Once again it's time to reprint the most reprinted article on this blog with the most frequently asked question about Alan Ayckbourn. In today's BBC interview with Sir Alan, it says: 'There is an oft-quoted fact that Sir Alan Ayckbourn is second only to William Shakespeare in the league of the UK's most-performed playwrights.' Is this true?
Not as far as Alan Ayckbourn or I am aware. And it's certainly not a fact.
It is actually just a quote perpetually propagated in the press from one publication to the next without anyone actually checking to see whether it's accurate and where the source of this information comes from.
So if anyone asks is Alan Ayckbourn the second moist performed playwright in the UK?
I've no idea.
And despite what you may have read, no matter what the quality of the publication, neither does anyone else.
No-one can say with any degree of certainty where in the UK (or world) theatrical pop charts Shakespeare, Alan Ayckbourn, Alan Bennett, John Godber or any other playwright stands.
We can take an educated guess (Shakespeare as number 1...), but that's about it as no-one has done any definitive research into this for years and even that dated research (which is, in all likelihood, where all this stems from) is somewhat flawed given it was only about a specific facet of British theatre at a very specific time.
So where does this oft-repeated but unsubstantiated fact come from?
And, no, it doesn't come from Alan Ayckbourn's Official Website www.alanayckbourn.net!
As far as I've been able to discover, this fatuous quote originates in statistics published in 1990 - but to put these figures into context, we need to go back a few years.
In 1983, the Arts Council of Great Britain (as it was known), published for the first time statistics about regional theatres in the UK subsidised by the Arts Council (keep that in mind...). Compiled over a two year period, it reported on the most performed play (Cider With Rosie apparently), audience figures and, amongst other facts, the most popular playwrights.
Between 1981 and 1983, more people went to see an Ayckbourn play than a Shakespeare play - although there were slightly more productions of Shakespeare than Ayckbourn. This was promptly reported in the media that Alan Ayckbourn was the UK's most popular playwright and it would often be repeated without any kind of context.
For it's important before we get to 1990 to put these figures into a context.
They are pertinent only to regional theatres subsidised by the Arts Council. They do not include regional commerical theatres, West End theatres or amateur productions.
It's an interesting but somewhat limited view of British Theatre during a very specific period between 1981 and 1983.
These reports from the Arts Council continued to be published, again restricted to the same criteria, fairly regularly with Alan and Shakespeare battling it out for the top spot and swapping places fairly regularly.
In 1990, the Arts Council published its Cultural Trends report which included the statistic that Alan Ayckbourn was the second most popular playwright after Shakespeare. In context, this was limited to the previous 12 months and was again limited to regional subsidised theatres.
The Arts Council eventually stopped publishing such specific figures about plays and playwrights and I'm unaware of any major media story on the popularity of Alan Ayckbourn (or any other playwright), validated by actual facts and statistics, since the mid 1990s. The Arts Council statistics from 1990 appear to have been the last to have been widely reported.
So when I rhetorically ask myself where did the 'fact' Alan is the second most performed playwright come from, my answer is: probably an Arts Council report in 1990 that has been regurgitated and repeated ad nauseum without anyone questioning where the statistic came from or, more importantly, whether its accurate or can be substantiated.
Let's emphasise, there is no doubt Alan Ayckbourn is an extremely popular playwright - had the reports included amateur, commerical tours and West End productions during the '70s and '80s into the '90s, I have absolutely no doubt he would have had the highest attendance of any living playwright in the country during that period. But no-one can specifically say how popular he was then or now.
Or any other playwright for that matter.
Today, Alan's plays are still a staple of subsidised theatres in the UK as well as amateur companies. Generally there's at least one major tour of an Ayckbourn play going on at any one time in the UK (currently Bath Theatre Royal's excellent revival of Things We Do For Love) and since 2008, there has been at least one play in the West End every year (currently A Small Family Business at the National Theatre).
I've little doubt that were someone able to pull all the statistics together, Alan would today still be in the top five performed playwrights in the UK. But the problem is no single organisation is keeping track of all those statistics for all the plays and productions staged in the UK by popular playwrights.
So if you see anyone definitely state Alan Ayckbourn (or any other playwright) is the first, second, third or twenty-third most performed playwright in the UK, take it with a pinch of salt or, better still, write and ask where they got the statistic from. It'd be fascinating to know (and if they say Alan Ayckbourn's Official Website, you know they're fibbing...).
All we can say with any certainty is the line oft-repeated on his website, that Alan Ayckbourn is one of the country's most performed living playwrights.
Saying all that though, if someone were to ask me who the most performed playwright in the UK was. Well, I'd take a shot. I may be Alan Ayckbourn's Archivist, but I wouldn't bet against Mr Shakespeare. He's got pretty good form....
You can find out more about this subject on Alan Ayckbourn's Official Website here and read the original Arts Council press release from 1983 here.
If you have any Ayckbourn-related questions you'd like to ask Sir Alan's Archivist, emails them to admin@alanayckbourn.net.
Showing posts with label Archive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Archive. Show all posts
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Ask The Archivist: Relatively Speaking on TV
Ask The Archivist is an occasional feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: In yesterday's This Week, you mentioned the 1969 television adaptation of Alan Ayckbourn's play Relatively Speaking, what is this and can I see it?
Answer: 45 years ago, Relatively Speaking became the first Ayckbourn play to be adapted for television.
The play, which had been a West End triumph two years previously and launched Alan Ayckbourn to fame, was broadcast on 2 March 1969 on BBC1 starring Donald Sinden and Celia Johnson.
Very little is known about the broadcast as the only clue to its existence is a single report from the Radio Times held in the Ayckbourn Archive at the University of York and an entry in the British Film Institute's television database, which holds very few details.
It was shown in the BBC's Play Of The Month slot and directed by Herbert Wise, who would go on to direct the far better known and successful television adaptation of The Norman Conquests, which was broadcast in 1977.
Relatively Speaking featured Celia Johnson as Sheila - reprising her West End role - with Donald Sinden as Philip; Sinden had recently been responsible for directing the post-West End tour of Relatively Speaking, which launched in 1968.
The roles of Ginny and Greg were played by Judy Cornwell - also reprising her West End debut - and John Stride. It was produced by Cedric Messina and the script attributed to Alan Ayckbourn.
However, although credited with the screenplay, he was not involved in the production which reduced the running time to an astonishing 50 minutes, less than half of its stage running time. Given Alan's trenchant views about how plays should not be cut for television and radio, one can't imagine he was very impressed by adaptation.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never know just how extensive the cuts were or the quality of the piece - although Alan recalls his agent Margaret 'Peggy' Ramsay was unimpressed - as the 1969 adaptation of Relatively Speaking is not believed to have survived in any form. Neither the BBC nor the BFI hold a copy in archive and as it precedes the advent of video recordings, it seems highly unlikely - although not impossible - that an undiscovered copy exists somewhere.
The BBC would later adapt Relatively Speaking again, broadcasting it in on Christmas Eve 1984 with Nigel Hawthorne as Philip, Gwen Watford as Sheila, Imogen Stubbs as Ginny and Michael Maloney Greg.
However, a true piece of Ayckbourn history is in all probability long lost and we will never have the chance to see the first attempt to film an Ayckbourn play with Relatively Speaking.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: In yesterday's This Week, you mentioned the 1969 television adaptation of Alan Ayckbourn's play Relatively Speaking, what is this and can I see it?
Answer: 45 years ago, Relatively Speaking became the first Ayckbourn play to be adapted for television.
Very little is known about the broadcast as the only clue to its existence is a single report from the Radio Times held in the Ayckbourn Archive at the University of York and an entry in the British Film Institute's television database, which holds very few details.
It was shown in the BBC's Play Of The Month slot and directed by Herbert Wise, who would go on to direct the far better known and successful television adaptation of The Norman Conquests, which was broadcast in 1977.
Relatively Speaking featured Celia Johnson as Sheila - reprising her West End role - with Donald Sinden as Philip; Sinden had recently been responsible for directing the post-West End tour of Relatively Speaking, which launched in 1968.
The roles of Ginny and Greg were played by Judy Cornwell - also reprising her West End debut - and John Stride. It was produced by Cedric Messina and the script attributed to Alan Ayckbourn.
However, although credited with the screenplay, he was not involved in the production which reduced the running time to an astonishing 50 minutes, less than half of its stage running time. Given Alan's trenchant views about how plays should not be cut for television and radio, one can't imagine he was very impressed by adaptation.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never know just how extensive the cuts were or the quality of the piece - although Alan recalls his agent Margaret 'Peggy' Ramsay was unimpressed - as the 1969 adaptation of Relatively Speaking is not believed to have survived in any form. Neither the BBC nor the BFI hold a copy in archive and as it precedes the advent of video recordings, it seems highly unlikely - although not impossible - that an undiscovered copy exists somewhere.
The BBC would later adapt Relatively Speaking again, broadcasting it in on Christmas Eve 1984 with Nigel Hawthorne as Philip, Gwen Watford as Sheila, Imogen Stubbs as Ginny and Michael Maloney Greg.
However, a true piece of Ayckbourn history is in all probability long lost and we will never have the chance to see the first attempt to film an Ayckbourn play with Relatively Speaking.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Ask The Archivist: A Small Family Business
Ask The Archivist is an occasional feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: In your coverage of the National Theatre's revival of A Small Family Business, you noted the playwright Mark Ravenhill had cited it as an influential play. Could you expand on this?
Answer: Mark Ravenhill has cited the significance of Alan Ayckbourn's A Small Family Business on and the influence it had on him on several occasions. Reprinted below is one of his more significant quotes on the subject, tying in the impact of the play with Alan Ayckbourn's other major play at the National Theatre during the same period, his much lauded production of Arthur Miller's A View From The Bridge.
"I think if you look at the point A Small Family Business was written in 1987, family and business are the key words of the Thatcher regime. I think it’s significant he’d directed an Arthur Miller play [A View From The Bridge] in the same season and it very much follows an Arthur Miller All My Sons structure where it starts with the ideal of a small family business and bit by bit that ideal is eroded by the events of the play. And to undermine the whole notion of family and business in an absolutely relentless way throughout the play until there’s nothing left of that notion, I think is one of the most intensely political plays of the period."
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: In your coverage of the National Theatre's revival of A Small Family Business, you noted the playwright Mark Ravenhill had cited it as an influential play. Could you expand on this?
Answer: Mark Ravenhill has cited the significance of Alan Ayckbourn's A Small Family Business on and the influence it had on him on several occasions. Reprinted below is one of his more significant quotes on the subject, tying in the impact of the play with Alan Ayckbourn's other major play at the National Theatre during the same period, his much lauded production of Arthur Miller's A View From The Bridge.
"I think if you look at the point A Small Family Business was written in 1987, family and business are the key words of the Thatcher regime. I think it’s significant he’d directed an Arthur Miller play [A View From The Bridge] in the same season and it very much follows an Arthur Miller All My Sons structure where it starts with the ideal of a small family business and bit by bit that ideal is eroded by the events of the play. And to undermine the whole notion of family and business in an absolutely relentless way throughout the play until there’s nothing left of that notion, I think is one of the most intensely political plays of the period."
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Ask The Archivist: Directing The World Premieres
Ask The Archivist is a regular feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: Yesterday's article noted Clifford Williams had directed the world premiere of two of Alan Ayckbourn's plays, how many other people have directed world premieres of his work?
Answer: Alan Ayckbourn has written 77 (soon to be 78!) plays, of which he has directed the world premieres of 70 of them. He first directed the world premiere of one of his own plays with Mr Whatnot in 1963 at the Victoria Theatre, Stoke-On-Trent.
From that point with only two exceptions (see below), he directed the world premiere of all his plays. Of the remaining plays, here are the people who directed their world premieres:
Stephen Joseph: The Square Cat (1959), Standing Room Only (1961); Relatively Speaking (1965 - originally titled Meet My Father)
Clifford Williams: Love After All (1959); Dad's Tale (1960)
Peter Cheeseman: Christmas V Mastermind (1962)
Eric Thompson: Jeeves (1975)
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: Yesterday's article noted Clifford Williams had directed the world premiere of two of Alan Ayckbourn's plays, how many other people have directed world premieres of his work?
Answer: Alan Ayckbourn has written 77 (soon to be 78!) plays, of which he has directed the world premieres of 70 of them. He first directed the world premiere of one of his own plays with Mr Whatnot in 1963 at the Victoria Theatre, Stoke-On-Trent.
From that point with only two exceptions (see below), he directed the world premiere of all his plays. Of the remaining plays, here are the people who directed their world premieres:
Stephen Joseph: The Square Cat (1959), Standing Room Only (1961); Relatively Speaking (1965 - originally titled Meet My Father)
Clifford Williams: Love After All (1959); Dad's Tale (1960)
Peter Cheeseman: Christmas V Mastermind (1962)
Eric Thompson: Jeeves (1975)
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
National Theatre at 50: Alan Ayckbourn's First Letter
The National Theatre is currently celebrating its 50th anniversary.
Alan Ayckbourn's own connection with the National Theatre is a significant part of his theatrical career and between 1986 and 1988, he was a company director with the venue.
The National Theatre has also staged ten Ayckbourn plays since 1977 when Bedroom Farce opened in the Cottesloe, proving to be an early hit for the venue and which the National Theatre toured to Broadway and transferred into the West End.
Over the next two weeks, the blog will be highlighting several interesting items from the Archive pertaining to Alan Ayckbourn's relationship with the National Theatre as part of its 50th anniversary celebrations.
We begin with the first archived correspondence between Alan Ayckbourn and the National Theatre sent by Peter Hall, then Artistic Director of the National Theatre, to Alan on 29 August 1973; four years before Alan would first work for the theatre.
The letter shows Peter Hall's reaction to the West End production of Absurd Person Singular and how he would like Alan to work with the National Theatre.
This letter, alongside a wealth of other correspondence between Peter Hall and the National Theatre, is held in the Ayckbourn Archive in the Borthwick Institute at the University of York.
Alan Ayckbourn's own connection with the National Theatre is a significant part of his theatrical career and between 1986 and 1988, he was a company director with the venue.
The National Theatre has also staged ten Ayckbourn plays since 1977 when Bedroom Farce opened in the Cottesloe, proving to be an early hit for the venue and which the National Theatre toured to Broadway and transferred into the West End.
Over the next two weeks, the blog will be highlighting several interesting items from the Archive pertaining to Alan Ayckbourn's relationship with the National Theatre as part of its 50th anniversary celebrations.
We begin with the first archived correspondence between Alan Ayckbourn and the National Theatre sent by Peter Hall, then Artistic Director of the National Theatre, to Alan on 29 August 1973; four years before Alan would first work for the theatre.
The letter shows Peter Hall's reaction to the West End production of Absurd Person Singular and how he would like Alan to work with the National Theatre.
According to the Peter Hall Diaries (Oberon Books, 2000), Peter Hall saw Absurd Person Singular on 28 August 1973 and was impressed by the play. In his diaries, he noted:
"Saw Alan Ayckbourn's Absurd Person Singular. It is a hard, beautifully constructed play. But because it is commercial, it tends to be unregarded. I think Ayckbourn is much more likely to be in the repertoire of the National Theatre in fifty years' time than most of the Royal Court dramatists."This letter, alongside a wealth of other correspondence between Peter Hall and the National Theatre, is held in the Ayckbourn Archive in the Borthwick Institute at the University of York.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Replaying Ayckbourn: Love After All
2014 marks both Alan Ayckbourn’s 75th birthday and the 50th anniversary of his first West End transfer with Mr Whatnot. In a new feature leading up to and through the anniversary year, Replaying Ayckbourn will look back over his entire play canon examining each play and digging up some of the more unusual facts about them. Accompanying features for each play will also be published.
Love After All
Play: 2
World premiere: 21 December 1959
Venue: Library Theatre, Scarborough
Published: No - held in archive (unavailable for production)
Find out more: http://loveafterall.alanayckbourn.net
Short Synopsis
An elderly miser, Scrimes, plans to marry of his daughter Angelica to a pig-breeding bore of an aristocrat, Rupert Hodge. A passing stranger, Jim Jones, sees Angelica at her window and falls in love with her whilst Angelica's clever maid, Minta, falls for him.
Jones, donning a variety of increasingly bizarre disguises - including a portrait artist, doctor and Scrimes' female American cousin - attempts to see gain entry to the house to propose to Angelica; all the while Minta telling him he's pursuing the wrong girl.
In a bid to rid himself of Jones, Scrimes comes up with a plan for Hodge to disguise himself and abduct Angelica; Minta informs Jones of the plan and engineers Hodge's successful abduction of Angelica, whilst she waits in disguise to entrap Jones for herself. With everyone in disguise and confusion abounding, Scrimes gives several dowries to Jones instead of Hodge. Jones and Minta run off together with the money, whilst Hodge and Angelica flee a pistol-wielding Scrimes to also begin a new life together.
Did you know?
> This is the Ayckbourn play about which least is known. Only one original manuscript exists (despite there being two different versions of the play), very few reviews exist and Alan Ayckbourn has said very little about the play.
> The only manuscript for Love After All was discovered by Alan’s archivist Simon Murgatroyd and the British Library in the Lord Chamberlain’s Collection (held at the British Library) in 2007. It is a clean, pre-production script and thus there is no indication of how representative it is of the actual produced play.
> It is, arguably (and I’d argue very strongly for this!), this most conventional play written by Alan Ayckbourn. It is a period farce which satisfies but does not push the conventions of the genre.
> Although apparently based on The Barber Of Seville; it seems this was only in the loosest use of the term.
> Alan has suggested it was an easier play to write than The Square Cat as he stole the plot; he has never explained why he stole the plot though. This could be because he was only commissioned to write it no earlier than 9 September 1959 (the end of the summer season) for rehearsals beginning no later than 9 December 1959 - less than three months!
> It is attributed to Roland Allen (a pseudonym combining of the names of Alan and his wife, Christine Roland); quite why a pseudonym is used is unclear given the programme - free to all audience members - makes it clear the author Roland Allen is actually the actor Alan Ayckbourn.
> Love After All is - even more so than The Square Cat - centred largely on providing a showcase for the leading actor (who plays four different characters). Ironically, Alan wrote it to showcase his own abilities, but was then not able to perform in the original production due to being called for National Service.
> It is Alan’s first multi-location set as it contains both a ground floor living room and a second floor bedroom on the same stage.
> Alan has frequently talked about how he and the company’s other resident playwright, David Campton, wrote each other the worst roles possible (culminating in David writing Alan a role for a one-eyed, one armed, one legged barman). Possibly it all began here with Alan casting David as an 83 year old miser (David being 35 at the time).
> It is possibly (and I stand to be corrected) the only Ayckbourn play where a character gives an aside to the audience (breaking the in-the-round equivalent of the fourth wall) where the convention hasn’t been established as part of the narrative (i.e. the narrators / lead characters in certain family plays such as Invisible Friends and Miss Yesterday).
> There is also an astonishing example of monologuing by Minta purely to provide exposition and, presumably, to just make it clear to the audience a character was in disguise; it's doubly unusual given Alan so rarely writers monologues in his plays.
> Notable dialogue: “I have always ridiculed the doctor who sat and listened to his patient’s chest as if it were a gramophone. If a gramophone goes wrong, one does not sit listening to it. On the contrary, one opens it up - dear sir - opens it up and has a good look inside.”
> Like The Square Cat before it, the play was so popular with audiences that a decision was made to run it for a second week.
> For the summer of 1960, the play was revived but the new director Julian Herington decided he did not like it and updated it to a contemporary setting. As a script for this production hasn't survived, we have no idea how substantially it was altered.
> While Alan joked in the 1970s he was trying to destroy all copies of his early plays, the fact that only one Love After All manuscript is known to exist (and in a place where Alan could not destroy it!), whereas there are multiple copies of his other early plays, does suggest he really did try to destroy Love After All!
Look out for our accompanying Ayckbourn Moments photograph on this blog on Friday.
Love After All
Play: 2
World premiere: 21 December 1959
Venue: Library Theatre, Scarborough
Published: No - held in archive (unavailable for production)
Find out more: http://loveafterall.alanayckbourn.net
Short Synopsis
An elderly miser, Scrimes, plans to marry of his daughter Angelica to a pig-breeding bore of an aristocrat, Rupert Hodge. A passing stranger, Jim Jones, sees Angelica at her window and falls in love with her whilst Angelica's clever maid, Minta, falls for him.
Jones, donning a variety of increasingly bizarre disguises - including a portrait artist, doctor and Scrimes' female American cousin - attempts to see gain entry to the house to propose to Angelica; all the while Minta telling him he's pursuing the wrong girl.
In a bid to rid himself of Jones, Scrimes comes up with a plan for Hodge to disguise himself and abduct Angelica; Minta informs Jones of the plan and engineers Hodge's successful abduction of Angelica, whilst she waits in disguise to entrap Jones for herself. With everyone in disguise and confusion abounding, Scrimes gives several dowries to Jones instead of Hodge. Jones and Minta run off together with the money, whilst Hodge and Angelica flee a pistol-wielding Scrimes to also begin a new life together.
Did you know?
> This is the Ayckbourn play about which least is known. Only one original manuscript exists (despite there being two different versions of the play), very few reviews exist and Alan Ayckbourn has said very little about the play.
> It is, arguably (and I’d argue very strongly for this!), this most conventional play written by Alan Ayckbourn. It is a period farce which satisfies but does not push the conventions of the genre.
> Although apparently based on The Barber Of Seville; it seems this was only in the loosest use of the term.
> Alan has suggested it was an easier play to write than The Square Cat as he stole the plot; he has never explained why he stole the plot though. This could be because he was only commissioned to write it no earlier than 9 September 1959 (the end of the summer season) for rehearsals beginning no later than 9 December 1959 - less than three months!
> It is attributed to Roland Allen (a pseudonym combining of the names of Alan and his wife, Christine Roland); quite why a pseudonym is used is unclear given the programme - free to all audience members - makes it clear the author Roland Allen is actually the actor Alan Ayckbourn.
> Love After All is - even more so than The Square Cat - centred largely on providing a showcase for the leading actor (who plays four different characters). Ironically, Alan wrote it to showcase his own abilities, but was then not able to perform in the original production due to being called for National Service.
> It is Alan’s first multi-location set as it contains both a ground floor living room and a second floor bedroom on the same stage.
> Alan has frequently talked about how he and the company’s other resident playwright, David Campton, wrote each other the worst roles possible (culminating in David writing Alan a role for a one-eyed, one armed, one legged barman). Possibly it all began here with Alan casting David as an 83 year old miser (David being 35 at the time).
> It is possibly (and I stand to be corrected) the only Ayckbourn play where a character gives an aside to the audience (breaking the in-the-round equivalent of the fourth wall) where the convention hasn’t been established as part of the narrative (i.e. the narrators / lead characters in certain family plays such as Invisible Friends and Miss Yesterday).
> There is also an astonishing example of monologuing by Minta purely to provide exposition and, presumably, to just make it clear to the audience a character was in disguise; it's doubly unusual given Alan so rarely writers monologues in his plays.
> Notable dialogue: “I have always ridiculed the doctor who sat and listened to his patient’s chest as if it were a gramophone. If a gramophone goes wrong, one does not sit listening to it. On the contrary, one opens it up - dear sir - opens it up and has a good look inside.”
> Like The Square Cat before it, the play was so popular with audiences that a decision was made to run it for a second week.
> For the summer of 1960, the play was revived but the new director Julian Herington decided he did not like it and updated it to a contemporary setting. As a script for this production hasn't survived, we have no idea how substantially it was altered.
> While Alan joked in the 1970s he was trying to destroy all copies of his early plays, the fact that only one Love After All manuscript is known to exist (and in a place where Alan could not destroy it!), whereas there are multiple copies of his other early plays, does suggest he really did try to destroy Love After All!
Look out for our accompanying Ayckbourn Moments photograph on this blog on Friday.
Copyright: Simon Murgatroyd. Please do not reproduce this article without the permission of the copyright holder.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Ayckbourn Articles: Comedy & Farce
In the run-up to Alan Ayckbourn's 75th birthday in April 2014, a monthly feature reproduces articles by the playwright highlighting his life in theatre through the years.
Last month we looked at Alan Ayckbourn's views on the repertory company - something which has always been an essential element of his work in Scarborough.
This month, we reproduce an article first published in the Amateur Stage in 1978 - for which Alan wrote several articles during the late '7-s - in which he explores the difference between comedy and farce and how they should be approached from an acting perspective.
On Comedy & Farce
Going back to my great idol, Buster Keaton - everything followed logically; he behaved completely within his own mad world as a normal human being would behave. The mistake that's made is that people imagine that somehow farce has to be played louder, faster, broader - and suddenly they throw all credibility away. I have a campaign at the moment for slow, quiet farce. I don't see why farce has necessarily to be loud or fast. It has to be paced well, but that does not necessarily mean all loud or all fast.
The middle act of Absurd Person Singular is sometimes a trap, but one should bear in mind that all the characters are in their own terms acting totally logically. Leave it to us, the audience, to laugh, if we see the funny side; and leave it to the dramatist, if he's done his job properly, to point the absurdity. The actors don't need to react; they can continue to play their own role within that scene... there's still a woman trying to kill herself, which she is still quite serious about, and there's still a man trying to unblock a sink. What turns an audience off, I think, is when actors are in effect saying "Aren't I funny?"
Farce playing is not as mysterious as it's sometimes made out to be. It's difficult, but there's a sort of mystique about farce, which makes everyone very nervous about it. Some of the best performances I've had in farce and comedy are from actors who've never played it before.
I had a girl who came into the company to play Evelyn in Absent Friends; on the first night she delivered the lines as she had been doing in rehearsals and the audience just fell about. So I popped round in the interval because I thought she'd be really thrilled about this as it was her first job with us, and she said, "I can't stop them laughing. I'm sorry." I said, "Don't worry - that's just what we want." "Is it?" she replied. She had no idea. Maybe I hadn't explained it, but I had been talking about it as a character - I hadn't thought to talk about the laughter. Three nights into the run I went to see it again - and she was practically standing on her head to let laughs. I said, "You don't need to do any more - you've already got the laughs."
This was the most clear example of how to play comedy - be real; and she had instinctive timing on how to play the lines for real. There was someone with very little experience playing comedy beautifully, and taking it a little further, why not farce the same way?
A lot of my plays start quite low key, and I slowly "jack them up"' into quite high-key stuff. The Normans has a sort of climax in the middle, where it becomes quite broad - though it should still be played as comedy, not farce. Of course one can have big moments, but you must have explored the truth in order to reach them. What often happens with an actor who is not naturally an expert farceur is that he has seen somebody playing farce and then tries to copy the externals. He forgets that the great farce players have a sort of inner logic and truth about them that makes them, for the time you are watching, totally believable. So many actors go wrong in trying to play farce because of certain "distractions".
For example, Ralph Lynn had very large hands and a very comic personality, and he did things truthfully from his own viewpoint, but which any other actor copying would be phoney. But he uses his own particular physical peculiarities to create laughter. People following him think he got laughs by doing "funny things" - but in fact he got laughs by doing things his way.
Copyright: Alan Ayckbourn. Please do not reproduce without permission of the copyright holder.
Last month we looked at Alan Ayckbourn's views on the repertory company - something which has always been an essential element of his work in Scarborough.
This month, we reproduce an article first published in the Amateur Stage in 1978 - for which Alan wrote several articles during the late '7-s - in which he explores the difference between comedy and farce and how they should be approached from an acting perspective.
On Comedy & Farce
Going back to my great idol, Buster Keaton - everything followed logically; he behaved completely within his own mad world as a normal human being would behave. The mistake that's made is that people imagine that somehow farce has to be played louder, faster, broader - and suddenly they throw all credibility away. I have a campaign at the moment for slow, quiet farce. I don't see why farce has necessarily to be loud or fast. It has to be paced well, but that does not necessarily mean all loud or all fast.
The middle act of Absurd Person Singular is sometimes a trap, but one should bear in mind that all the characters are in their own terms acting totally logically. Leave it to us, the audience, to laugh, if we see the funny side; and leave it to the dramatist, if he's done his job properly, to point the absurdity. The actors don't need to react; they can continue to play their own role within that scene... there's still a woman trying to kill herself, which she is still quite serious about, and there's still a man trying to unblock a sink. What turns an audience off, I think, is when actors are in effect saying "Aren't I funny?"
Farce playing is not as mysterious as it's sometimes made out to be. It's difficult, but there's a sort of mystique about farce, which makes everyone very nervous about it. Some of the best performances I've had in farce and comedy are from actors who've never played it before.
I had a girl who came into the company to play Evelyn in Absent Friends; on the first night she delivered the lines as she had been doing in rehearsals and the audience just fell about. So I popped round in the interval because I thought she'd be really thrilled about this as it was her first job with us, and she said, "I can't stop them laughing. I'm sorry." I said, "Don't worry - that's just what we want." "Is it?" she replied. She had no idea. Maybe I hadn't explained it, but I had been talking about it as a character - I hadn't thought to talk about the laughter. Three nights into the run I went to see it again - and she was practically standing on her head to let laughs. I said, "You don't need to do any more - you've already got the laughs."
This was the most clear example of how to play comedy - be real; and she had instinctive timing on how to play the lines for real. There was someone with very little experience playing comedy beautifully, and taking it a little further, why not farce the same way?
A lot of my plays start quite low key, and I slowly "jack them up"' into quite high-key stuff. The Normans has a sort of climax in the middle, where it becomes quite broad - though it should still be played as comedy, not farce. Of course one can have big moments, but you must have explored the truth in order to reach them. What often happens with an actor who is not naturally an expert farceur is that he has seen somebody playing farce and then tries to copy the externals. He forgets that the great farce players have a sort of inner logic and truth about them that makes them, for the time you are watching, totally believable. So many actors go wrong in trying to play farce because of certain "distractions".
For example, Ralph Lynn had very large hands and a very comic personality, and he did things truthfully from his own viewpoint, but which any other actor copying would be phoney. But he uses his own particular physical peculiarities to create laughter. People following him think he got laughs by doing "funny things" - but in fact he got laughs by doing things his way.
Copyright: Alan Ayckbourn. Please do not reproduce without permission of the copyright holder.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Replaying Ayckbourn: The Square Cat
2014 marks both Alan Ayckbourn’s 75th birthday and the 50th anniversary of his first West End transfer with Mr Whatnot. In a new feature leading up to and through the anniversary year, Replaying Ayckbourn will look back over his entire play canon examining each play and digging up some of the more unusual facts about them. Accompanying features for each play will also be published.
The Square Cat
Play: 1
World premiere: 31 July 1959
Venue: Library Theatre, Scarborough
Published: No - held in archive (unavailable for production)
Find out more: http://thesquarecat.alanayckbourn.net
Short Synopsis
A married woman, Alice, goes on a clandestine trip to a county house to meet and dance with the rock idol Jerry Wattis. Unknown to her, her husband Sidney finds about about the trip and bring their son and daughter to the house too. Jerry is also not who he seems but the extrovert alter-ego of mild-mannered Arthur Brummage, looking to escape the celebrity lifestyle. Over a weekend, Sidney tries to humiliate Arthur, whilst Arthur falls in love with the daughter Susan, all the while pretending to be 'Jerry' for Alice. Eventually 'Jerry' deliberately upsets Alice who is reconciled with Sidney and Arthur becomes engaged to Susan, without Alice having any clue as to what has happened.
Did you know?
> Alan Ayckbourn wrote The Square Cat when he was just 19 years old. It was written whilst on the Studio Theatre Company 1959 winter tour, which included Harold Pinter’s self-directed second production of The Birthday Party (which featured Alan as Stanley).
> Alan had written approximately a dozen plays before The Square Cat, most of which are now lost. By all accounts though, none of these were full length and none were farces. It was entirely new territory for the budding playwright.
> In a letter dated 19 March 1959, the Library Theatre’s manager Rodney Wood discusses the coming season with Scarborough Library and no mention is made of The Square Cat; it must have been a very late addition to the season.
> The Square Cat was co-written with his fiancee Christine Roland - they married later that year in May 1959. As a result, it was credited to Roland Allen - although the first print of the production’s programme mis-spelt Allen as Allan.
> Someone heads off for a clandestine meeting at a country-house, not knowing their partner has decided to follow them but who arrives first.... Sound familiar? It’s the set-up for both Relatively Speaking and The Square Cat.
> Alan says he wrote the main part of a rock ‘n’ roll star for himself, despite knowing he couldn’t sing, dance or play the guitar. The original manuscript acknowledges this by ending the first act: “Wattis gives a triumphant twang on his guitar.” Unfortunately, someone - either writer or director - decided to be more ambitious as a handwritten next to it reads “breaks into a number”, despite the fact Alan only knew the chords for the song I Gave My Love A Cherry.
> The X Factor / The Voice / American Idol are not new, when the ‘Prince Regent Of Rock’ Jerry Wattis is asked how he got his lucky break, he responds: “I won a talent competition.”
> Jerry’s mild-mannered alter-ego Arthur Brummage was brought up in a “dull seaside town” - a sly dig at Scarborough?
> Memorable quote: “If people carried on like they do in songs, the delinquency rates would get out of hand.”
> Product placement is obviously not a recent trend either as Jerry is constantly refering to Zingo - “The sparkling health drink with the tasty stimulant” which “will fill you up with new hep - zing - and off you go.” Hep apparently being a variant or earlier version of the word ‘hip.’ Jerry Wattis constantly spouts trendy Americanisms.
> Sidney Glover - the protagonist Alice's husband - is definitely the prototype ‘Ayckbourn Man’; a husband who obsesses on DIY - and explains in detail the difference between water and gas pipes - and who is clueless as to how he treats his wife. He is almost a proto-Denis from Just Between Ourselves.
> The Square Cat was the first play at the Library Theatre to run for two consecutive weeks.
> According to financial accounts for the 1959 summer season, The Square Cat had a total attendance of 3,340 people. It was the second highest attended show of the year behind John van Druten’s Bell, Book & Candle with 3,349 people attending.
> The play made £695, 8 shillings and 6 pence as compared to £696, 2 shillings and 6 pence for Bell, Book & Candle.
> Alan estimates he earnt £47 from The Square Cat - the most money he had ever earned in his life!
> The Square Cat was revived for the Studio Theatre Company’s 1960 winter tour with Barry Boys playing the role of Jerry Wattis due to Alan being called for a short-lived (3 days) National Service. It was never performed in its entirety again.
> During the 1970s and 1980s, Alan insisted he had destroyed all copies of the play. However, original manuscripts are held in the Ayckbourn Archive at the University Of York, the John Rylands Library at the University Of Manchester and the Lord Chamberlain’s Collection at the British Library.
Pendon-isms
Pendon is the fictional town which appears in many of Alan Ayckbourn's play.
> While The Square Cat does not specifically identify where it is set - it mentions “just outside London” and “Surrey” - it sounds potentially like a fore-runner to Alan’s renowned fictional town of Pendon. Although this will not appear until Relatively Speaking in 1965, it is predominantly located (occasionally the town moves) in the London commuter belt, near Reading, in a similar vicinity.
Look out for our accompanying Ayckbourn Moments photograph on this blog on Friday.
The Square Cat
Play: 1
World premiere: 31 July 1959
Venue: Library Theatre, Scarborough
Published: No - held in archive (unavailable for production)
Find out more: http://thesquarecat.alanayckbourn.net
Short Synopsis
A married woman, Alice, goes on a clandestine trip to a county house to meet and dance with the rock idol Jerry Wattis. Unknown to her, her husband Sidney finds about about the trip and bring their son and daughter to the house too. Jerry is also not who he seems but the extrovert alter-ego of mild-mannered Arthur Brummage, looking to escape the celebrity lifestyle. Over a weekend, Sidney tries to humiliate Arthur, whilst Arthur falls in love with the daughter Susan, all the while pretending to be 'Jerry' for Alice. Eventually 'Jerry' deliberately upsets Alice who is reconciled with Sidney and Arthur becomes engaged to Susan, without Alice having any clue as to what has happened.
Did you know?
> Alan Ayckbourn wrote The Square Cat when he was just 19 years old. It was written whilst on the Studio Theatre Company 1959 winter tour, which included Harold Pinter’s self-directed second production of The Birthday Party (which featured Alan as Stanley).
> In a letter dated 19 March 1959, the Library Theatre’s manager Rodney Wood discusses the coming season with Scarborough Library and no mention is made of The Square Cat; it must have been a very late addition to the season.
> The Square Cat was co-written with his fiancee Christine Roland - they married later that year in May 1959. As a result, it was credited to Roland Allen - although the first print of the production’s programme mis-spelt Allen as Allan.
> Someone heads off for a clandestine meeting at a country-house, not knowing their partner has decided to follow them but who arrives first.... Sound familiar? It’s the set-up for both Relatively Speaking and The Square Cat.
> Alan says he wrote the main part of a rock ‘n’ roll star for himself, despite knowing he couldn’t sing, dance or play the guitar. The original manuscript acknowledges this by ending the first act: “Wattis gives a triumphant twang on his guitar.” Unfortunately, someone - either writer or director - decided to be more ambitious as a handwritten next to it reads “breaks into a number”, despite the fact Alan only knew the chords for the song I Gave My Love A Cherry.
> The X Factor / The Voice / American Idol are not new, when the ‘Prince Regent Of Rock’ Jerry Wattis is asked how he got his lucky break, he responds: “I won a talent competition.”
> Jerry’s mild-mannered alter-ego Arthur Brummage was brought up in a “dull seaside town” - a sly dig at Scarborough?
> Memorable quote: “If people carried on like they do in songs, the delinquency rates would get out of hand.”
> Product placement is obviously not a recent trend either as Jerry is constantly refering to Zingo - “The sparkling health drink with the tasty stimulant” which “will fill you up with new hep - zing - and off you go.” Hep apparently being a variant or earlier version of the word ‘hip.’ Jerry Wattis constantly spouts trendy Americanisms.
> Sidney Glover - the protagonist Alice's husband - is definitely the prototype ‘Ayckbourn Man’; a husband who obsesses on DIY - and explains in detail the difference between water and gas pipes - and who is clueless as to how he treats his wife. He is almost a proto-Denis from Just Between Ourselves.
> The Square Cat was the first play at the Library Theatre to run for two consecutive weeks.
> According to financial accounts for the 1959 summer season, The Square Cat had a total attendance of 3,340 people. It was the second highest attended show of the year behind John van Druten’s Bell, Book & Candle with 3,349 people attending.
> The play made £695, 8 shillings and 6 pence as compared to £696, 2 shillings and 6 pence for Bell, Book & Candle.
> Alan estimates he earnt £47 from The Square Cat - the most money he had ever earned in his life!
> The Square Cat was revived for the Studio Theatre Company’s 1960 winter tour with Barry Boys playing the role of Jerry Wattis due to Alan being called for a short-lived (3 days) National Service. It was never performed in its entirety again.
> During the 1970s and 1980s, Alan insisted he had destroyed all copies of the play. However, original manuscripts are held in the Ayckbourn Archive at the University Of York, the John Rylands Library at the University Of Manchester and the Lord Chamberlain’s Collection at the British Library.
Pendon-isms
Pendon is the fictional town which appears in many of Alan Ayckbourn's play.
> While The Square Cat does not specifically identify where it is set - it mentions “just outside London” and “Surrey” - it sounds potentially like a fore-runner to Alan’s renowned fictional town of Pendon. Although this will not appear until Relatively Speaking in 1965, it is predominantly located (occasionally the town moves) in the London commuter belt, near Reading, in a similar vicinity.
Look out for our accompanying Ayckbourn Moments photograph on this blog on Friday.
Copyright: Simon Murgatroyd. Please do not reproduce this article without the permission of the copyright holder.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Ayckbourn Articles: Scarborough
In the run-up to Alan Ayckbourn's 75th birthday in April 2014, a monthly feature reproduces articles by the playwright highlighting his life in theatre through the years.
Last month we looked at Alan Ayckbourn's five year career as aradio drama producer for the BBC based in Leeds. In 1970, he left the BBC to concentrate on his career in theatre and playwriting. Within two years, he had been appointed the Artistic Director of the Library Theatre in Scarborough, where he had begun both his playwriting and directing careers.
This article, published in 1972, offers Alan Ayckbourn's thoughts at the time about Scarborough and the Library Theatre on the cusp of him being appointed Artistic Director; a role he would keep for 37 years.
Writing a new play for Scarborough each summer has become an almost incurable habit with me now. This year will see my tenth play to be produced there [ed. the play was Absurd Person Singular]. Not all of them have gone on to be very successful and many, particularly the earlier ones, were decidedly unsatisfactory. The very fact, though, that such a theatre exists like the Library Theatre, allowing a writer such as myself both to err and develop over twelve years, is both remarkable and unusual.
Scarborough's Theatre-in-the-Round was started nearly fifteen years ago by the late Stephen Joseph. Previously, he had taught at the Central School of Drama in London, worked for a time as a producer in television and, on the side, taken to presenting an occasional series of one night shows in London in an Indian hostel. Here, he mounted little-known or new plays casting usually otherwise unemployed actors.
Plays put on for only one night are seldom very satisfying for anyone and soon Joseph was looking around for a likely place to continue his experiment. After endless enquiries he received an encouraging reply from, on the face of it, that unlikely quarter, the Scarborough Public Library. He took a day off work from his coal round in Chelsea with which he supplemented his uncertain theatrical income, and set off by motor bike, through six foot snow drifts, to investigate further.
Within days, the committee of the Scarborough Library had agreed to allow him the use of the first floor of their building at a nominal rent to rig up a theatre-in-the-round. That summer, after rehearsing in London (paid for by the sale of the same motor bike) he arrived with a company of half a dozen to present, for eight weeks, a season of new or little known plays in repertoire. The experiment was successful enough to encourage him to return and though, subsequently, he modified his playbill to include small cast classics or even the odd commercial play, the emphasis remained on the new and untried writer. Basically, the theatre hasn't varied its policy since then, even after his untimely death in 1967.
We are still committed to present new plays and are still restricted by small casts and shoestring budgets. Some improvements and modifications have been possible with outside assistance, but the company size is much the same as when the theatre was started. This is partly due to finance but there is also an optimum size for a group doing work such as ours, something less than twelve and more than five. For not only does the Round require, in performance, a certain mutual understanding and sympathy between players (preferable in the proscenium theatre but not so noticeable if it's lacking) but the business of tackling a number of untried and often pretty rough scripts demands a frenzied sort of team work.
To some it might seem that this type of theatre and its policy would be unlikely to succeed in a town such as Scarborough with its emphasis on the brasher, more commercial sort of entertainment. Yet the theory behind it can be seen to be sound enough. Firstly, Joseph argued, in-the-round (at that time an almost unheard of medium in this country) was, to a largely television weaned audience, a far more exciting, accessible and immediate experience than that normally viewed through the distant formality of the proscenium arch. For, to all but the critics, the manager's friends or the rich, who sat in the first few rows, those meaningless specks on a conventional stage (which we later identified from our programmes as actual people) were about as dramatic as the television test card. There was a crying need for either much larger actors, or failing this, smaller theatres.
Secondly, that by employing this form of simpler theatre, he could divert his limited finances towards the vital ingredients - his actors and his plays. Such refinements as lighting, sound and settings could remain, for the time being, avoidable luxuries.
The third vital ingredient, his audiences, were yet to be explored.
Scarborough audiences are governed in size by the weather and the choice of play, in that order. Over the first we can do little but hope but, as regards the second, whilst obviously a play by, say, Priestley will be almost sure fire, even a new play can be equally successful, providing it can prove itself to be sufficiently entertaining.
The play-list for a season seldom contains less than 50% new plays. This current year four out of the five plays are receiving, to use that overworked phrase, their World Premies.
It must be added that probably the majority of our new work sinks with its author, without trace. The long awaited second play never arrives either because he didn't like the way we did his first or maybe he only had one to write, anyway. But any theatre that can boast of launching David Campton, James Saunders, and, after the failure of his first play in London, Harold Pinter, can be proud of something.
Many of our basic problems remain unsolved, certainly. We are still very much tenants in a Public Library which suggests a literary-equals-obscure-and-difficult image that we don't really deserve. We suffer too, like any seasonal theatre, from lack of continuity in company or audience. We have a regular hard core of patrons but thirteen weeks is too brief to build up any real following. Despite the terrifying unemployment figures in their profession, actors are reluctant to return, feeling that going back somewhere is retrograde, preferring to stick it out in London for the lucrative if elusive television part. Each year is a fresh start for us in Scarborough, in many ways.
For every foot we gain, I often feel we have lost eleven inches.
Locally, we are regarded by the authorities with a more or less benign tolerance, bordering on indifference. Whilst happy to see us chugging along under our own steam, with only the slenderest encouragement, there is no indication that they would be prepared to launch the life boat if we seemed to be sinking. Scarborough is, after all, they reason, a holiday town and as such should provide only successful, preferably London-proved entertainment. All we can do at the Library, under the circumstances, is to try and continue providing London with it in the first place.
Copyright: Alan Ayckbourn (1972). Please do not reproduce without permission of the copyright holder.
Last month we looked at Alan Ayckbourn's five year career as aradio drama producer for the BBC based in Leeds. In 1970, he left the BBC to concentrate on his career in theatre and playwriting. Within two years, he had been appointed the Artistic Director of the Library Theatre in Scarborough, where he had begun both his playwriting and directing careers.
This article, published in 1972, offers Alan Ayckbourn's thoughts at the time about Scarborough and the Library Theatre on the cusp of him being appointed Artistic Director; a role he would keep for 37 years.
Writing a new play for Scarborough each summer has become an almost incurable habit with me now. This year will see my tenth play to be produced there [ed. the play was Absurd Person Singular]. Not all of them have gone on to be very successful and many, particularly the earlier ones, were decidedly unsatisfactory. The very fact, though, that such a theatre exists like the Library Theatre, allowing a writer such as myself both to err and develop over twelve years, is both remarkable and unusual.
Scarborough's Theatre-in-the-Round was started nearly fifteen years ago by the late Stephen Joseph. Previously, he had taught at the Central School of Drama in London, worked for a time as a producer in television and, on the side, taken to presenting an occasional series of one night shows in London in an Indian hostel. Here, he mounted little-known or new plays casting usually otherwise unemployed actors.
Plays put on for only one night are seldom very satisfying for anyone and soon Joseph was looking around for a likely place to continue his experiment. After endless enquiries he received an encouraging reply from, on the face of it, that unlikely quarter, the Scarborough Public Library. He took a day off work from his coal round in Chelsea with which he supplemented his uncertain theatrical income, and set off by motor bike, through six foot snow drifts, to investigate further.
Within days, the committee of the Scarborough Library had agreed to allow him the use of the first floor of their building at a nominal rent to rig up a theatre-in-the-round. That summer, after rehearsing in London (paid for by the sale of the same motor bike) he arrived with a company of half a dozen to present, for eight weeks, a season of new or little known plays in repertoire. The experiment was successful enough to encourage him to return and though, subsequently, he modified his playbill to include small cast classics or even the odd commercial play, the emphasis remained on the new and untried writer. Basically, the theatre hasn't varied its policy since then, even after his untimely death in 1967.
We are still committed to present new plays and are still restricted by small casts and shoestring budgets. Some improvements and modifications have been possible with outside assistance, but the company size is much the same as when the theatre was started. This is partly due to finance but there is also an optimum size for a group doing work such as ours, something less than twelve and more than five. For not only does the Round require, in performance, a certain mutual understanding and sympathy between players (preferable in the proscenium theatre but not so noticeable if it's lacking) but the business of tackling a number of untried and often pretty rough scripts demands a frenzied sort of team work.
To some it might seem that this type of theatre and its policy would be unlikely to succeed in a town such as Scarborough with its emphasis on the brasher, more commercial sort of entertainment. Yet the theory behind it can be seen to be sound enough. Firstly, Joseph argued, in-the-round (at that time an almost unheard of medium in this country) was, to a largely television weaned audience, a far more exciting, accessible and immediate experience than that normally viewed through the distant formality of the proscenium arch. For, to all but the critics, the manager's friends or the rich, who sat in the first few rows, those meaningless specks on a conventional stage (which we later identified from our programmes as actual people) were about as dramatic as the television test card. There was a crying need for either much larger actors, or failing this, smaller theatres.
Secondly, that by employing this form of simpler theatre, he could divert his limited finances towards the vital ingredients - his actors and his plays. Such refinements as lighting, sound and settings could remain, for the time being, avoidable luxuries.
The third vital ingredient, his audiences, were yet to be explored.
Scarborough audiences are governed in size by the weather and the choice of play, in that order. Over the first we can do little but hope but, as regards the second, whilst obviously a play by, say, Priestley will be almost sure fire, even a new play can be equally successful, providing it can prove itself to be sufficiently entertaining.
The play-list for a season seldom contains less than 50% new plays. This current year four out of the five plays are receiving, to use that overworked phrase, their World Premies.
It must be added that probably the majority of our new work sinks with its author, without trace. The long awaited second play never arrives either because he didn't like the way we did his first or maybe he only had one to write, anyway. But any theatre that can boast of launching David Campton, James Saunders, and, after the failure of his first play in London, Harold Pinter, can be proud of something.
Many of our basic problems remain unsolved, certainly. We are still very much tenants in a Public Library which suggests a literary-equals-obscure-and-difficult image that we don't really deserve. We suffer too, like any seasonal theatre, from lack of continuity in company or audience. We have a regular hard core of patrons but thirteen weeks is too brief to build up any real following. Despite the terrifying unemployment figures in their profession, actors are reluctant to return, feeling that going back somewhere is retrograde, preferring to stick it out in London for the lucrative if elusive television part. Each year is a fresh start for us in Scarborough, in many ways.
For every foot we gain, I often feel we have lost eleven inches.
Locally, we are regarded by the authorities with a more or less benign tolerance, bordering on indifference. Whilst happy to see us chugging along under our own steam, with only the slenderest encouragement, there is no indication that they would be prepared to launch the life boat if we seemed to be sinking. Scarborough is, after all, they reason, a holiday town and as such should provide only successful, preferably London-proved entertainment. All we can do at the Library, under the circumstances, is to try and continue providing London with it in the first place.
Copyright: Alan Ayckbourn (1972). Please do not reproduce without permission of the copyright holder.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Norman at 40
It's been strangely unremarked and overlooked that this year marks the 40th anniversary of one of Alan Ayckbourn's most popular and successful works.
In June and July 1973 at the Library Theatre, Scarborough, the world premiere of The Norman Conquests took place (although they weren't called The Norman Conquests then). Three plays which would become more successful than the author ever imagined.
The plays were not originally marketed as a trilogy as Alan did not want to put off summer visitors to the Library Theatre who might otherwise have baulked at the idea of having to see three plays during their week's holiday. Each play was written to stand alone as well as building on the other plays.
Alan also never expected the three plays to transfer to London (nor to have much of a future in repertory or amateur theatre) and, initially, it seemed very unlikely as no-one wanted to stage three plays, just one or two - which Alan was never going to allow.
In 1974, the plays did eventually transfer to London to Greenwich Theatre though - advertised for the first time as The Norman Conquests and as a trilogy. The titles of two of the plays had also changed and Eric Thompson - with a little help from Alan - directed one of the most notable West End ensemble casts in an Ayckbourn play.
The success of the production led to an immediate West End transfer and, essentially, the beginnings of the phenomenal success of the trilogy. It would go on to be produced by professional and amateur companies around the world, be adapted for television and radio and would, in 2009, be the first Ayckbourn play to win a Tony Award with the Broadway transfer of Matthew Warchus's exceptional 2008 revival at London's Old Vic.
To mark the 40th anniversary of the trilogy, we've found an interview with Alan Ayckbourn in the Ayckbourn Archive held at the Borthwick Institute at the University of York. Although the date and interviewer are not recorded, it does offer some insight into Alan's thoughts on one of his most famous creations.
Which character in The Norman Conquests do you sympathise with the most, and why?
I think I feel sorry for all of them in different ways. They are all victims of themselves and of the people they've chosen, or indeed not chosen, to live with. Annie must come pretty high on the list.
Was there anyone in particular who you based Norman's character on?
Not really. I once said Norman was how I'd love to be, Tom was how I appeared and Reg was what I feared I'd become. They're all parts of me, male and female characters.
What made you choose the dining room, sitting room and garden as locations for your trilogy?
They were sort of logical locations. I'd just done kitchens (three of them) in Absurd Person Singular so I couldn't use them again. Living Rooms and Dining Rooms seemed ideal locations for people to assemble or pass through giving me a great freedom to move my characters about. A lot of The Norman Conquests is about getting people on and off. The garden naturally followed and gave the piece a nice contrast. Drama always has such a different feel when it's out of doors.
Would you consider writing a sequel to The Norman Conquests?
Heavens, no. I've said all I want to say about that lot!
Why did you decide to write The Norman Conquests as three separate plays?
I wanted to explore offstage life. That is, the life of characters immediately before they come on and just after they leave the stage. I was also interested in experimenting with theatrical form. Whether in viewing the same weekend three times and making each play a complete evening in itself, I could also uncover fresh insights and altered perceptions of the characters each time someone sat down to re-see it. And whether seeing them in different orders would change their perception. As far as I know this had never been tried and although it owes a lot to the form, it's not strictly multi viewpoint theatre. I love pushing theatre to see how far it will shove.
If you could meet one of the characters from The Norman Conquests, who would it be?
Well, I'd probably cross the road if I saw any of them coming but I suppose Annie would be the most likely.
Beneath the humour of The Norman Conquests, there is a darker side. Was it your intention to write the play in this way?
I always set out, when I write a play, with some fairly serious intentions. The stronger the serious base upon which I build a play, the more I can allow my humorous side to run away a bit. I love this tension that the comic and the serious create when they run successfully side by side. It's a matter of balance: too dark becomes unbearable; too light and you are in danger of laughing at the characters which is really for a writer a terrible act of betrayal.
How difficult was it to write The Norman Conquests crosswise?
I think it all seemed fairly easy at the time. The problem was that one could never, as the writer, read the plays individually with an innocent eye. I needed several fresh pairs of eyes to read them before I was assured that they worked 'downwards' as well as crosswise.
You can find out more about The Norman Conquests at http://thenormanconquests.alanayckbourn.net.
Interview copyright: Alan Ayckbourn. Please do not reproduce this article without permission of the copyright holder.
In June and July 1973 at the Library Theatre, Scarborough, the world premiere of The Norman Conquests took place (although they weren't called The Norman Conquests then). Three plays which would become more successful than the author ever imagined.
The plays were not originally marketed as a trilogy as Alan did not want to put off summer visitors to the Library Theatre who might otherwise have baulked at the idea of having to see three plays during their week's holiday. Each play was written to stand alone as well as building on the other plays.
Alan also never expected the three plays to transfer to London (nor to have much of a future in repertory or amateur theatre) and, initially, it seemed very unlikely as no-one wanted to stage three plays, just one or two - which Alan was never going to allow.
In 1974, the plays did eventually transfer to London to Greenwich Theatre though - advertised for the first time as The Norman Conquests and as a trilogy. The titles of two of the plays had also changed and Eric Thompson - with a little help from Alan - directed one of the most notable West End ensemble casts in an Ayckbourn play.
The success of the production led to an immediate West End transfer and, essentially, the beginnings of the phenomenal success of the trilogy. It would go on to be produced by professional and amateur companies around the world, be adapted for television and radio and would, in 2009, be the first Ayckbourn play to win a Tony Award with the Broadway transfer of Matthew Warchus's exceptional 2008 revival at London's Old Vic.
To mark the 40th anniversary of the trilogy, we've found an interview with Alan Ayckbourn in the Ayckbourn Archive held at the Borthwick Institute at the University of York. Although the date and interviewer are not recorded, it does offer some insight into Alan's thoughts on one of his most famous creations.
Which character in The Norman Conquests do you sympathise with the most, and why?
I think I feel sorry for all of them in different ways. They are all victims of themselves and of the people they've chosen, or indeed not chosen, to live with. Annie must come pretty high on the list.
Was there anyone in particular who you based Norman's character on?
Not really. I once said Norman was how I'd love to be, Tom was how I appeared and Reg was what I feared I'd become. They're all parts of me, male and female characters.
What made you choose the dining room, sitting room and garden as locations for your trilogy?
They were sort of logical locations. I'd just done kitchens (three of them) in Absurd Person Singular so I couldn't use them again. Living Rooms and Dining Rooms seemed ideal locations for people to assemble or pass through giving me a great freedom to move my characters about. A lot of The Norman Conquests is about getting people on and off. The garden naturally followed and gave the piece a nice contrast. Drama always has such a different feel when it's out of doors.
Would you consider writing a sequel to The Norman Conquests?
Heavens, no. I've said all I want to say about that lot!
Why did you decide to write The Norman Conquests as three separate plays?
I wanted to explore offstage life. That is, the life of characters immediately before they come on and just after they leave the stage. I was also interested in experimenting with theatrical form. Whether in viewing the same weekend three times and making each play a complete evening in itself, I could also uncover fresh insights and altered perceptions of the characters each time someone sat down to re-see it. And whether seeing them in different orders would change their perception. As far as I know this had never been tried and although it owes a lot to the form, it's not strictly multi viewpoint theatre. I love pushing theatre to see how far it will shove.
If you could meet one of the characters from The Norman Conquests, who would it be?
Well, I'd probably cross the road if I saw any of them coming but I suppose Annie would be the most likely.
Beneath the humour of The Norman Conquests, there is a darker side. Was it your intention to write the play in this way?
I always set out, when I write a play, with some fairly serious intentions. The stronger the serious base upon which I build a play, the more I can allow my humorous side to run away a bit. I love this tension that the comic and the serious create when they run successfully side by side. It's a matter of balance: too dark becomes unbearable; too light and you are in danger of laughing at the characters which is really for a writer a terrible act of betrayal.
How difficult was it to write The Norman Conquests crosswise?
I think it all seemed fairly easy at the time. The problem was that one could never, as the writer, read the plays individually with an innocent eye. I needed several fresh pairs of eyes to read them before I was assured that they worked 'downwards' as well as crosswise.
You can find out more about The Norman Conquests at http://thenormanconquests.alanayckbourn.net.
Interview copyright: Alan Ayckbourn. Please do not reproduce this article without permission of the copyright holder.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Ask The Archivist: One Act Plays
Ask The Archivist is a regular feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: Why does the website suggest Alan Ayckbourn's new one act plays (Chloë With Love and The Kidderminster Affair) are his first one acts to be 'specifically written for their own sakes'?
Answer: Alan Ayckbourn has rarely strayed into the territory of one act plays. Despite having written for more than five decades, officially he has only written four one act plays (with the proviso below). It's not a form he turns to often - and generally there's a reason why he does.
The two new one act plays (promoted as the Farcicals) represent the first time he has written one act plays that weren't commissioned as part of a wider project. So Alan Ayckbourn's first one act play, Countdown, was commissioned as just one part of Mixed Doubles, a showcase of playwrights writing about relationships. His second one act play was A Cut In The Rates, again written to fulfil a specific criteria of a short play which would form the climax of a television programme about the process of bring a play from page to stage. It was written specifically for the BBC series The English Files and would not have been written otherwise.
Chloë With Love and The Kidderminster Affair were not written because of any outside factor (other than, like most of Alan's plays, they were commissioned by the Stephen Joseph Theatre). They are two distinct one act plays which feature the same characters, but which do not depend on seeing both to be enjoyed. Essentially, they are the first one act plays Alan Ayckbourn has written with no ulterior purpsoe (and the first one acts which have what would be considered a normal running time for one acts, as both Countdown and A Cut In The Rates run at less than 15 minutes each).
And before anyone mentions Confusions (which always come up in discussions of Alan's one act plays!) that is considered a full length play. Whilst the five one act plays within it are often performed singularly, they were intended to be performed as one complete evening of entertainment (hence the links between the first four plays and the way it ends on a dying fall highlighting the actors as individuals with A Talk In The Park). Confusions was written as a showcase for five actors and is intended, ideally, to be seen as a whole. The Farcicals can be enjoyed together (and there is the opportunity to see them either singularly or together), but were not written with the intention they needed to both seen at the same time.
Chloë With Love and The Kidderminster Affair receive their world premiere at the Stephen Joseph Theatre, Scarborough, on 30 August. They can be seen on various dates singularly at lunchtimes or together on evenings until 4 October. Visit www.sjt.uk.com for more details.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: Why does the website suggest Alan Ayckbourn's new one act plays (Chloë With Love and The Kidderminster Affair) are his first one acts to be 'specifically written for their own sakes'?
Answer: Alan Ayckbourn has rarely strayed into the territory of one act plays. Despite having written for more than five decades, officially he has only written four one act plays (with the proviso below). It's not a form he turns to often - and generally there's a reason why he does.
The two new one act plays (promoted as the Farcicals) represent the first time he has written one act plays that weren't commissioned as part of a wider project. So Alan Ayckbourn's first one act play, Countdown, was commissioned as just one part of Mixed Doubles, a showcase of playwrights writing about relationships. His second one act play was A Cut In The Rates, again written to fulfil a specific criteria of a short play which would form the climax of a television programme about the process of bring a play from page to stage. It was written specifically for the BBC series The English Files and would not have been written otherwise.
Chloë With Love and The Kidderminster Affair were not written because of any outside factor (other than, like most of Alan's plays, they were commissioned by the Stephen Joseph Theatre). They are two distinct one act plays which feature the same characters, but which do not depend on seeing both to be enjoyed. Essentially, they are the first one act plays Alan Ayckbourn has written with no ulterior purpsoe (and the first one acts which have what would be considered a normal running time for one acts, as both Countdown and A Cut In The Rates run at less than 15 minutes each).
And before anyone mentions Confusions (which always come up in discussions of Alan's one act plays!) that is considered a full length play. Whilst the five one act plays within it are often performed singularly, they were intended to be performed as one complete evening of entertainment (hence the links between the first four plays and the way it ends on a dying fall highlighting the actors as individuals with A Talk In The Park). Confusions was written as a showcase for five actors and is intended, ideally, to be seen as a whole. The Farcicals can be enjoyed together (and there is the opportunity to see them either singularly or together), but were not written with the intention they needed to both seen at the same time.
Chloë With Love and The Kidderminster Affair receive their world premiere at the Stephen Joseph Theatre, Scarborough, on 30 August. They can be seen on various dates singularly at lunchtimes or together on evenings until 4 October. Visit www.sjt.uk.com for more details.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Sam Walters / Alan Ayckbourn interview
Yesterday saw the announcement that Sam Walters is to retire as the Artistic Director of the Orange Tree Theatre in Richmond.
Sam is the longest serving Artistic Director in the UK and is retiring after 42 years leading one of only several permanent theatre-in-the-round spaces in the country (Theatre-in-the-round obviously inspires longevity as Alan Ayckbourn managed 37 years at the Stephen Joseph Theatre!).
The Orange Tree has long been the principal advocate of theatre-in-the-round in London and which Sam has passionately championed over the decades.
To mark Sam's retirement, the blog is reproducing extracts from an interview between Sam and Alan Ayckbourn from 2010, when Alan directed the hugely acclaimed London revival of Taking Steps at the Orange Tree.
Alan Ayckbourn's Official Website sends its best wishes to Sam and his wife, Auriol, on their retirement and for their future.
Sam Walters (looking at the Orange Tree stage): This space is a bit small, isn’t it Alan?
Alan Ayckbourn: Well, chauvinistically I think that the Stephen Joseph theatre is the perfect size. 400 seats. But you don’t really want to go more than six rows back.
SW: I would have loved this to have been slightly bigger but it was determined by the constraints of the development. But yes, if you have more than six rows, when someone’s got their back to you, you could feel shutout. But if you’re close to them you feel you’re just looking over their shoulder.
AA: People do worry, when they haven’t been to the round, that they won’t like seeing people opposite them. But, of course, that’s the whole point of it, to use the old cliche of 'shared experience.' And the reason you enjoy a play is because you’re sharing it with a lot of other people who are also laughing at it. And if you’re watching something terribly serious, you allow your eye to rest on the action, but occasionally, it’s quite nice to watch someone completely wrapped in the scene with you. Otherwise, there’s no point in going to the theatre.
SW: Exactly. You might as well just be watching the television or a film at home. You and I are fairly fanatical about theatre-in-the-round - do you ever ask yourself the question, why isn’t the country packed with theatres-in-the-round?
AA: Well, it’s one of these things that doesn`t work in theory; but in practice, it works. What I object to are half-baked compromises. With theatres that have thrust stages on three sides, the actors just do not know where to stand. In-the-round is really the ultimate challenge. Stephen Joseph once said to me, if theatre is going to survive, it has to survive on its primary ingredients: the actors and the audience. In the end, it’s down to the acting, and the audience perceiving live acting.
SW: I absolutely agree, and it seems to me as we get more technology, and get more screen-
orientated, and we`ve got multi-channels and computers by which we can be entertained, if the theatre is going to go on surviving, it’s got to do what it does that is totally different, and it is that audience connection. And perhaps there ought to be a way for more theatre-in-the-round, because it’s the ultimate theatre acting.
AA: When you sit in a theatre like this, you know you’re not going to change the course of the play, but you will alter the evening perceptibly by your laughter or your interaction. The actors will subtly alter, and you’ll feel in control of it. And as anyone who’s done more than one performance of a show can tell you, it will vary from night to night depending on how they sense it is being perceived.
SW: And much more in a theatre like this, than a proscenium arch theatre.
AA: If you’ve worked in prosceniums like I have, the actors tend to refer to the audience as ‘it' or ‘them’ and they are a sort of anonymous body behind a curtain of light in another room. But the actors, last night, for instance, when I was sitting here watching The Promise, they were all damned aware. Some of the actors chose to stare at the audience quite closely; others tend to blur them out of focus, but nonetheless, they’re aware that there is a group of people surrounding them. I’ve known companies, my own in Scarborough in particular, where I’ve heard discussions about individual people in the audiences, like ‘that woman in the audience eating that huge packet of crisps and wrecking my every single line’.
SW: Is it chance that took you to the Stephen Joseph? You hadn't worked in-the-round, or knew anything about it, had you?
AA: Well, I was a stage manager at Leatherhead at the time. Now stage managers are their own mafia. They tend to stay in work and go from job to job, whereas actors get cast into the dole queue. So I was working as an ASM (Assistant Stage Manager) and the stage manager said: ‘Does anyone fancy a job in Scarborough?’, to which I said: ‘Where the hell is Scarborough?’, and he said: ‘Oh, it’s somewhere up North’, and I said: ‘Oh right, ok’. And then he said: ‘lt's in-the-round’, and I said: ‘What the hell is in-the-round?’, and he said: ‘Well, there’s no scenery’. So I said: ‘That sounds like an easy job’, and I just went up there. I’d been promised a small part, well, quite a big part really, in An inspector Calls in the summer, so it was a good start to the job. I was acting in it and stage managing it so actually it was quite hard work. But that was my first introduction to ‘in-the-round'.
SW: Somebody once said to me when I was first starting the profession that it was as difficult to get into a seaside rep as it was to get into a Hollywood blockbuster film, with both areas of the profession using the people they knew. So that the person directing the seaside rep had their own coterie of actors, and so did Stephen Spielberg or William Wyler; it’s no easier to break into one than the other. You’re like me; you like working with people you’ve worked with before.
AA: Yes, but there are dangers. One is that you work with people you’ve worked with before and it becomes a little too complacent. But when you’ve worked as long as I have, people I’ve worked with before haven’t necessarily worked together, or worked together with me. It’s like introducing friends that don’t know each other. But I’ve got a sort-of magical number of 20% who I would always like to be new, just to stir the mix a bit, because when a new person comes in, they look rather hot, rather good, and that tends to stir up the complacency. ‘My God! It’s a new kid on the block!’ One of my maxims, whether it be casting, or writing, or directing, is to try to keep the adrenalin running.
SW: Well, you do like to give yourself monstrous challenges, don’t you? As in, taking the Stephen Joseph, you’re faced with a theatre that has two auditoria, so you think, I need to have a play running in both, and you say ‘OK I’lI write two plays, but with one cast who’ll have to perform on two bloody stages on one night,” resulting in House & Garden. That really was the most extraordinary idea that you’ve had l think. But it worked.
AA: It was quite a tribute to a) the stage managers who were running it, and b) the actors controlling the pace. lt’s meant that ever since then I’ve never believed actors who say the play came down two minutes late because of laughs. You don’t put two minutes on a show for laughs! No. Maybe twenty seconds.
SW: But it had to be incredibly tight because both plays had to come cantering in at the same time for the curtain call to work.
AA: We used the same music at the end for both plays and I'd been into one of the plays, come out and was walking down the backstage corridor and all the walls had speakers with switches on - and if the switch was up you were listening to The Round theatre, and if the switch was down you were listening to The McCarthy theatre, and I switched between the two, and I thought something had broken because they were absolutely dead in sync.
SW: I went up to Scarborough to see those two plays, and l thought, no-one’s going to do them in London. At that stage, we still had the room above the pub so I really was thinking about it. And my worries were not only would Alan let me, but I’ll have to get permission to close the road! It would have been enormous fun here, but then sadly I heard that Trevor Nunn and the National had got their hands on it...
AA: It was my highest audience total. There were about 1,100 in the Lyttleton and 1,400 or 1,500 in the Olivier. So I had two and half a thousand people watching.
SW: What we want is a London built, not too large, but major permanent theatre-in-the-round, for productions to be mounted for it, or to come from Scarborough or the Royal Exchange or Stoke. That’s what we should be fighting for. A West End theatre so that instead of Ayckbourn’s plays having to go into a proscenium arch theatre when they come to London, they can actually go into a purpose built theatre-in-the-round, and other shows can be mounted for it. Because it is the future.
Article reproduced from The Orange Tree programme for Taking Steps (2010).
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Ask The Archivist: Favourite Ayckbourn Plays
Ask The Archivist is a regular feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: A bit of a quirky question today! Now we know what the top ten most performed Ayckbourn plays are, what - as Alan Ayckbourn's Archivist - are your ten favourite plays?
Answer: This could be contentious! It's also not an easy question as there are plays which I appreciate and would say are essential to see to gain an appreciation of Alan's body of work - but which aren't necessarily plays I would put in my favourite list. I also came to Alan's plays during the mid '80s, so my initial impression of Alan was very different to, say, someone who discovered Alan's writing during the '70s, which also affects my favourites. But enough stalling(!), this is my list of 10 personal favourite Ayckbourn plays listed in chronological order rather than order of preference. Please feel free to disagree!
Simon Murgatroyd's Top Ten Ayckbourn Plays (chronological)
> Absurd Person Singular (1972)
> Absent Friends (1974)
> Just Between Ourselves (1976)
> Woman In Mind (1985)
> Henceforward... (1986)
> A Small Family Business (1987)
> Haunting Julia (1994)
> Comic Potential (1998)
> My Sister Sadie (2003)
> Private Fears In Public Places (2004)
Plays which just missed out on a place in the list include The Norman Conquests (one or three plays!), Man Of The Moment, Invisible Friends and Time Of My Life.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: A bit of a quirky question today! Now we know what the top ten most performed Ayckbourn plays are, what - as Alan Ayckbourn's Archivist - are your ten favourite plays?
Answer: This could be contentious! It's also not an easy question as there are plays which I appreciate and would say are essential to see to gain an appreciation of Alan's body of work - but which aren't necessarily plays I would put in my favourite list. I also came to Alan's plays during the mid '80s, so my initial impression of Alan was very different to, say, someone who discovered Alan's writing during the '70s, which also affects my favourites. But enough stalling(!), this is my list of 10 personal favourite Ayckbourn plays listed in chronological order rather than order of preference. Please feel free to disagree!
Simon Murgatroyd's Top Ten Ayckbourn Plays (chronological)
> Absurd Person Singular (1972)
> Absent Friends (1974)
> Just Between Ourselves (1976)
> Woman In Mind (1985)
> Henceforward... (1986)
> A Small Family Business (1987)
> Haunting Julia (1994)
> Comic Potential (1998)
> My Sister Sadie (2003)
> Private Fears In Public Places (2004)
Plays which just missed out on a place in the list include The Norman Conquests (one or three plays!), Man Of The Moment, Invisible Friends and Time Of My Life.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Ask The Archivist: West End Revivals
Ask The Archivist is a regular feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: With Alan Ayckbourn's Relatively Speaking now back in the West End, how many of his other plays have had West End revivals?
Answer: Surprising few, particularly when you consider more than 35 of Alan Ayckbourn's plays have transferred to the West End since 1967.
The first Ayckbourn play to have a West End revival was How The Other Half Loves in 1988. This had originally been staged in 1970 at the Lyric and in 1988, the Greenwich Theatre's production of the play transferred to the Duke Of York's Theatre marking the first West End revival of an Ayckbourn play.
Since then Absurd Person Singular has been revived twice (1990 at the Whitehall and 2007 at the Garrick) and Bedroom Farce has also been revived twice (2002 at the Aldwych and 2007 at the Duke Of York's).
In 2008, The Norman Conquests trilogy was famously revived at the Old Vic and the following year Woman In Mind was revived at the Vaudeville Theatre; the same venue where the original London production was held in 1986. Season's Greetings was notably revived at the National Theatre in 2010.
Last year (2012) saw two further revivals with Absent Friends and A Chorus Of Disapproval both revived at the Harold Pinter Theatre.
Which brings us to 2013 and the current revival of Relatively Speaking at Wyndham's Theatre. This means 11 of Alan Ayckbourn's plays have had West End revivals.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: With Alan Ayckbourn's Relatively Speaking now back in the West End, how many of his other plays have had West End revivals?
Answer: Surprising few, particularly when you consider more than 35 of Alan Ayckbourn's plays have transferred to the West End since 1967.
The first Ayckbourn play to have a West End revival was How The Other Half Loves in 1988. This had originally been staged in 1970 at the Lyric and in 1988, the Greenwich Theatre's production of the play transferred to the Duke Of York's Theatre marking the first West End revival of an Ayckbourn play.
Since then Absurd Person Singular has been revived twice (1990 at the Whitehall and 2007 at the Garrick) and Bedroom Farce has also been revived twice (2002 at the Aldwych and 2007 at the Duke Of York's).
In 2008, The Norman Conquests trilogy was famously revived at the Old Vic and the following year Woman In Mind was revived at the Vaudeville Theatre; the same venue where the original London production was held in 1986. Season's Greetings was notably revived at the National Theatre in 2010.
Last year (2012) saw two further revivals with Absent Friends and A Chorus Of Disapproval both revived at the Harold Pinter Theatre.
Which brings us to 2013 and the current revival of Relatively Speaking at Wyndham's Theatre. This means 11 of Alan Ayckbourn's plays have had West End revivals.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Time Of My Life: 10 Facts
With Alan Ayckbourn's revival of his 1992 play opening on 6 June, the blog will be taking a weekly look behind the scenes of the play looking at its history.
We begin our exploration of Time Of My Life with 10 facts about the play.
Time Of My Life: 10 Facts
1) Time Of My Life is Alan Ayckbourn's 44th play.
2) The world premiere was held at the Stephen Joseph Theatre In The Round, Scarborough, on 21 April, 1992.
3) The London premiere was held at the Vaudeville Theatre on 3 August 1993.
4) The original London production in 1993 marked the first time (excluding the West End production of Intimate Exchanges - although that only had two actors) that a West End production featured the majority of the cast from the world premiere production in Scarborough. Only the two lead roles were recast and that purely to have recognised 'named actors' on the billboards.
5) The play was inspired by Alan Ayckbourn's experiences observing people at other tables in restaurants and also by J.W. Priestley's 'time' plays.
6) The play has three strands to it: the first moves forward in two hours of real time from the play's opening scene; the second moves backwards two months; the third moves forward over two years. This puts the audience in a privileged position of knowing information about the characters they do not yet know.
7) It is one of Alan Ayckbourn's rare plays which is identifiably set in the north of England. Other northern plays include Haunting Julia and A Chorus Of Disapproval (despite the latter being set in the normally Southern fictional town of Pendon).
8) Although not specifically written for the round (unlike Taking Steps), it is a play which Alan Ayckbourn believes is best suited to performance in the round.
9) Time Of My Life is deliberately written so that one actor plays the restauranteur Calvinu as well as his four sons. It reflects Alan Ayckbourn's earlier play A Small Family Business in which one actor played all the Rivetti Brothers.
10) The predominant theme of the play is people tend to spend far more time looking forwards or backwards in their lives and do not tend to recognise the moments of happiness when they occur (the time of our lives) because of this.
Time Of My Life is in repertory at the Stephen Joseph Theatre, Scarborough, from 6 June - 4 October, 2013. Further details about the production, schedule and how to book can be found at www.sjt.uk.com.
We begin our exploration of Time Of My Life with 10 facts about the play.
Time Of My Life: 10 Facts
1) Time Of My Life is Alan Ayckbourn's 44th play.
2) The world premiere was held at the Stephen Joseph Theatre In The Round, Scarborough, on 21 April, 1992.
3) The London premiere was held at the Vaudeville Theatre on 3 August 1993.
4) The original London production in 1993 marked the first time (excluding the West End production of Intimate Exchanges - although that only had two actors) that a West End production featured the majority of the cast from the world premiere production in Scarborough. Only the two lead roles were recast and that purely to have recognised 'named actors' on the billboards.
5) The play was inspired by Alan Ayckbourn's experiences observing people at other tables in restaurants and also by J.W. Priestley's 'time' plays.
 |
| Alan Ayckbourn and the 2013 Time Of My Life company at the first read-through. Copyright: James Drawneek |
7) It is one of Alan Ayckbourn's rare plays which is identifiably set in the north of England. Other northern plays include Haunting Julia and A Chorus Of Disapproval (despite the latter being set in the normally Southern fictional town of Pendon).
8) Although not specifically written for the round (unlike Taking Steps), it is a play which Alan Ayckbourn believes is best suited to performance in the round.
9) Time Of My Life is deliberately written so that one actor plays the restauranteur Calvinu as well as his four sons. It reflects Alan Ayckbourn's earlier play A Small Family Business in which one actor played all the Rivetti Brothers.
10) The predominant theme of the play is people tend to spend far more time looking forwards or backwards in their lives and do not tend to recognise the moments of happiness when they occur (the time of our lives) because of this.
Time Of My Life is in repertory at the Stephen Joseph Theatre, Scarborough, from 6 June - 4 October, 2013. Further details about the production, schedule and how to book can be found at www.sjt.uk.com.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Ayckbourn Articles: First Plays
In the run-up to Alan Ayckbourn's 75th birthday in April 2014, a monthly feature reproduces articles by the playwright highlighting his life in theatre through the years.
Last month we looked at Alan Ayckbourn's mentor Stephen Joseph, whom Alan met in 1957 and who had a pivotal role in his development as playwright and director. This month we move forward to 1959 when Alan Ayckbourn premiered his first professional play, The Square Cat.
Alan Ayckbourn has never written specifically about his experiences with The Square Cat, but in 1976 he wrote a piece about how to cope with the first night of your first play - which was no doubt inspired in part by The Square Cat and the numerous first nights which followed!.
First Plays And How To Cope
As far as an author is concerned, the only certain thing about First Nights is that they don't get any better. All that happens, assuming of course that he's fortunate enough to have more than one in his career, is that he develops little tricks and conditioned reflexes to see him safely through this most awful of ordeals. He can drink to excess and miss the whole thing, persuade the management to cancel, or emigrate and start a new life. Failing anything quite so drastic, here are a few essential Do's and Don'ts for new dramatists facing their first First Night:
Never look to the Actors for reassurance. Remember they are front line troops about to go over the top and are already telling themselves that their instincts were right and they shouldn't have taken this job in the first place. In a word, they have enough Inner Doubts of their own without listening to yours.
Don't expect words of reassurance from the Director. He is faintly optimistic that he may just about have saved the evening through his dextrous ingenuity but it's no thanks to the play. He is on the actors' side.
Don't stand about at the front of the theatre smiling at Critics as they arrive - or worse, attempt to greet them cheerfully. They mistrust cheery dramatists and besides they are as shy as High Court Judges of mixing socially with those upon whom they intend to pass sentence.
Never sit in the auditorium whilst a first night is in progress. If you must watch the play, stand. If you're incapable of standing, sit on the end of a row near the door. But beware of leaving and returning too frequently. This may, to those sitting in front; give the impression of a mass walk out as the door bangs to and fro. Better still keep well away from the theatre altogether. But keep an eye on the time. It is embarrassing to return and find the place is locked up for the night.
Don't smile at Critics as they leave. Their minds are made up.
Never eavesdrop on departing audiences, hoping to hear nice things said about your play. You never will. Those who enjoyed it will be glowing with silent, inner contentment.
Don't wait up for reviews. They all look better in the morning.
Don't plan in advance any celebrations. Better go home and write another.
Copyright: Alan Ayckbourn. Please do not reproduce this article without permission of the copyright holder.
Last month we looked at Alan Ayckbourn's mentor Stephen Joseph, whom Alan met in 1957 and who had a pivotal role in his development as playwright and director. This month we move forward to 1959 when Alan Ayckbourn premiered his first professional play, The Square Cat.
Alan Ayckbourn has never written specifically about his experiences with The Square Cat, but in 1976 he wrote a piece about how to cope with the first night of your first play - which was no doubt inspired in part by The Square Cat and the numerous first nights which followed!.
First Plays And How To Cope
As far as an author is concerned, the only certain thing about First Nights is that they don't get any better. All that happens, assuming of course that he's fortunate enough to have more than one in his career, is that he develops little tricks and conditioned reflexes to see him safely through this most awful of ordeals. He can drink to excess and miss the whole thing, persuade the management to cancel, or emigrate and start a new life. Failing anything quite so drastic, here are a few essential Do's and Don'ts for new dramatists facing their first First Night:
Never look to the Actors for reassurance. Remember they are front line troops about to go over the top and are already telling themselves that their instincts were right and they shouldn't have taken this job in the first place. In a word, they have enough Inner Doubts of their own without listening to yours.
Don't expect words of reassurance from the Director. He is faintly optimistic that he may just about have saved the evening through his dextrous ingenuity but it's no thanks to the play. He is on the actors' side.
Don't stand about at the front of the theatre smiling at Critics as they arrive - or worse, attempt to greet them cheerfully. They mistrust cheery dramatists and besides they are as shy as High Court Judges of mixing socially with those upon whom they intend to pass sentence.
Never sit in the auditorium whilst a first night is in progress. If you must watch the play, stand. If you're incapable of standing, sit on the end of a row near the door. But beware of leaving and returning too frequently. This may, to those sitting in front; give the impression of a mass walk out as the door bangs to and fro. Better still keep well away from the theatre altogether. But keep an eye on the time. It is embarrassing to return and find the place is locked up for the night.
Don't smile at Critics as they leave. Their minds are made up.
Never eavesdrop on departing audiences, hoping to hear nice things said about your play. You never will. Those who enjoyed it will be glowing with silent, inner contentment.
Don't wait up for reviews. They all look better in the morning.
Don't plan in advance any celebrations. Better go home and write another.
Copyright: Alan Ayckbourn. Please do not reproduce this article without permission of the copyright holder.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Ask The Archivist: Hark At Barker
Ask The Archivist is a regular feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: Did Alan Ayckbourn really write television sketches for Ronnie Barker? (see yesterday's blog entry for context!)
Answer: Yes, he did. Although it's not well-publicised, Alan Ayckbourn wrote linking sketched for the show Hark At Barker. However, as Alan worked for the BBC at the time and the programme was on ITV, his contribution was never credited as being written by Alan Ayckbourn. The full story (reproduced from www.alanayckbourn.net) can be found below.
In 1964, Mr Whatnot became the first Ayckbourn play to transfer to London's West End. It starred Ronnie Barker as Lord Slingsby-Craddock, who would soon afterwards start on a path which would see him become one of the UK's most popular and well-remembered television comedians.
Following the short-lived West End run of Mr Whatnot, Alan applied for a job at the BBC as a radio drama producer, based in Leeds. He would still write and direct the occasional play, but his full time employment between 1965 and 1970 was with the BBC.
In 1969, Ronnie Barker's second television series was commissioned, Hark At Barker (following The Ronnie Barker Playhouse in 1968). It was a sketch show based around one of Barker's most famous creations Lord Rustless, an incomprehensible, cigar-smoking and sex-obsessed member of the aristocracy who lived at the stately home Chrome Hall. The character was so popular it would recur in the BBC series His Lordship Entertains and essentially re-appeared in Futtock's End and in several sketches for the popular comedy series The Two Ronnies.
The character, according to Barker (see below) was unashamedly based on Lord Slingsby-Craddock from Mr Whatnot and when it came to Hark At Barker, the comedian approached Alan to write some material for the show. Alan was under contract at the BBC and not allowed to write for other organisations (and definitely not the BBC's competitor ITV!), which he deftly solved by writing under the pseudonym of Peter Caulfield. The show had a similar format each week with Barker first introducing the episode as a continuity announcer before switching to Lord Rustless at Chrome Hall, who would pontificate on a chosen subject for the week frequently interspaced with comedy sketches. Alan apparently wrote much of the linking material that featured Rustless in his stately home.
Hark At Barker ran for two series between 1969 and 1970 with Alan writing for both series. With the exception of his only screenplay, Service Not Included, this remains to date the only time that Alan has written specifically for television.
Ronnie Barker on Alan Ayckbourn's involvement with Hark At Barker
Ask Barker if the role of Lord Slingsby-Craddock was a prototype for one of his most enduring creations, Lord Rustless, and he answers the question before it's finished.
"Yes he was. Absolutely. He was Lord Rustless mark one, definitely. I did a character at Oxford rep and it was a part that was supposed to be done by a woman and Frank Shelley, who was running Oxford rep and was God there, said, "No we won't play it as a woman, because we haven't any women. Ronnie, you can play it as an old man." So I started doing this old chap and it was very successful and it worked very well. That character stayed at the back of my mind and he became Lord Rustless, because I enjoyed playing him so much. He's also in The Picnic and By the Sea, but he just mutters in those. He's not called Lord Rustless, no-one's called anything. But to me he was Rustless. He was one of my favourite characters. When I did Hark at Barker - that was him, albeit with sketches. Alan Ayckbourn wrote all the links for that show but I don't think he admits it. He called himself Peter Caulfield, but I don't know whether he would like people to know that was him or not. He liked the character in Mr Whatnot, so he knew what the character was about. Rustless was really giving a lecture to the audience on a subject, such as "communication" or "servants" or something and he would illustrate it with sketches, which enabled me to pay lots of different parts.'
(extract from The Authorised Biography Of Ronnie Barker, Bob McCabe, BBC Books, 2004)
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: Did Alan Ayckbourn really write television sketches for Ronnie Barker? (see yesterday's blog entry for context!)
Answer: Yes, he did. Although it's not well-publicised, Alan Ayckbourn wrote linking sketched for the show Hark At Barker. However, as Alan worked for the BBC at the time and the programme was on ITV, his contribution was never credited as being written by Alan Ayckbourn. The full story (reproduced from www.alanayckbourn.net) can be found below.
In 1964, Mr Whatnot became the first Ayckbourn play to transfer to London's West End. It starred Ronnie Barker as Lord Slingsby-Craddock, who would soon afterwards start on a path which would see him become one of the UK's most popular and well-remembered television comedians.
Following the short-lived West End run of Mr Whatnot, Alan applied for a job at the BBC as a radio drama producer, based in Leeds. He would still write and direct the occasional play, but his full time employment between 1965 and 1970 was with the BBC.
In 1969, Ronnie Barker's second television series was commissioned, Hark At Barker (following The Ronnie Barker Playhouse in 1968). It was a sketch show based around one of Barker's most famous creations Lord Rustless, an incomprehensible, cigar-smoking and sex-obsessed member of the aristocracy who lived at the stately home Chrome Hall. The character was so popular it would recur in the BBC series His Lordship Entertains and essentially re-appeared in Futtock's End and in several sketches for the popular comedy series The Two Ronnies.
The character, according to Barker (see below) was unashamedly based on Lord Slingsby-Craddock from Mr Whatnot and when it came to Hark At Barker, the comedian approached Alan to write some material for the show. Alan was under contract at the BBC and not allowed to write for other organisations (and definitely not the BBC's competitor ITV!), which he deftly solved by writing under the pseudonym of Peter Caulfield. The show had a similar format each week with Barker first introducing the episode as a continuity announcer before switching to Lord Rustless at Chrome Hall, who would pontificate on a chosen subject for the week frequently interspaced with comedy sketches. Alan apparently wrote much of the linking material that featured Rustless in his stately home.
Hark At Barker ran for two series between 1969 and 1970 with Alan writing for both series. With the exception of his only screenplay, Service Not Included, this remains to date the only time that Alan has written specifically for television.
Ronnie Barker on Alan Ayckbourn's involvement with Hark At Barker
Ask Barker if the role of Lord Slingsby-Craddock was a prototype for one of his most enduring creations, Lord Rustless, and he answers the question before it's finished.
"Yes he was. Absolutely. He was Lord Rustless mark one, definitely. I did a character at Oxford rep and it was a part that was supposed to be done by a woman and Frank Shelley, who was running Oxford rep and was God there, said, "No we won't play it as a woman, because we haven't any women. Ronnie, you can play it as an old man." So I started doing this old chap and it was very successful and it worked very well. That character stayed at the back of my mind and he became Lord Rustless, because I enjoyed playing him so much. He's also in The Picnic and By the Sea, but he just mutters in those. He's not called Lord Rustless, no-one's called anything. But to me he was Rustless. He was one of my favourite characters. When I did Hark at Barker - that was him, albeit with sketches. Alan Ayckbourn wrote all the links for that show but I don't think he admits it. He called himself Peter Caulfield, but I don't know whether he would like people to know that was him or not. He liked the character in Mr Whatnot, so he knew what the character was about. Rustless was really giving a lecture to the audience on a subject, such as "communication" or "servants" or something and he would illustrate it with sketches, which enabled me to pay lots of different parts.'
(extract from The Authorised Biography Of Ronnie Barker, Bob McCabe, BBC Books, 2004)
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Ask The Archivist: Biography For Publication
Ask The Archivist is a regular feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: This is actually a frequently asked question - where can I find an official biography of Alan Ayckbourn which I can reproduce in a programme for a amateur / professional / school productions of an Ayckbourn play?
Answer: A free to reproduce and regularly updated short biography for Alan Ayckbourn can be found in the Biography section at www.alanayckbourn.net here. This approved piece can be reprinted and reproduced providing it is credited to: 'Alan Ayckbourn's Official Website: www.alanayckbourn.net.'
The Biography section of the website also has a more extensive biography which can also be reproduced providing the author and www.alanayckbourn.net are credited.
The current biography for Alan Ayckbourn can be found below and this is designed specifically for publication in 2013.
Alan Ayckbourn
Writer / Director
2013 marks Alan’s 52nd year as a theatre director and his 54th as a playwright. He has spent his life in theatre, rarely if ever tempted by television or film, which perhaps explains why he continues to be so prolific. To date he has written 77 plays and his work has been translated into over 35 languages, is performed on stage and television throughout the world and has won countless awards.
Major successes include: Relatively Speaking, How the Other Half Loves, Absurd Person Singular, Bedroom Farce, A Chorus of Disapproval and The Norman Conquests. The National Theatre recently revived his 1980 play Season’s Greetings to great acclaim and the past year alone has seen West End productions of Absent Friends and A Chorus Of Disapproval. In 2009, he retired as artistic director of the Stephen Joseph, where almost all his plays have been and continue to be first staged. Holding the post for 37 years, he still feels that perhaps his greatest achievement was the establishment of this company’s first permanent home when the two auditoria complex fashioned from a former Odeon Cinema opened in 1996.
In recent years, he has been inducted into American Theatre’s Hall of Fame, received the 2010 Critics’ Circle Award for Services to the Arts and became the first British playwright to receive both Olivier and Tony Special Lifetime Achievement Awards. He was knighted in 1997 for services to the theatre.
Reproduced with permission from Alan Ayckbourn's Official Website www.alanayckbourn.net.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: This is actually a frequently asked question - where can I find an official biography of Alan Ayckbourn which I can reproduce in a programme for a amateur / professional / school productions of an Ayckbourn play?
Answer: A free to reproduce and regularly updated short biography for Alan Ayckbourn can be found in the Biography section at www.alanayckbourn.net here. This approved piece can be reprinted and reproduced providing it is credited to: 'Alan Ayckbourn's Official Website: www.alanayckbourn.net.'
The Biography section of the website also has a more extensive biography which can also be reproduced providing the author and www.alanayckbourn.net are credited.
The current biography for Alan Ayckbourn can be found below and this is designed specifically for publication in 2013.
Alan Ayckbourn
Writer / Director
2013 marks Alan’s 52nd year as a theatre director and his 54th as a playwright. He has spent his life in theatre, rarely if ever tempted by television or film, which perhaps explains why he continues to be so prolific. To date he has written 77 plays and his work has been translated into over 35 languages, is performed on stage and television throughout the world and has won countless awards.
Major successes include: Relatively Speaking, How the Other Half Loves, Absurd Person Singular, Bedroom Farce, A Chorus of Disapproval and The Norman Conquests. The National Theatre recently revived his 1980 play Season’s Greetings to great acclaim and the past year alone has seen West End productions of Absent Friends and A Chorus Of Disapproval. In 2009, he retired as artistic director of the Stephen Joseph, where almost all his plays have been and continue to be first staged. Holding the post for 37 years, he still feels that perhaps his greatest achievement was the establishment of this company’s first permanent home when the two auditoria complex fashioned from a former Odeon Cinema opened in 1996.
In recent years, he has been inducted into American Theatre’s Hall of Fame, received the 2010 Critics’ Circle Award for Services to the Arts and became the first British playwright to receive both Olivier and Tony Special Lifetime Achievement Awards. He was knighted in 1997 for services to the theatre.
Reproduced with permission from Alan Ayckbourn's Official Website www.alanayckbourn.net.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Ask The Archivist: Time Periods
Ask The Archivist is a regular feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: When is [insert name of the play] set?
Answer: The time settings of Alan Ayckbourn's plays are an increasingly frequently asked question - and yet the answer is very simple.
Alan Ayckbourn himself has frequently stated that the majority of his plays (with a few obvious and notable exceptions) are set at approximately the same time as when he wrote them. In essence, Alan's plays are period pieces that should always be played in period they were written in to best reflect the play.
This also solves the problem inherent in many of Alan's plays, that to perform them in a modern setting puts too much stress on the play due to changing social attitudes and the way we live our lives. Also the extraordinary technological leaps during Alan's lifetime do have an impact as many of the things we take for granted in life (computers, mobile phones) were not in existence when Alan wrote many of his plays.
For example: Bedroom Farce doesn't work in a contemporary setting because the first question any rational person would ask is why don't the characters call on a mobile phone! Written prior to the advent of mobile phones, the play obviously doesn't work pulled out of context.
Generally speaking, Alan Ayckbourn's plays reflect the time and the attitudes of the period they were written in and in very few cases, can they be taken out of the period without causing an issue within the play.
The exceptions to this are: the science fiction / fantasy plays - which are generally set in an unspecified near future; distinctly period pieces such as By Jeeves and Whenever; often the family plays as they either have fantasy elements or are unspecific as to their period.
But for the majority of Alan's plays (except where it's stated otherwise or is plainly obvious), the plays should be set and played contemporary to the time they were written
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: When is [insert name of the play] set?
Answer: The time settings of Alan Ayckbourn's plays are an increasingly frequently asked question - and yet the answer is very simple.
Alan Ayckbourn himself has frequently stated that the majority of his plays (with a few obvious and notable exceptions) are set at approximately the same time as when he wrote them. In essence, Alan's plays are period pieces that should always be played in period they were written in to best reflect the play.
This also solves the problem inherent in many of Alan's plays, that to perform them in a modern setting puts too much stress on the play due to changing social attitudes and the way we live our lives. Also the extraordinary technological leaps during Alan's lifetime do have an impact as many of the things we take for granted in life (computers, mobile phones) were not in existence when Alan wrote many of his plays.
For example: Bedroom Farce doesn't work in a contemporary setting because the first question any rational person would ask is why don't the characters call on a mobile phone! Written prior to the advent of mobile phones, the play obviously doesn't work pulled out of context.
Generally speaking, Alan Ayckbourn's plays reflect the time and the attitudes of the period they were written in and in very few cases, can they be taken out of the period without causing an issue within the play.
The exceptions to this are: the science fiction / fantasy plays - which are generally set in an unspecified near future; distinctly period pieces such as By Jeeves and Whenever; often the family plays as they either have fantasy elements or are unspecific as to their period.
But for the majority of Alan's plays (except where it's stated otherwise or is plainly obvious), the plays should be set and played contemporary to the time they were written
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Ask The Archivist: Christmas Plays
Ask The Archivist is a regular feature allowing you to put your Alan Ayckbourn related questions to the playwright's archivist Simon Murgatroyd.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: Which of Alan Ayckbourn's plays are set specifically at Christmas?
Answer: Christmas has featured in a number of Alan Ayckbourn's plays, most famously in Absurd Person Singular and Season's Greetings.
It's also featured in some of his most obscure plays - which have never been published and are not available to produce - such as Dad's Tale and Christmas V Mastermind.
Here then is a list of all Alan Ayckbourn's full-length plays set specifically over Christmas.
Dad's Tale (1960)
Christmas V Mastermind (1961)
Absurd Person Singular (1972)
Joking Apart (1978) - Act II, scene I is set on Boxing Day
Season's Greetings (1980)
Sugar Daddies (2003)
Life & Beth (2008)
Although not specifically stated in the play, A Word From Our Sponsor (1995) is probably set at Christmas as the play centres around a community's attempts to stage a nativity play.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
If you have a question regarding any aspect of Alan's work, email it to: admin@alanayckbourn.net (labelled Ask The Archivist) and we'll publish any interesting questions.
Question: Which of Alan Ayckbourn's plays are set specifically at Christmas?
Answer: Christmas has featured in a number of Alan Ayckbourn's plays, most famously in Absurd Person Singular and Season's Greetings.
It's also featured in some of his most obscure plays - which have never been published and are not available to produce - such as Dad's Tale and Christmas V Mastermind.
Here then is a list of all Alan Ayckbourn's full-length plays set specifically over Christmas.
Dad's Tale (1960)
Christmas V Mastermind (1961)
Absurd Person Singular (1972)
Joking Apart (1978) - Act II, scene I is set on Boxing Day
Season's Greetings (1980)
Sugar Daddies (2003)
Life & Beth (2008)
Although not specifically stated in the play, A Word From Our Sponsor (1995) is probably set at Christmas as the play centres around a community's attempts to stage a nativity play.
To submit your question to Ask The Archivist, email Simon Murgatroyd at: admin@alanayckbourn.net labelled Ask The Archivist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)