 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 Apr. - 5 May 1999 Issue No. 427 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 Apr. - 5 May 1999 Issue No. 427
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Focus Special Travel Sports People Features Living Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Plain talk
By Mursi Saad El-Din
During a recent visit to the United States I could not help but notice the number of British plays occupying New York's theatres, both on and off Broadway. And according to theatre critic Charles Spencer it is now impossible to walk around New York's theatre district without experiencing an eerie sense of déjà vu. Almost every play on offer, it seems, has made the transatlantic crossing from London.
According to Spencer, in the last six months The Royal Court alone has sent eight shows to New York. These days it is a positive rarity for prizes to go to local productions and the shortlist for this year's prestigious Tony awards is likely to be dominated by British actors, directors and productions.
What are the reasons for this success? One American producer believes that British actors are less afraid to go on stage than Americans, who by and large prefer film-work, which involves a less direct exposure to the audience. Scenes on film can be shot and reshot -- in the theatre you have only one chance to get it right. And certainly the British have a very strong theatrical tradition.
Perhaps I am allowing my prejudices to run wild. I can never forget my theatre education in London, where I worked between 1945 and 1956. Apart from watching great artists like John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Paul Schofield, Sybil Thorndike, Ralph Richardson and others, I had the pleasure of seeing Paul Newman in Death of a Salesman, Katherine Hepburn in The Heiress and Zoe Wannamaker in A Street Car Named Desire.
But to go back to the glut of British plays in New York. It has been a long established pattern for plays that have been successful in London to make a transatlantic transfer. What is new, though, is for American producers to open first in London, and only if they succeed there to cross to Broadway. The reasons for this are both artistic and financial. The production cost of a play in New York can reach $3 million, more than three times the cost of a British production. A flop in London, according to one leading American producer, might lose $400,000. A flop in New York could spell bankruptcy.
Yet another reason for the success of British theatre on Broadway is the excellence of Britain's subsidised theatres, including The National, The Royal Court, The Donmar Warehouse and The Almeida -- which often originate productions that eventually transfer to the West End.
Any visitor to America cannot help but notice the pronounced Anglophile sentiments of New York's intellectual life. Nor are such predilections restricted to a cultural elite. They permeate all levels of society, and have many expressions -- varying from a predilection for Saville Row suits and opening nights at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition to a taste for British sitcoms, street culture and pop music.
Spencer quotes an American theatre critic who insists that British drama enjoys a more direct connection to the wider social climate than is the case in America. Quite whether this is true I am unable to say. What does ring true, though, are Spencer's closing comments. "There is," he writes, "also a touch of snobbery. There is a certain colonial inferiority complex here."
