? I remember early in the '70s playing Cliff in Look Back in Anger to the sound of seats going up as people walked out of the amateur theatre in which we were playing. One regular audience member who had walked out hastened to assure me later that it was not that the production was poor: "It was excellent," she said, "but I don't see why I should have to watch a horrible man like that!" The interesting thing is that she was about the same age then that my colleague is now. And there's the rub: the largest audience in the vast majority of theatres is going to be those who have both the time and the spare cash to attend on a regular basis, and that's going to be the middle aged (or older) middle class. They like what they know and they want to see what they like. They will accept that people such as Jimmy Porter (or his 21st century equivalent, who is likely to be vastly more foul-mouthed) do exist, but they are not part of their world and they do not want them there. Should we pander (and I choose my words very carefully) to them or should we produce the Kanes, the Ravenhills, the Neilsons or their latter-day equivalents? I know what I believe. What do you think? Articles Indices:
|
|
|