The nominations for this year’s Olivier Awards, officially announced this morning online at 12.01am, represent a clear divide that reflect an increasing reality: it’s the subsidised sector that was responsible for most of the theatrical excellence over the last year, at least as far as these awards are concerned, with 46 of the 75 nominations in the 18 theatre categories going to productions and people seen in shows that were either seen at subsidised venues, or originated in them before transferring to the West End.
The commercial sector mainly scored on musicals only: of the remaining 29 nominations taken by them, no less than 24 were for West End-originated musicals or work done in them, either as actors, directors or designers. They were for just four shows: Hairspray with a record-breaking 11, The Lord of the Rings and The Drowsy Chaperone with five each, and Little Shop of Horrors with three. (Two nominations were also taken by the West End transfer for Fiddler on the Roof, but that originated at Shefffield’s Crucible Theatre).
That leaves the West End’s contribution to the plays landscape being recognised with just five nominations in a grand total of three productions: one for Mark Rylance as Best Actor in Boeing-Boeing, with the production nominated for Best Revival; one of Stephen Wight as Best Newcomer in a Play in Dealer’s Choice, which again also receives a second nomination for Best Revival; and one for Pam Ferris in the Supporting Role category for the Old Vic’s The Entertainer.
Perhaps, as I was suggesting only yesterday, it really is time for producers to give up trying to produce plays in the West End. Even when they do, as Bill Kenwright for instance continues to do so diligently with such exemplary work as the current revival of Alan Ayckbourn’s Absurd Person Singular, it is entirely snubbed.
Instead, the tiny Donmar Warehouse has swept the boards with 13 nominations (and fast catching up with the National, which has 15). Clearly the Donmar is a place of high artistic achievement under the stewardship of Michael Grandage, as it was when Sam Mendes ran it; four of their six productions last year received nominations. But it is also one of London’s most exclusive theatres: very few people saw any of these nominated productions, with none of them going on to a further life elsewhere. Later this year, of course, the Donmar will extend its reach into the West End itself as it takes over Wyndham’s for a year-long residency, and with four more productions on its slate in 08/09 there, could dominate the Oliviers even more than it has this year over the next two years.
Of course I am not blaming the Donmar for its success: those nominations are all fully deserved. But it just makes it impossible for the West End to compete. There isn’t a level playing field when it comes to putting on plays in the financially imperilled West End, where as a producer was telling me only yesterday you have to start trying to build your audience afresh every time you put on a play, or the Donmar, which has a loyal, built-in audience (and doesn’t need much of one anyway, since they only have 250 seats to fill, which would constitute an empty house in most West End theatres).
So finally, perhaps, the Society of London Theatres who promote the Oliviers have inadvertently acknowledged that the turf war is officially lost. Its commercial members will be recognised for their musicals; but plays should be left to the subsidised sector.
Actually I think that commerical West End plays simply have to be "better" produced. It's great the Bill Kenwright produces plays in the West End but perhaps he could spend a little more money on the sets and costumes, and maybe rehearse them for more than three or four weeks so that they don't look like touring shows? Elsewhere the recent revival of Glen Gary Glen Ross was pretty good but certainly not up to the standards that it competes against from the subsidized sector. Perhaps its the failing of West End producers who haven't established trusting relationships with living playwrights that's at the heart of it. Subsidized theatres make on going commitments to artists that commercial producers fail to. By their very nature commercial producers are in it for the money but why would a playwright go to a commercial management with a new play when a subsidized theatre has been there supporting him/her through the more risky efforts? Commercial producers have to take chances if they want rewards. A look at West End commerical plays in the past few years is quite telling . As the saying goes: No Risk, No reward.
I can't help but feel that a lot of this comes down to the simple size of the venues. Musicals can be enough of a spectacle and so focussed on the music/singing/dancing that I can (at a push) accept being in Row ZD of the stalls way over at the side of the theatre, or alternatively way up in the Upper Circle. But for a play I want to see the performances up close (and be able to hear them!) so I really want to be pretty central in the first 15 rows. I can't imagine I'm alone, so who would fill the other 3/4 of the seats? Musicals benefit from large scale productions that can work commercially while plays benefit from a more intimate setting.