tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post6806550180211965559..comments2023-09-20T14:34:21.102+02:00Comments on Postcards from the Gods: Marxism and TheatreAndrew Haydonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-68988381327787267212015-02-01T11:13:44.333+01:002015-02-01T11:13:44.333+01:00It's probably silly to comment two years late ...It's probably silly to comment two years late on this post but I've only just seen it. I was never fortunate enough to see a John McGrath production for 7:84 but I saw some of the other companies he praised and once heard John McGrath talk about theatre at the Traverse in Edinburgh in the early 1980s.<br /><br />I think that, for me, the important thing is that McGrath takes the demands of performing to a working-class audience seriously, especially in the demands it makes on playwright and practitioner. And his extensive tours of The Cheviot, The Stag and The Black, Black Oil in particular must give him expertise and experience which is pretty valuable.<br /><br />I find it interesting that you talk about companies like Punchdrunk in the context of McGrath's arguments. The only response I can make to this is: Have you seen their prices? As a working-class child growing up in London I found a range of cheap entertainment, much of it theatrical (it cost 10p to stand at the Old Vic in midweek matinées, there were free Shakespeare plays in the parks and there were also special offers for bench seats in the gallery when the London Transport Players did their annual musical). I was lucky in my location but also in a society which believed that working-class people could be desirable members of theatre audiences rather than unsightly, dangerous people to be brushed out of the way.Kathzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13008903556114337963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-61731893352747518072013-01-31T09:09:30.533+01:002013-01-31T09:09:30.533+01:00We found this a really interesting post that raise...We found this a really interesting post that raises some very valid points -perhaps you would be interested in a project we set up last year that was, in part, inspired by the work of John McGrath -in particular his theatrical production The Cheviot, The Stag and the Black, Black Oil that was also a BBC Play for Today. Based on the book The Condition of the Working Class written by Engels in 1844 we used a theatre project and a film to explore the condition of the working class then and now! http://www.conditionoftheworkingclass.info/Inside Filmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-17496870657160616442013-01-29T23:46:40.319+01:002013-01-29T23:46:40.319+01:00To the comment above,
I apologise for that discre...To the comment above,<br /><br />I apologise for that discrepancy, but I don't see how it makes the slightest bit of difference. Streep is a bourgeois performer. The theatre, whether it be the 'public theatre' or not, is a bourgeois theatre. The form it takes is bourgeois. Arguing over whether that particular production of Courage was performed in London on NY is neither here nor there, as you have ignored the actual argument; that Brecht has become co-opted by bourgeois culture to the extent that his work can no longer be considered radical, and that plays themselves must be abandoned in favour of a more sufficient radical form.<br /><br />The notion that by being 'not for profit', or that tickets were given away for free, makes it somehow radical is absolute nonsense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-37347753520931486102013-01-29T23:26:06.990+01:002013-01-29T23:26:06.990+01:00"Brecht's work in the theatre, at the tim..."Brecht's work in the theatre, at the time, was radical, but now we have Mother Courage performed in fancy West End theatres, performed by Meryl Streep."<br /><br />Erm, no we don't. Streep played Mother Courage in New York not the West End and it was produced by the Public, a Not For Profit theatre rather than a commercial producer. And it was part of the Shakespeare in the Park season for which many tickets are given away free. Get your facts right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-26666509691855547932013-01-29T20:06:14.749+01:002013-01-29T20:06:14.749+01:00Mmmm...
It's a shame, I think, that 'form...Mmmm...<br /><br />It's a shame, I think, that 'form' seems to be the least discussed element here.<br /><br />Form is actually the key. The whole notion of theatre as we know it, particularly in this country, with our literary and figurative forms, which we can't seem to shake off, is so entrenched in bourgeois tradition that it's irretrievable. <br /><br />Continental Marxist theatre, as well as other forms of art supposing to be informed by Marx, have readily shook off the old forms and tropes and moved on to introduce new forms which are more appropriate for a radical politic. <br /><br />Brecht's work in the theatre, at the time, was radical, but now we have Mother Courage performed in fancy West End theatres, performed by Meryl Streep. <br /><br />If Brecht was around today, he wouldn't write plays. <br /><br />You mention briefly McGrath's comments about working class culture, and he is right to dismiss most of it as anti-working class. That is because it was either created from or has been co-opted by bourgeois culture. In that sense, 'traditional' working class culture is different from the theatre establishment only in the audience that it attracts. You rightly allude to how problematic working class forms are for a revolutionary aesthetic. <br /><br />It's imperative that, for a Marxist theatre, we must abandon the old forms, including playwriting and traditional dramaturgy, and move towards forms which are sufficient for a contemporary, radical, dialectical kind of performance. The word theatre itself should also be abandoned. <br /><br />You also mention that Marxist semantics have acquired some kind of middle class baggage, by which I assume you mean it is a language used solely by academics. This is a lie predicated upon class propaganda. The only way that Marxist language has acquired 'baggage' is by the notion, perpetuated by bourgeois and official culture, that Marxism is difficult and incomprehensible to the working class.<br /><br />Josh <br />officialculture.com Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-27966436143030571142013-01-28T17:04:12.640+01:002013-01-28T17:04:12.640+01:00Really interesting post, and I agreed with a lot o...Really interesting post, and I agreed with a lot of it as regards my own occasional thoughts about theatre (purely as a keen theatre-goer) over the last decade or so.<br /><br />The lines I particularly hooked onto were "One thing is clear however, the politics and the political thinking of British theatre for the last decade have been lazy, lulled into a false sense of security by relatively decent funding, a relatively amicable government, and a general sense of relative social progression".<br /><br />Yes, a thousand times, yes. For me, however, the sad thing is that the draconian cuts now being forced upon the arts in the name of austerity don't seem to have concentrated the thinking of many theatres. While my knowledge of regional theatre outside London is (shamefully) very limited, certainly what I hear so much from the better known theatrical institutions is about all they're doing to "reach out into the community", but when I look at the evidence it seems pitifully little. Plus, is it even reaching the people they want it to reach? Case in point: when the Royal Court ran its Theatre Local playwriting group in Peckham, an old school friend of mine rushed to sign up for it. He's a Senior Advertising Manager at a certain newspaper group owned by Rupert Murdoch and lives in extremely well-heeled comfort in Westminster. The updates he gave of the group made it clear he didn't think much of having to travel to Peckham to immerse himself in the art of playwriting. Now I can't be sure, but I suspect that wasn't the target audience the Royal Court were aiming to reach.<br /><br />The problem, I think, is in the fleeting nature of many theatres' engagement with the community. They announce a 'project' or outreach of some sort - such as Theatre Local in Peckham - arrive en masse, cause a bit of a stir for a few weeks while trying to instil a genuine enthusiasm and understanding for the form in people for whom theatre is 'not for the likes of us', whereupon they leave, hoping they've done enough to encourage more diverse, less class-bound audiences into their theatrical bases. However, to me that smacks of "you have to come to us, because we're only going to come to you very briefly", and I genuinely wonder how many people in these working-class areas on whom theatres bestow such a project are encouraged to attend more plays as a result. Sadly, I suspect it's relatively few.<br /><br />That, then, is one area where I agree with John McGrath (whose thinking on theatre I certainly enjoyed when studying for my degree). Are their buildings necessary? If you truly want to encourage a more diverse audience, wouldn't getting out to where they are - on a more permanent basis - work better than merely parachuting in every couple of years or so?<br /><br />Cynically, I sometimes can't help thinking that certain sectors of the arts - and in this I don't just include theatre - don't truly believe in their mission to reach out to new (i.e. predominantly working class) audiences. They're doing it to tick boxes, but frankly they feel far more comfortable in their natural home with a familiar audience.Vaughan Simonshttp://twitter.com/lowleveltweetnoreply@blogger.com