VictoriaWorld: No Running Permitted in London

I have a confession to make. I am not an anglophile. I’ve never understood the fascination with England. I don’t watch The Office. I don’t laugh at Monty Python. And although I did enjoy Bridget Jones, I think that might be something most true anglophiles try to forget. I went to London for the first time when I was eight, and even then I wasn’t in awe. My two biggest memories from that trip involve being very impressed with the electric fireplace in Claridge’s, and very unimpressed with getting scolded by the doorman every time I entered the lobby with, “young lady, there is no running permitted in Claridge’s.” Point being, I’ve just never understood the deep fascination and aggrandizement some Americans feel towards Great Britain, and therefore, certainly have never fully understood the Broadway versus West End debate.

In this mornings New York Times Ben Brantley has a piece about West End Theatre entitled, “London Drama That Inspires a National Dialogue,” which is about (and I’m betting all of you readers- all 10 of you- can figure this one out) how the trend in London is towards socially relevant theatre. Although Brantley’s article reads slightly more like a vacation journal than an exploration of the differences between theatre in New York and London, it brings up an interesting discussion of why there is a difference, and why some people favor one over the other. However, I think at route there is a flaw in any discussion that simply compares New York versus London theatre, and the role each plays in its society, without examining the differences in those societies overall. Comparing theatres social impact in two different countries is completely futile if one doesn’t also compare the countries as a whole.

The most glaring problem in trying to make comparisons of the relevance of New York and London theatre is that there are so many things about the two countries that are not comparable. To start with there is the basic difference in size. Of course, this brings up the matter of socially relevant to whom? When we say “socially relevant West End theatre” do we mean relevant to citizens of London, citizens of England, or both? When we say “socially relevant Broadway theatre” do we mean relevant to New Yorkers or relevant to everyone in the United States? Although, some might argue that New York is barely in the United States, until we officially succeed from the Union, it seems to me that most Broadway theatre tries to encompass an audience that can include people from all over the country. Assuming West End theatre is the same way that would mean that the average West End play attempts to be relevant to a country about the size of Oregon (albeit more populated). Sheer mathematics would prove that it’s quite a bit harder for Broadway theatre to be relevant to all of America when the United States is so much larger than England.

It’s not only size though, but also the make up of the population. America has always been a melting pot (remember that phrase from high school government?), and therefore, again, the issue of “relevant to who” has to come up when discussing Broadway theatre. Without getting too much into the subject, it’s hard to ignore the amount of things recently written addressing the problems of separation among different ethnic groups in Europe. While America is far from perfect in this regard, on a whole there is far more diversity here, and therefore for socially relevant theatre might have to come in a different form on Broadway than it does on the West End.

Lastly, it isn’t always so easy to determine what a “national dialogue” is or what is really relevant to a society. A recent article by David Brooks explored how scientists are now realizing that in many cases the isolation and control of one gene can’t always determine a cause for behavior. This observation was then extrapolated on to conclude that the isolation and control of one factor in any social issue, such as the causes of poverty, can rarely effect the actual outcome, since instead it is a great many factors both tangible and intangible that make up most experiences. Much the same can be said about theatre. In the same way that we can’t always know why a show succeeds or fails, we can’t always know or try to gage in what way a show is relevant, and that relevance might vary greatly in every society, since most groups of people have deeply embedded ways of handling situations. Therefore, while some might argue that a play that spends two hours discussing the upcoming election is highly relevant, there is also a strong argument to be made that a show like In the Heights that does not deeply engage in discussions of politics is equally relevant to the Hispanic person who sees it, and is himself made to feel relevant.

I suppose my point in this column is simply that sometimes national relevance for theatre is more complicated than just the subject matter of the plays. Well, that, and, of course, this column should serve as a reminder to not run in Claridge’s.

By Victoria Myers