theguardian.com
Hare Condemns National Theatre's Shift from Repertory Theatre
Playwright David Hare criticizes the National Theatre's shift from repertory theatre to longer runs of fewer, commercially-driven plays, arguing it diminishes artistic risk-taking and erodes cultural richness, despite the theatre's claims of increased new play productions.
- What are the financial and logistical factors behind the National Theatre's shift from repertory theatre to longer runs of fewer plays?
- Hare's critique highlights the National Theatre's deviation from its founding principles, established by Granville-Barker's 'Blue Book' vision of a resident acting company performing rotating plays. The shift towards fewer, longer-running plays, while financially pragmatic, undermines the diversity and artistic risk-taking integral to repertory theatre, a system that fostered playwrights such as Pinter, Osborne, and Bond.
- How does the National Theatre's move away from repertory theatre impact the diversity of plays produced and the opportunities for emerging playwrights?
- David Hare, a renowned playwright, criticizes the National Theatre's shift from repertory theatre to longer runs of fewer plays, viewing this as a cultural impoverishment. This change, driven by funding cuts and the pandemic, prioritizes commercially viable productions featuring high-profile actors, potentially alienating audiences and hindering new talent.
- What long-term consequences might the National Theatre's current programming model have on the development of British theatre and its ability to nurture new talent?
- The National Theatre's current model risks stifling the development of new playwrights and diminishing the breadth of theatrical offerings. This prioritization of commercially successful plays may homogenize theatrical experiences and reduce the opportunities for less established, potentially groundbreaking voices to be heard, ultimately impacting the cultural landscape.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing heavily favors David Hare's critical perspective. The headline, while not explicitly stated, strongly suggests criticism of the National Theatre's changes. The article leads with Hare's concerns and uses his quotes prominently throughout, setting the tone of the piece as one of lament for the past. The National Theatre's response is relegated to the end of the article and is presented more concisely. This prioritization of Hare's perspective influences the reader to view the changes negatively.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language to portray the changes negatively. Terms such as "eroding the culture", "terrible impoverishment", and "semi-commercial" carry strong negative connotations and frame the National Theatre's shift in a critical light. The use of "angling for the West End" implies opportunistic behavior. Neutral alternatives could include: 'changes to programming', 'adjustments to financial model', 'extended runs', and 'plays with broader appeal'. The repeated emphasis on the loss of repertory theatre creates a sense of irreversible decline.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on David Hare's perspective and the historical context of the National Theatre's founding principles. However, it omits perspectives from the National Theatre's current leadership, artistic directors, or other playwrights who may have differing views on the changes. The article also lacks specific data on the number of new plays produced compared to previous years, relying instead on the National Theatre's statement. While acknowledging the financial pressures, the piece doesn't delve into the specific financial details or explore alternative solutions that might preserve repertory while addressing budget constraints. This omission could limit the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between 'semi-commercial' plays and 'art theatre'. It implies that plays with extended runs and high-profile actors are inherently less artistic or culturally valuable. This simplification ignores the complexity of artistic merit and the potential for commercially successful plays to also have artistic value. The framing of the shift to longer runs as 'terrible impoverishment' also presents a limited viewpoint, without exploring potential benefits such as greater audience reach or financial stability.
Gender Bias
The article focuses primarily on male figures: David Hare, George Bernard Shaw, Harley Granville-Barker, Laurence Olivier, and Peter Hall. While Granville-Barker's 'Blue Book' mentions a desired ratio of actors and actresses, the gender balance of playwrights or other key figures in the current National Theatre is not discussed. This lack of female voices could subtly reinforce existing gender imbalances in the perception of the theatre world. There is no overt gendered language but the absence of female perspectives limits a complete understanding.
Sustainable Development Goals
The shift away from repertory theatre at the National Theatre, as described by David Hare, represents a potential negative impact on Quality Education. The reduction in the variety and frequency of plays limits exposure to diverse theatrical works and styles, potentially hindering the development of critical thinking, creativity, and cultural understanding among audiences. The focus on commercially viable plays might prioritize popular appeal over artistic merit and educational value. The loss of opportunities to see a wider range of plays also impacts the education of aspiring playwrights and theatre professionals.