Advertisement

Post-War Theatre: Some Contemporary Currents

  • Tim Brassell

Abstract

Before turning to Stoppard’s plays, and in particular to his first major achievement, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, it is important to establish, in broad terms, the nature of the theatre which he entered with such a flourish. According to the critical orthodoxy established by John Russell Taylor, the London opening of Rosencrantz in April 1967 came some eleven years after the revolutionary impact of Osborne’s Look Back in Anger, but the West End bill of fare at that time shows scant evidence of this new theatrical age, offering a wide array of musicals (Hello Dolly, Fiddler on the Roof, Oliver, Charlie Girl, etc.), two ‘classics’ (The Rivals with Ralph Richardson at the Haymarket, The Three Sisters at the Royal Court), two twentieth-century British revivals (Shaw’s Getting Married and Coward’s Fallen Angels) and just three new plays: John Mortimer’s The Judge at the Cambridge, Joe Orton’s second great success, Loot, at the Criterion (Entertaining Mr Sloane was his first, in 1964) and Relatively Speaking, Alan Ayckbourn’s West End debut, at the Duke of York’s. Although the prime goal of many of the new writers since the late 1950s has no longer been the performance of their plays on the stages of the West End, this unquestionably represents a poor showing. Only the mild outrageousness of subject matter of Loot (in its satirical treatment of death) and The Judge (a discreet tale of prostitution) distinguishes the list from what might have been found in the early’50s. Furthermore, it is barely different from a typical West End billing of the early ’80s!

Keywords

Native Tradition Poor Showing European Theatre Fourth Wall Revolutionary Theatre 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Quoted in Marowitz, Milne and Hale (eds), The Encore Reader (Methuen, 1965) p. 40.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tynan, A View of the English Stage (Davis-Poynter, 1975) p. 148.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Its continuity is persuasively demonstrated by John Russell Taylor in The Rise and Fall of the Well-Made Play (Methuen, 1967).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Interview with Philip Oakes, Sunday Times, t January 1976, p. 35.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Francis King, Sunday Telegraph, 4 February 1979, p. 14.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Guardian, 5 May 1980, p, 7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strindberg, The Plays vol. I, translated by Michael Meyer (Secker & Warburg, 1964) p. 99.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Esslin, Brecht: A Choice of Evils (Eyre & Spottiswood, 1959) p. 127.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lawrence Ryan, ‘Benoit Brecht: A Marxist Dramatist?’ in Aspects of Drama and the Theatre (Sydney University Press, 1965) p. 102.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    David Edgar, ‘Politics and Performance’, Times Literary Supplement, 10 September 1982, p. 969.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laurence Kitchin, Mid-Century Drama (Faber & Faber, revised edn, 1962)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katharine Worth, Revolutions in Modern English Drama (Bell, 1972) p. vii.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kitchin, Mid-Century Drama p. 155 fGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hinchliffe, British Theatre p. it o5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kitchin, p. 81.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Esslin, The Theatre of the Absurd (Harmondsworth: Pelican, 1968) p. 422.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A useful short chapter on Handke’s work appears in Hayman’s Theatre and Anti-Theatre (Secker & Warburg, 1979).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    John Barth, ‘The Literature of Replenishment’, Atlantic Monthly, June 1980, p. 66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Tim Brassell 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Brassell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations