Royal Court counter attack….

The public war on the circumstances surrounding the cancellation (or indefinite postponement) of the New York run of My Name is Rachel Corrie wages on. After I reported here the comments of Katherine Viner, Guardian journalist and adaptor of Corrie’s words with director Alan Rickman, and New York Theatre Workshop artistic director James Nicola’s reply, the Royal Court itself has now replied even more trenchantly.

“We have been surprised to read recent assertions made by James Nicola, they say, and “there are many factual inaccuracies which we would like to address”.

Replying to Nicola’s assertion, “we asked a rather routine question, or so we thought, to our London colleagues about altering the time frame,” they have replied: “Plans for the production of My Name is Rachel Corrie were definite. Representatives of the Royal Court met with NYTW in New York to finalise arrangements seven days before learning that Mr Nicola wished to postpone the run indefinitely. The production schedule had already been laid out by the NYTW on January 31st, with the first preview scheduled for March 22nd and closing night for May 14th; a budget had been set; a press release had been mutually agreed; flights had been booked and paid for, all with the knowledge of New York Theatre Workshop. Furthermore, ticket information was already listed on the site of the US ticketing agency Telecharge on February 23rd, 2006 with the correct information about dates, times, original creative team and casting. Asking for a postponement at this stage in the planning can hardly be described as ‘a rather routine question, so we thought, of our colleagues’ as Mr Nicola says in his statement on the NYTW website.”

Again, in reply to Nicola’s assertion that the timetable for production had been driven by director Alan Rickman’s pre-existing film commitments that gave them “less than two months to consider mounting the production, the Court replies: “In fact, Alan Rickman first visited the New York Theatre Workshop to discuss the possibility of staging My Name is Rachel Corrie in November 2005. The dates of the production were determined by availability at the theatre, and Mr Rickman’s film schedule was to be ordered around this. He held back from making any film commitments until after the dates were offered and confirmed by NYTW.”

The Royal Court also reports a conversation between Nicola and their general manager, Diane Borger, in which it is said that he “would be willing to reassess the political climate in a year’s time and decide then if he could produce the piece with a companion work that would offer an alternative perspective.” This was not acceptable to the Court, as “he gave no commitment at this time to revised dates for the production at NYTW. The Royal Court and the Corrie Family have always believed that the play speaks for itself. In the words of Rachel’s father, Craig Corrie, “No one should have to take a poll to do this play; it is a work of art.”

And the Court concludes, “A postponement at any time, but especially at this late stage, is not the action of an organisation committed to producing My Name is Rachel Corrie. The Royal Court cannot be confident that the political climate will have changed in a year’s time, and we are deeply saddened that New York Theatre Workshop feels unable to let the play be seen now. However, the Royal Court remains committed to bringing My Name is Rachel Corrie to a US audience at the earliest opportunity.”

Expect the Royal Court, therefore, to be seeking a new producing partner for a US run.