Sir Alan Ayckbourn,Two Interviews by Stacey Morley..page5

home

Two Interviews:Sir Alan Ayckbourn...page5

^{written by:} Stacey Morley

Interview of July 29, 1997:

S.M.- That was interesting that play. Did your experiences of being an actor/technical/director help at all with the knowledge of what will or won't work. 'Man Of The Moment' has a massive swimming pool in it - did you know that was going to work?

A.A.- Oh yes. With 'Man Of The Moment' - yes the swimming pool came about (I mean it was pretty useful dramatically later). It was written in to say this means success to that characters wealth - he's really just a glorified small-time criminal - that sort of Villa in Majorca is the place they all sort of go. Having been there I must say it amazes me that they escape (Pentonville Prison) and put themselves behind iron gates, barricades, bigger prisons than they've run away from but er yes it was quite interesting, yes it was technical and I like technical.

I think one of the interesting things about growing up in the theatre, within it, being at one stage a stage manager and I still do my own sound effects. I have my own studio and I dub the sound on things - I'm quite a hands-on director. I have a very strong input, I don't tell everyone how to do his job but when I'm writing I have a very strong technical input. I write detailed technical directions. Working with a new writer like Rob Shearman - the guy sitting on the seat just up from you - he's very, very, good and very, very ambitious about what he wants to write but he still, I'm still saying no, no, no, you can't actually do that. If you want the ceiling leaking, terrific, we'll have the ceiling leaking but it's stopping it that's a problem and letting it go throughout the play is irritating. Suddenly you want to change the scene and you've got bl, bl, bl, we sort these out, but they are the sort of things which writers don't necessarily, they learn about, it doesn't make them great writers but it makes them more practical as theatre writers. My biggest thing, is that theatre writing is nothing to do with television writing, is nothing to do with screen writing, or very little to do with it, it's absolute theatre, about the technical nuts and bolts of theatre as well as writing the play and writing and the ideal writer is an all rounder and they can write technically and deal with things that work but they also can write, spiritually if you like, about other things and not interfere with the two. I usually have a very firm idea about what I want, partly now because I direct my own stuff and I'm aware when I'm writing I'm going to have to solve those problems in a couple of months - there's no point in me writing 'she disappears into thin air' unless I had a very good idea or had talked to someone about how I'm going to do it. Things happen in this theatre. The Round here allows me to do things like last Christmas I wrote a play about a chap in Parabanoo and in it has a magic carpet ride. Well I knew by then before I wrote it, we would have the stage and we could shove something up so the carpet could actually rise up in the air, it was only a tiny part of the whole but we thought it was very good. The kids were really expecting it to sit on the ground and for us to say, "We're now flying" and suddenly there were clouds of smoke from underneath the carpet and it went up about 8 feet and they went "Wow" and when they saw it was obviously supported in some way, but they still thought it was great. And I think that sort of fun in theatre is very important you know. Sometimes its injected by the Director in order to give it but my great argument is that - that is - if writers sit around beefing about directors, directors theatre, which they do quite a lot the reason is they've handed most of it in to them. I think if you are not prepared to take on the visual side as well as everything else then they don't respect you if the Director has to do it for you. I read a play, I read plays quite often, you find the play but you say, "What am I going to do while these people are saying all this, you can't actually just sit there and say it but then another writer seems to manage it and drive it through with action and activity and you think. 'Oh no' the activity is a little bit strange - three people building a house on stage and sorting out their life is much more interesting than watching three people sitting around sorting out their lives. You could actually integrate the building of the home into some sort of element of their antagonism or whatever.

S.M.- This is a morbid question, I don't mean to be morbid but it's said that a measure of a writer is the lasting quality of his work hence Chekov,Shaw, Shakespeare etc. They deal with many issues that you yourself do - love/revenge/unrequited love/comedy of manners. After your death how do you see the lasting quality of your writing, do you think it will last and do you think the SJT will last without you?

[back]|[page6]