 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 28 Sep. - 4 Oct. 2000 Issue No. 501 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 28 Sep. - 4 Oct. 2000 Issue No. 501
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Elections Region International Economy Opinion Culture Special Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Plain Talk
By Mursi Saad El-Din
Recent debates on the state of English culture now have got me to thinking. First there was V.S. Naipaul's attack on "plebeian culture". New Labour, he maintained, is not pursuing the interests of "the common man," but rather debasing the whole culture. Other attacks followed. One commentator, a stickler for "high culture," accused New Labour of wanting "to see the end of the continuous aristocratic culture which has defined British life." Art under labour, he added, equals cheap populism.
Although a plebeian myself, I cannot help sympathising with what could quite easily be labelled snobbism. I feel this is due to the drastic changes that have beset British life, so much so that what my generation knew and loved is no longer in evidence. To give an example: an avid reader of the Sunday Times since my days as a cultural attaché in London, I have continued to receive the newspaper, a day late, since my return in 1956, often using its "Culture" supplement as raw material for my column. Yet through the years I have noticed radical alterations in both the style and content of the Sunday Times. The majestic purity of British English, for one thing, has been polluted by Americanisms. Abbreviations and an increasing propensity for narrowly local references make the newspaper even harder to understand for readers like myself, who never used to have difficulties with the British variety of the global language par excellence.
Language aside, however, the Sunday Times no longer publishes its incredibly useful "Books" supplement, which invariably included a number of excellent articles as well as the usual book reviews. Sadly this has now been incorporated into the "Culture" supplement, whose uneven mix of topics emphasises certain subjects at the expense of others, perhaps more worthy of commentary. One branch of culture that has suffered, for example, is the theatre. England has always been a vibrant theatrical centre and a venue for remarkable productions, supplying the world with such unique talents as John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, Lawrence Olivier, Vivien Leigh, Flora Robson, Sybil Thorndike. All of these, I must add, I witnessed first hand in the context of great performances, the likes of which, alas, have not been witnessed since.
At a time when the theatre perhaps requires the most attention, though, the "Culture" supplement plays second fiddle to films, rock music and modern dance. The supplement barely manages to squeeze theatrical productions in between concert reviews and updates on the film scene. And yet prior to this tendency taking over, theatre reviews provided effective lessons in critical writing as well as luminous cultural commentaries. This is particularly disappointing in the light of England's leading theatrical role through the whole of the 20th century.
England has always been home to the best plays, and even America's leading film stars considered the British stage the apex of their careers. I recall seeing Edward G. Robinson in Death of a Salesman, Katherine Hepburn in The Millionaires as well as many others. Even now, as David Benedich puts it, the "London stage is awash with scantily-clad Hollywood actors in search of credibility. Movie stars are box-office gold -- but are they killing our theatre?" Benedich sums up this tendency by saying that it is not so much theatre as star gazing. It is about creating an event in a theatre, he insists, and not about developing an audience with an appetite for the unique possibilities of live drama.
Well, maybe Naipaul is right. His attitude combines snobbery with nostalgia. But it is equally a premonition of cultural decline, as saddening as it is true. So much, in fact, is practically extinct that one is invariably tinged with distaste for a cultural situation in which one does not belong. It is, as David Aaranovitch puts it, "a view of a world in which everyone else is the dumb recipient of marketing, branding and global homogenisation." The problem is that popular culture remains very popular.
