Saint George and the Dragon (National Theatre)

Matt Trueman did a piece in Whats On Stage on this yesterday : "Has British theatre become too dependent on playwriting competitions?" - saying he's seen some very promising scripts reading the competitions, whilst big theatres no longer have scriptreaders and rely instead on recommissioning established names.

Two of the best plays I've seen in the last couple of years were both Bruntwood prize winners, Wish List and How my Light is Spent. I thought the writing and construction there were far stronger than in the new plays by established writers that I've seen this year, where excellent performances and fine sets c/o the big names and budgets star writers attract have papered over the cracks in the play itself.

I thought exactly the same during the long hours watching Bertie Carvel in the NT "Damned by Despair", simply inexplicable why he agreed to be in it. 

The director of this play seems immune to a lot of the criticism flying around about it which is odd, for a new play the director needs to engage with the writer if it needs improving, the AD is a last resort. 

A few years ago I thought she was very good, but recently she's been poor. Her Light Shining in Buckinghamshire was a low water mark for me.

It's disappointing that Travelex pricing has been proven not to automatically draw large audiences. Personally, I mildly enjoyed St George and the Dragon. And it made perfect sense, after the Brexit referendum result, for the NT urgently to plan a popular pageant on English nationalist themes for its most public stage. A big part of the NT's problem seems to be an inability to attract the appropriate audiences to each of its productions. They're all seen by too many of the regulars, who aren't always the main target, and too few of the intended audience sectors. My view is that the several perceived misfires at the NT are due to the enormous increase in the frequency of productions of new work, compared to the old NT producing many more shows using existing playtexts. They are insufficiently resourced to R&D and produce so much new work and to present it to the various appropriate audiences.

Sadly, I have to agree with the other comments that have panned the play.  I saw it in the preview week and we immediately said this would be an expensive flop.  Far, far too long, an aimless second half and a fair bit of effort from the cast to little obvious effect.  We couldn't understand why it was allowed to be put on in this form.  It probably merits a 90 minute showing, with no interval, in a fringe theatre.

If I were Travelex, I would be taking a very close interest in future programming. This year their sponsorship has given them a very poor return on their investment. Instead of large new audiences enjoying great shows at a price that makes them think well of the company that subsidised them, the few people who have turned up seem to have had a pretty dismal experience, and any lustre that the Travelex association had in the Hytner years is being badly tarnished.

The fact remains that Travelex tickets are only good value if the productions are worth seeing. This season I would quite happily have paid £15 NOT to sit through these shows.

It is a regular occurrence in my experience to see a talented cast struggling with the material.

It IS clear in rehearsals if the play/show will work or not, the issue is at that stage the production is already scheduled into the theatre and tickets sold. So cancellation is not an option. The running time can be trimmed and lots of alterations to the material made but ultimately, I suppose, you run out of time and are into the theatre for technical rehearsals.

The plays have to be selected from the scripts - and clearly some should never be considered for production.

'Three', which was way worse than this, didn't seem to do Mike Bartlett any harm..

Travelex must have gained quite a lot out of its long term sponsorship at the National Theatre, whether productions were great hits at the time or didn't make much of a splash. For many people and far more than have used Travelex services, that name is synonymous with 'good deal' or 'fair deal' simply on the strength of the cheaper tickets theatregoers have been able to buy over the years. Also, one of the National's theatres has been named after Travelex founder Lloyd Dorfman in the recent past, so it seems reasonable to assume everyone concerned is happy.

As for writers recovering from productions that didn't succeed, Harold Pinter famously achieved that despite an early play and how it was received at, I think, the Lyric Hammersmith. Before that in the mid-1940s, Arthur Miller got over his play The Man Who Had All the Luck closing after four performances in New York, and made something of himself. There must be many others who've taken such setbacks as temporary and have ploughed on. For others, perhaps less resilient or prepared to face up to the realisation that they're not quite up to it, a setback did them a favour.