THE NATIONAL THEATRE Sin.—Before Mr. Andrew Knight metaphorically expires in
the sludge of his own verbosity, he might be more explicit about the howls of disappointment arising in Leicestershire over the appointment of a Director to the National Theatre, which obviously should be weighed against the jubilation in Sussex over the same Director's work at Chichester. No doubt he is gratified that the opportunity arose to tell us of the 'ululation' rising round him. What 'rises round me,' however, is a very different kind of protest—that generally (with erudite exceptions) theatre criticism is harsh and irresponsible, and if the state of affairs persists we shall eventually have no Theatre at all, or only a National (or subsidised) one.
His declaration of 'irrelevance' is hardly tenable when one examines Mr. Gascoigne's review that specified 'mood,' the dynamism of the director' in relation to seven companies, the implied potential of Michael Elliot, Peer Gynt, back-projection, etc. It is also my impression that it unjustifiably attacked Sir Laurence Olivier as Director of the National Theatre, and emphasised a nonsensical assertion about the last regime at the Old Vic, which I origin- ally repudiated and hope that Mr. John Lambert's letter did much to dispel. 'Marginally relevant' in- deed! To talk airily of 'standing and aura' without considering how it is created in practical terms, seems an exercise in vacuity.
Frankly, I am not very concerned how often Mr. Knight goes to the theatre, but am shrewd enough to notice that he shifts from one uninspired position to another with remarkable facility when 'hoist with his own petard.'
Why, one wonders, are these two gentlemen, who decided to take up the cudgels, so outraged at my daring to uphold or praise one 'style of theatrical expression' as a constructive opinion? Not, I sus- pect, because they are 'average theatregoers,' whom, incidentally, I never termed as parrots. These are noisy and repetitious creatures, while audiences are mainly the voiceless ones who simply stay away. Clearly, I alluded to reviewers, who are in a (privil- eged) position to generate animosity—if the cap fits Andrew Knight and Paul Bailey, let them wear it!
Previous page
