National Theatre All Season Announcements

I think JK picked a male pseudonym as I suspect had she picked a female one, it would have sussed a lot sooner.

Is it 4 years already?

I went to the Hynther farewell talk and time certainly flies, it doesn't seem that long ago.

I suspect they'll look at the finances and tip their hats to him.

Financially there's few who can deny he hasn't been successful and that, rightly or wrongly, is what he will be judged on.

Seems reasonable

Measured response.

The issue with the "surely plays should be judged on merit" argument is that it ignores the reality of how plays get produced. Almost all productions at major theatres are the result of commissions (or transfers or co-productions). It's incredibly rare for a major production house to greenlight an unsolicited script. Even if an unsolicited script does spark interest, plays go through years of workshopping and R&D before they're actually put on.


The NT Studio (the NT's new play pathway) commissions 65-70 new plays a year (and at any time will also have around 80 other new plays in some stage of development). Only a handful will ever make it to stage. What do you think the chances are that a non-commissioned spec script by a new writer will be able to leapfrog ahead of those 150 plays, plus anything new from the likes of Hare and Graham et al, plus all the plays sent in from the hundreds of playwrights they have preexisting relationships with?


The point of unsolicited submission policies or windows is not to find plays to produce. The reason new writing theatres read unsolicited submissions is so they can meet and start to build relationships with new and emerging writers, with the hope that one day years down the line that relationship will result in a commission. The reason writers submit spec scripts is the same. It's intended as a calling card and a foot in the door, nothing more. Unless a script wins a major award, the only realistic way to get a non-commissioned play on is to get funding and self-produce on the festival circuit or somewhere like Park, Kings Head or TS.


So the issue is not "how do theatres judge plays that have already been written." The issue is "how do theatres decide which playwrights to commission."

Well, language evolves, and "iconic" no longer exclusively means a devotional painting of a religious figure painted on wood, so unless you particularly want to be like the pedantic character from a John Finnemore radio sketch, it's worth relaxing your definitions and accepting that "iconic" is a term that certainly can be applied to this rather well-known and much-studied play, whether people even like it or not.

Icons are different things to different people. If something is representative of a subsection of society then it is still iconic for them if not others, Top Girls is very much an iconic play for people from a certain time period and, arguably, gender. Anyone born after a certain age (or even before) not so much, in the way that most pop music icons after the nineties are a complete unknown to me!

There’s also the meaning from its usage in semiotics (something that any artist would be familiar with) of being a direct representation. It’s a very protean term.

So they should host more plays by female writers not because it's a good play but because the writer hasn't got a penis?

They have done more to discover the best female talent out there than any other theatre in this country and its still not enough for some.

That's the problem with this. Where would you like them to stop?

When every second play is by a female writer?

When every second play is directed by a female?

When every play has a equal measure of male and female players?

When staff are appointed on a 50/50 gender split?

Serious question, when will you be placated?

This is how daft things have got, Norris has done more for female playwrights and female directors than most out there but people demand more, even when the current season has a ratio of 3-1 female writers/directors to male.

I attended a performance of Dammed United - about Brian Clough's 44 days in charge of Leeds United - last year and the whole play is about his management of the team. Behind me was this woman moaning that none of the characters were female, none of the actors were female and neither was the writer or director. This isn't remotely related to Norris and the latest 'I take offence at that' aimed at The National but it sums this whole thing up perfectly.

Well, Rossi left so I hope they realized we don't want them here.

You could have deleted your post though, that way we wouldn't have had to read your bullsh!t.

I am never a fan of a quota system - but it is surely right to aspire to have a balanced programme over the course of a year as far as possible.

And with only a limited number of productions per year, you are never going to be fully representative - the numbers simply don't allow for it. Particularly not on a season by season basis. Sometimes productions have to be delayed and others brought forward - so you will have a season where it might be 3 to 1 in one direction and 3 to 1 in opposite for the next season. You have to judge on an annual basis to allow for natural variances.

I would certainly welcome a greater exploration of plays written by women that are not new writing. There are many historical perspectives that are just not being looked at.

New writing certainly should have a place at the National - but it is not the only way to get under-represented voices to the stage. I know from my own limited research that there is plenty of material out there if you look for it. It takes courage to programme it - but it should be possible to find that somewhere in the National.

There are other initiatives, like the Queer Theatre programme, which can be used to provide more voices a chance to be heard.

It is necessary to look at the bigger picture rather than obsessing over individual seasons/decisions. Programming is a complicated matter - new plays are promised by not delivered, scripts are received and proved not to be worthy of staging - the NT has seen both of those in recent years. You have to remain adaptable because circumstances render it necessary.

Looking at the Norris era, I think it is legitimate to challenge his decision to programme quite so much Caryl Churchill (and Patrick Marber) - it is not acceptable to give certain living writers so many opportunities - at the expense of other voices. I think he has made some bad decisions - and not stepped in to maintain quality with other productions

But I do feel it is unfair to go on the attack over this particular season without setting it in the wider context.

Thing is, samuelwhiskers has already gone into a very good amount of depth on the subject, so if you're still asking after reading all that, then one can only conclude you're less interested in receiving an answer and more interested in just having a row. Like those people who roll out of bed on March 8th with a strident "but when's International MEN'S Day?" on their lips rather than just quietly googling it and finding "oh, cool, November 19th".

I have to say, if I was Caryl Churchill, Katie Mitchell, Marianne Elliot, Blanche McIntyre, Lyndsey Turner, or Pam McKinnon this Telegraph headline would annoy me:

www.independent.co.uk/voices/national-theatre-female-writers-directions-sexism-rufus-norris-lisa-burger-a8857986.html

‘What am I? Chopped liver?!’

Could we possibly have the diversity discussion without completely erasing the people who are actually working in the industry? In this case, women writers and directors. It’s not helpful to pretend that there’s some grand conspiracy going on preventing even the most famous female writers and directors getting work produced. This sort of headline puts off potential new talent from even trying - and self-belief is half the battle in any creative endeavour.