I was exposed to the idea that, the play is dead - or dying recently and with the resource of a cluster of writers, directors, dramaturg, producer and sound designer what a splendid opportunity to discuss this. Even more exciting has been the opportunity to pose this loaded, dangerous question to two writers who fall nothing short of inspirational, Tim Crouch and Mike Bartlett. Although I will not go into great detail as to their individual opinions on the matter, for fear of mis-representing their many words - lets just say they are firm believers in the life of the play, its strength and relevance - if it is not too much to suggest, both were intrigued that such a question could even be posed.
So, is the play 'dead'? Of course not.
It is of course alive, it is of course as alive now as it was hundreds of years ago as it has ever been. It has changed, yes, it is still changing and has embraced revolutions in form but the play - the telling of a story for an audience through dramatic action, is alive and will, I predict remain.
There is the opportunity here, in this time to discuss the relevance of certain types of playmaking BUT then who is any theatre maker to suggest any form is more worthy, has greater merit than another? Moreover, if the play is dead, then what is it supplanted with - who has murdered it and what comes in its wake?!
I propose that there is nothing determinable, willing and ready to replace the play - there is no "new" form now, just a multitude of alternatives of equal necessity and relevance. For even the avant-garde, even the most progressive companies and practitioners are making plays - they are working with dramatic action and through a process of play and presentation of play for an audience are adhering to the characteristics of the play form, perhaps it demeans their artistry, their socio-politcal position to admit it though?
I find myself taking great interest in this debate and will side with the before mentioned playwrights who asked the same question of what replaces the play in this postdramatic landscape (if such a landscape even does exist - I propose it does not). One loaded word that seems to appear, an awful lot is 'experience', audiences comment on the great experience - the experiential, they are moved physically - feel fear and in authoring their own experiences are persuaded they are not watching a play at all ?! What a dangerous word experience is then if it is the only heir to the form of the play.
Let me pause.
I enjoy immersive theatrical performance, I enjoy experiential drama but have an experience in a theatre such as the Royal Court watching Enron, watching The Author, watching, Life is a Dream at the Donmar, or Pains of Youth at the National. These examples form a broad spectrum of practice, of writing, style, genre, directorial approach, design concept and audience involvement. I have liked and disliked, loved and loathed these productions, they are of the established theatre here in the UK and yet to me they gave me an experience, I was immersed and yet these are terms now solely located to, say the work of Punchdrunk, of Shunt (not bad companies, both create exceptional work). Why?
I have worked with site specific practices, I have worked with new writing, I have worked with large and small ensembles, at Contact in Manchester. My practice is broad, my approach reflects my contemporary location in a culture- what is it I do though if the play is dead and I am directing a play, such as The Chairs, such as The Taming of the Shrew, The Cherry Orchard?! Am I to die too for not relocating the action to a warehouse, switching out the lights and letting the audience experience anything - so long as it is not a play?!
As a maker of theatre, a 'wrighter' of theatre I seek to make work that is relevant, brings something new and has an honest gesture of truth, if only my truth, for an audience and of an audience. This work may, like the painter or sculptor need to be wrought in a specific way, out of a specific material or from a particular palette - it may be site based, generic or specific, for proscenium, promenade or black box. This is not a concern, it is exciting, it is the diversity of contemporary practice. I seek to tell a story and if I want to work with a writer who has authored a particular story then I want to tell that story. Equally if I want to work with 20, even 200 performers and discover a story from any stimulus, present this work away from a theatre building then I will do so. All of this is play making, it is the act of play through process and play for an audience - who lets be honest don't care about how the work was made or really even who is responsible for it. They are attending for a story - to see a world, to see a drama - it is cheating them if all we can provide is an experience, for what is different from a light show in an abandoned warehouse (without a story) to the light show in the sky at a firework display?
The play is alive, it should be kept alive and will live on so long as no distinction is made as to merit - if we lose the love of play making then what shall replace the joy of watching, of listening to stories that have been made, wrought out of an honest, truthful gesture by a maker whose artistry is not limited by definitions of good and bad contemporary performance, who should be free to labour out of love for play - for making plays.
