An Unpopular Opinion

Okay, now we really have an issue.

(Before I begin, I must give this disclaimer: I think that Benedict Cumberbatch and Andrew Scott are incredibly talented actors, and the energy they bring to both stage and screen is sensational.  Also, I adore the National Theatre...however that adoration is somewhat compromised, now.)

I had just about come to terms with the constant influx of celebrity into London theatre, and rationalised that it’s all just part of the glitz and glamour of the West End.  If a known face who also happens to be a great talent encourages new audiences into theatre, then great.  Go ahead.  But, when it was announced that Benedict Cumberbatch would be playing Hamlet at the Barbican, I metaphorically slammed my fist on the table and said “No.  That’s enough.   We do not need another Hamlet, and we certainly don’t need another heartthrob actor in the role.”  We do not need an audience gushing over the actor on stage, meanwhile paying zero attention to Lyndsey Turner’s interpretation of this severely over-producedplay.  The real event will be the screaming hordes of fans kicking around the stage door after the show desperate for a selfie and an autograph.  Anything to do with the actual production?  Forget it.

My gripe is not with Benedict Cumberbatch having a fan base, because he absolutely deserves one due to his talent as an actor and for the effort he devotes to his work.  A fan base pouring into the Barbican auditorium just to be a little bit closer to that beautiful face, however, is not a productive approach to audience development.  It is vein, it is not founded in celebrating the talents of the production team and I cannot believe it is of sincere benefit to Cumberbatch’s career.  Those audience statistics may as well be thrown straight out of the window.  

And yet, I had also managed to come to terms with this.  The amount of money generated through ticket sales that will go back into the Barbican pocket is quite a nice thing, and means they can continue to produce otherwise exciting work and indulge in their education and outreach programmes. I understand: it is a guaranteed relief, like pantomime is to a regional theatre, or the effect of having lots of young children with big families in an amateur production.  It is an economically smart move, even if it is perpetuating the issue of an industry full of incredibly talented actors who are sorely out of work.  That is another issue for another day, like the never-ending proliferation of productions of Shakespeare which we can only hope will dwindle with time.

But that’s just it.  I expected these issues to shuffle quietly into the corner and become just another part of theatreland, like paying £6 for a programme and the inevitable 20 minute queue for the ladies’ toilet.  But then the National announced this, and I just about flipped.

For a donation of £20, you can be entered into a prize draw for you and a friend to win afternoon tea with Benedict Cumberbatch and Andrew Scott.  I mean, of course I wouldn’t say no.  Of course not.  I would fawn and faint and remember that afternoon fondly for the rest of my life.  But also, I can't help but feel that it is worsening an 'us and them' mentality in theatre's audiences.  Taking money from one half of the demographic and passing it over to the other makes perfect sense, in a Robin Hood sort of way.  But it seems to be built on a premise that is mutually patronising, as if the Sherlock TV junkies/afternoon tea-drinkers are worlds apart from the fledgling artists.  Potentially, this can be the declaration of a brick wall between the commercial theatre goers and the fringe/pub venue audience, maintaining the barriers between them, both financially and artistically.

Fine.  Whatever.  Yes, please do create events and schemes that bring financial aid to supporting young directors, actors and designers.  And if the National can also find a way to bring the Travelex tickets back down from £15 to £12, I can just about get on board.  But the answer to supporting our National Theatre while it creates work that questions the society we live in, and encourages artists to bring new catalysts to those questions, is not in aggravating the very issue that causes hindrance to that support. 

Or is it?  I’m beginning to wonder whether I have got it completely wrong.  Is this what audiences really want?  Evidently so, if this is what theatre is having to resort to for sourcing audiences and funds.

In answer to my own question, I refer to a passage from Ray Bradbury’s Farenheit451:

“So bring on your clubs and parties, your acrobats and magicians, your dare-devils, jet cars, motor cycle helicopters, your sex and heroin, more of everything to do with automatic reflex. If the drama is bad, if the film says nothing, if the play is hollow, sting me with the theremin, loudly. I'll think I'm responding to the play, when it's only a tactile reaction to vibration. But I don't care. I just like solid entertainment.”