Peter Gill on “interventionist” theatre
Peter Gill writes very intriguingly on his view of dramaturgy and writing plays by committee. He is one of the most thoughtful writers and directors in theatre today, in my opinion, and his article is very worth reading. See link here
“…Theatre before 1979 was collaborative. It was also combative and abusive. But it was genuine. It was not mandated by committee or seen as something desirable outside the fact that it worked. One of the problems of interventionist theatre is that it is not collaboration at all: it is autocracy masquerading as collaboration and it is essentially conservative, with all the conservative’s misunderstanding of certain vital facts.
There are no perfect English plays. The battle between the impulse of the writer and the form in which he finds himself has always been awkward. Both Harold Pinter and John Osborne in their first successes, The Birthday Party and Look Back in Anger, follow the form of the conventional one-set, five-character play and find it uncomfortable. They are awkward plays, which is why they are so unsettling and interesting.
What is usually wrong with a play is so deeply wrong that very little can be done to improve it. Most plays need help. But the chatter about narrative and structure, the scènes à faire and metaphor has led us to a lot of unwieldy works with a self-consciously poetic dimension. The cult of originality has squeezed out the competent play with a good part for an actor….”
I do think there’s a lot to be said for writing a play full of interest and passion but not necessarily a perfect “structure”. Hamlet’s “structure” is all over the place….