Ravenhill says produce fewer new plays
The headline goes: “Theatres must stop producing so many new plays and focus more on the classics”
says Mark Ravenhill in the Guardian
This isn’t quite what he is trying to say. It’s better summed up by:
“It’s time for a shakeup, for a new wave of energy in our theatre. And we shouldn’t look to this from just the new work, or just the classics. The best actors and directors have always worked in both. They present different challenges. It’s only by having a theatre culture that continues to explore and expand our relationship with the past, as well as presenting the best of the present, that we’ll have a theatre that is fully alive.”
ie, Don’t just look at the new work but also the old, to get a complete sense of theatre. OK, not that controversial really.
In this, his argument could be seen to run counter to the monsterists who believe new work should be treated to the same standards as old work (and that there should be more large scale new plays).
Old work has stood the test of time, and allowed itself entry into the canon but without new work that canon will not expand.
Still, much depends on what is actually being produced. A bad old play is still a bad play as is a bad new play.
Furthermore, if you look at the data (here and here) from the Monsterists, it would suggest that still far more old work gets produced than new work:
Sep -Dec 2004
-Total number of plays (incl. Shakespeare)? 236
-No. of original (not trans/adapts) new plays: 42%
- No. of original new plays – adult? 88
- No. of original new plays – children? 12
- Average run for original new plays (adult& child, ex RNT = 95): 4.7 weeks
- Average cast size for original new plays (as above): 4.3
so with 6/10 plays being old, I don’t think Mark has to worry about newer work taking over from old.
I’d be maybe more worried about:
Authors: Women? 38 Men? 180
which means only 18% of the plays were by women….
comments
3 Responses to “Ravenhill says produce fewer new plays”
[...] Paul has his own take on Ravenhill’s “fewer new plays” assumption, which I have also had a comment on. [...]
[...] Either way, I fully support the idea. There’s room for the big (monsters) and the small (miniatures) and theatre needs them both – like it needs new and old (See Mark Ravenhill’s arguments in earlier post). Well done Stephen and colleagues. [...]
[...] I’m looking forward to seeing some stuff next year although I’m not sure I can yet quite agree with his assertion that writers here aren‘t much good. His assertion though rhymes with what Mark Ravenhill was saying about new writing…. [...]