Hare-coursing
Sir: I am never entirely sure of the ethics involved in having your contributors use you as a kind of poste restante, but David Hare's characteristically superbly written Diary (25 May) does, I fear, need one or two footnotes.
First, in telling us of the apparent 'art- lessness' of Mike Nichols in The Designated Mourner, Hare might also have told us that a) he was the director and b) as such, allowed Nichols to use a concealed autocue on stage. This might not much have mat- tered in this very sedentary production, but imagine the next time an O'Toole or a Nicol Williamson or a Richard Harris agrees to a National King Lear and asks for the prompting device, only to be told that there was one law for Nichols and another for the 'real' actors in the profession.
Second, Hare's recollection of the Lloyds Bank affair needs considerable correction. I was one of the jury (incidentally the prize we give is from Lloyds Private Banking rather than Lloyds) and indeed we nomi- nated Hare's Skylight, in my view the best new play of last year, as one of our 12 final- ists from an original list of 50 plays seen around the country.
His agent told us somewhat sheepishly that Hare would only attend the prize- giving dinner if he could be told in advance that he had won. Told that we simply couldn't reveal that, since it had been a secret ballot and the winner would be known even to the judges only on the night of the prize-giving, it was then Hare, not us, who threatened legal action. Unlike all 11 other finalists, including some of the great- est playwrights in the land, he alone demanded through lawyers that his name
LETTERS
be removed from the shortlist and all advertising associated with the prize, for which, in the event, he was a close runner- up to The Steward of Christendom.
Lloyds Private Bank lawyers told us that he had not a legal leg to stand on, but the sponsors decided at vast expense to them- selves that they would in any case honour his feelings. Again, however, the precedent is terrifying. Hare had a perfect right to decline to attend the dinner, but none whatsoever to demand that a panel of inde- pendent judges, mainly London drama crit- ics, should be allowed to nominate for this £25,000 prize only those writers who allow themselves to be so nominated.
On reflection, I believe we were altogeth- er too accommodating to Hare's evidently very shaky ego. As for his devotion to the Evening Standard system of forewarning winners, there is just one subtle difference here. The Standard can, and does, self- promote its own awards at vast length with- in its own paper, even if other nationals then tend to ignore them. Lloyds Private Banking has no such guaranteed access to the papers: in return for their vastly gener- ous and costly sponsorship of these awards, they require some kind of tension on the night itself to arouse press interest.
These awards and others like them are not, as Hare seems to think, 'a gift'; they are indeed a contest, settled by votes. Would he like us also to forewarn the win- ners of the next election?
Sheridan Morley
Chelsea Harbour, London SWIG
Previous page
