It seems the National Theatre, a supposed bastion of artistic excellence, is currently grappling with a rather peculiar predicament. From what I gather, they're in dire need of some serious editorial guidance, and frankly, it's a bit baffling. The recent docudrama, "In The Print," a piece delving into the ferocious battle between Rupert Murdoch and the print unions in the 1980s, has left me with more questions than answers about the theatre's own judgment.
The Murdoch Wars: A Missed Opportunity for Nuance
This play, "In The Print," attempts to chronicle the seismic shift in the newspaper industry, where Rupert Murdoch, with his characteristic ruthlessness, sought to break the power of the unions and usher in an era of computerised printing. The source material paints a vivid picture of the 'inkies,' earning astronomical sums for minimal work, and their union, Sogat, behaving with what can only be described as audacious impunity. Personally, I find the sheer audacity of submitting wage claims for fictional characters like 'Donald Duck' to be both hilarious and deeply indicative of the power dynamics at play. It’s a testament to how entrenched and, dare I say, almost farcical the situation had become.
What makes this whole saga particularly fascinating from my perspective is Murdoch's strategic brilliance. His announcement of a new daily, the "London Paper," and the establishment of a printing factory in Wapping, were masterstrokes of deception. The revelation that it was all a hoax, with no journalists hired and no PR firm engaged, is a detail that immediately stands out. It highlights a level of strategic thinking that, while perhaps ethically questionable, was undeniably effective in outmanoeuvring his opponents. The ensuing chaos, with union activists resorting to violence and hoping for American intervention, paints a grim but compelling picture of industrial warfare.
However, and this is where my commentary truly kicks in, the play itself seems to falter in its execution. The source material suggests that while the characters of Murdoch and the union leader, Brenda Dean, are formidable, their conflict is largely mediated, lacking the raw, personal intensity one might expect. This is a shame, because the human element is often what makes historical conflicts truly resonate. Furthermore, the portrayal of supporting characters like Kelvin MacKenzie and Andrew Neil as mere caricatures feels like a missed opportunity to explore the broader personalities that shaped this era. What this really suggests to me is a reluctance on the part of the playwright to delve into the messy, complex realities of these individuals, opting instead for a more superficial depiction.
The "Authenticator": A Mechanical Marvel Lacking Soul
Then we have "The Authenticator," a Gothic mystery set in a sprawling mansion. On the surface, it promises intrigue and suspense. The concept of archivists Abi and Marva being led through a house filled with shifting sets and hidden mechanisms is, in theory, quite engaging. The engineers among us might appreciate the mechanical ingenuity, the pop-up cupboards and swivelling bookshelves. But from a theatrical standpoint, and this is where I think the National Theatre might be missing the mark, it feels dramatically inert. Theatre-goers, in my opinion, crave more than just clever stagecraft; they want a story that grips them, characters that they can invest in.
What I find particularly bewildering is the play's apparent obsession with every minor detail. The statue of the serving boy, the unseen chef Madge, the grime artist whose video is being filmed – all are presented as potentially significant, yet they seem to lead nowhere. This diffusion of focus, this scattering of potential plot threads, is what makes the show almost impossible to follow. It’s as if the writer, Winsome Pinnock, has thrown every idea at the wall without bothering to see what sticks. And if the source material is to be believed, the producers haven't bothered to refine it either. This, to me, raises a deeper question: does anyone at the National Theatre understand the difference between a nascent idea and a polished, stage-ready production? It certainly doesn't seem like it.
A Crisis of Curation or Execution?
In my opinion, the issues plaguing these productions point to a more fundamental problem. It's not just about individual scripts; it's about the overall curation and developmental process. Are they commissioning raw, unrefined drafts and expecting them to magically transform into compelling theatre? Or is there a lack of critical feedback and editorial support throughout the creative journey? What many people don't realize is that even the most brilliant playwright needs a strong editorial hand to guide their work from a first draft to a final, impactful performance. The National Theatre, an institution that should be setting the standard, appears to be struggling with this basic tenet of creative production.
If you take a step back and think about it, the stakes are incredibly high. The National Theatre is meant to be a national treasure, a place that showcases the best of British theatre. To see it faltering in such a visible way is, frankly, disheartening. My personal take is that they need to re-evaluate their entire process, from script selection to rehearsal room support. They need help, not just in the form of better writers, but in the form of experienced editors and dramaturgs who can help shape these raw materials into something truly extraordinary. The question then becomes: can they recognize this need and act upon it before their reputation suffers further?
