Should GCSE Drama students be able to pass without stepping foot inside a theatre?

In a recent Drama lecture at my university, I was shocked to discover that a large portion of the students in attendance had not been to the theatre within the last year.  For me this seemed unbelievable and quite frankly unacceptable. Surely Drama students not only need to go to the theatre, but also very much want to, and as there are plenty of opportunities for young people to see see fantastic theatre thriftily what excuse could a student studying Drama possibly give for not having gone to the theatre at least once in the last year? 

The way I see it, arts jobs are limited as it is, and although theatre (and West End theatre in particular) is often quite lucrative, those working in the industry don't always receive the highest salaries. I go to the theatre quite often, and as such I like to think that I am doing my bit to support the industry that I want to work in. To complain about not being able to find an arts job while not supporting the arts industry oneself is hugely hypocritical.

But how does this fit in with the current discussion about whether GCSE Drama students should have to attend live theatre as part of their qualification? 

Well first and foremost it should be noted that the Drama GCSE isn't designed to provide in-depth training in acting, stage managing, directing etc., just as GCSE Biology students don't finish their GCSEs as qualified doctors. GCSE Drama is meant to ignite a passion for theatre within those who study it so that they can go on to study it in further depth at college and eventually university or drama school. For some it is the first step on the route to a career in the arts industry. 

Of course, recorded theatre via Digital Theatre or National Theatre Live etc. is an absolutely brilliant innovation which I myself have utilised countless times. However, nothing compares to the immediacy, intimacy and pure excitement of sitting in a theatre and experiencing a play first hand. To deny a young person the chance to experience the thrill of live theatre would be shameful. Digital theatre productions should be shown to students in addition to seeing live theatre, not as an alternative. To replace a trip to the theatre with classroom experience is to devalue the importance of going to the theatre, and makes it seem like an inconvenience rather than something to be enjoyed. 

But most importantly, on the most basic level, students studying Drama should be seen as just as important as those studying any other subject. At my school Language students could go on weeklong trips to France, Geography students went on residential trips to Wales to study tourism there, and Science students went to seminars and workshops at local universities. Therefore the idea that Drama students shouldn't be allowed an afternoon off to visit the theatre is a completely laughable, and highlights the way some educators view GCSE drama and those who study it. 

So in conclusion, although I am a huge fan of recorded plays, the idea that an impressionable 14 year old could spend 2 years studying drama and never once step inside a theatre is just laughable.

Throwback - NT Live:Frankenstein

I've talked before about my love of National Theatre Live, and of my love of cinema releases of stage productions in general, and so when my uni hired out a screen at the local cinema so that the English Literature undergrads could see the National Theatre's 2011 production of Frankenstein, I jumped at the opportunity and grabbed a ticket for both myself and my equally enthusiastic English and Classics studying friend!

What initially attracted me to this particular production was the fact that Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller alternated the roles of Frankenstein and his monster. I thought that this was an incredible acting feat in itself, and the short documentary about the production that played before the play began really reiterated that.

The filmed production which I saw featured Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Frankenstein and Johnny Lee Miller as the Monster. The pair were absolutely glorious in their roles. I loved Miller's childlike curiosity, and the way that it juxtaposed with his horrific, dark side. Cumberbatch too was brilliant, though I would have liked to see his monster, as I feel the Doctor was very much the epitome of the character that Cumberbatch has sadly been typecast as. That being said, his performance was nothing short of excellent. Naomi Harris was another wonderful addition to the cast! Although she played Cumberbatch's wife, a relatively small role, she acted so subtlety and emotionally, the performance she gave was really heartfelt.

As you would expect of a National Theatre production, the set design and costume was absolutely top notch. The addition of a part-mechanical, part-physical-theatre-y steam train entering the stage not only looked awe inspiring, but made for one of the most exciting scene changed I have ever experienced.

Sadly though, there were elements which I did dislike, such as the addition of an uncomfortable rape scene near to the end. It felt gratuitous, added for the sole purpose of shock value, not because it was necessary or helped the audience to understand the characters involved any better than they did beforehand.

As a whole though, the production was enjoyable, fresh and remarkably well acted.

Twitter: @OddJazzShoes

Bloglovin: Talkstageytome

Throwback - Othello (NT Live)

Theatre on film, is it a good or a bad idea? Well, before I attended my first NT Live screening last week I wasn’t sure what I thought of the idea, but on reflection I can’t believe I ever had doubts.

So firstly, let’s talk about Othello as a play. If you haven’t read it then I won’t spoil it, because it is a play that you simply must read! There are so many twists and turns that a short synopsis could never do it justice! However just to give you some context, here is the plot overview as given by the Nation Theatre…

 “Othello, newly married to Desdemona who is half his age, is appointed leader of a military operation to defend Cyprus from the Turks. Iago, his ensign, passed over for promotion in favour of young Cassio, persuades Othello that Cassio and Desdemona are having an affair.”

I think the first thing I need to mention is that this particular performance was staged in a modern setting, with the soldiers wearing modern soldier costumes and the civilians all sporting some fetching chinos and boat shoes (clearly an attempt at contemporary clothing, however the effect was laughably ‘hipstery’. I expected to see Desdemona tweeting pictures of herself with a Starbucks against the backdrop of a Cyprian warzone at some points, however, this particular scene never materialised). That’s not to say that the staging doesn’t work well. It does. In fact, I think the fact that it works so well demonstrates the ability of Shakespearean texts to stand the test of time, and also the genius mind of Director Nicholas Hytner. The characters seemed perfectly at home in the contemporary setting, and the issues that the text addresses complemented this setting too.

Now, time to discuss the cast, possibly the most important element of a performance. In the particular production I was most excited to see Rory Kinnear, a favourite actor of mine, take on the sinister role of treacherous Iago. I wasn’t disappointed in the slightest. Kinnear’s brilliantly creepy Iago is the best I’ve ever seen. Even when he’s not talking his presence is still felt. As for Adrian Lester, I believe this was a role that he was born to play! He captivates the audience and embodies everything that Othello is! Jonathan Bailey and Lyndsey Marshal are also notable in their roles as Cassio and Emilia respectively!

Of course the production was wonderful, as one would expect of the National Theatre in its 50^th year. I honestly have no real negative points to this production; it was exactly what I hoped for in a production of this fantastic play. Spectacular!