Nightfall (Bridge Theatre)

I saw this on 7 May and liked it a lot. While straining to hear some initial exchanges from backstage between two characters as a pipeline supplying energy was being tampered with in order to be shared with this farm, things soon moved closer and became easier to hear. I wondered whether the stage could have been set up to capture speech a bit better.

A small domestic drama, on the face of things, yet with an epic quality. All four in this cast play their parts well and from a slow start each character's intertwined dilemmas are revealed and yet not easily to be solved. It was all plausible and much of it true enough. Taking power from an energy company, and a farm owing money to a bank that wants repaying — the ironies that operate in contemporary Britain and the pressures such organisations exert on so many people form the wider context for the play. Two articles in the theatre programme, by the playwright Barney Norris and by author of Romantic Moderns, Alexandra Harris, underline the significance of what the play is about and which only Libby Purves, reviewing the play on Theatrecat website, seemed to sense the importance of.

Beautifully written, well acted, all characters making mistakes yet having a point, this important play could be just the kind of thing that college and university theatre clubs consider staging in their own right, and just as tempted into staging it will be local dramatic societies.

When the audience/critics have to rely on programme notes to give a real flavour of what the play is aiming to be "about" then I think the play has probably failed to do it on its own terms...

I didn't get the programme but did see the play. So what was it about? (Feel shame-faced that Theatre Cat understood it and I didn't.)

I am curious what the programme notes said to throw light on the production, because it seemed very unfocused to me.

That was interesting, thanks for the heads up. Something clearly went wrong with that production.

Explains a lot...

Having read his posts on his twitter account, you really do have to respect the guy for his honesty in his assessment of what happened as well as making it public. It cannot have been easy for him to have made the decision to do what he did and he has my full respect for taking this action. Hopefully he can turn what has been an unpleasant experience into something positive long term,

Happens so often. The producing theatre wants what they think will be the best work! That may mean they end up coming down on one side of the fence (whether their judgement is, in the end, right) rather than worrying too much about the relationship management. Although newer writers being thrust in the spotlight need nurturing and support - and it’s a huge shame that this was not the case for BN. God, creative industries are TOUGH.

Fair point. I wonder if he had aired his concerns through official channels if there are any but felt they where not being addressed behind closed doors and felt he had no other option but to air the issues through social media. Definitely agree that maybe in the cold light of day it may of been wiser to of taken an alternative approach to airing any grievances with the director.

Twitter is very reactionary

And it can come across the wrong way you see

I think a lot of people have been in Norris' position. You've given up successful working relationships for the cash monies, only for it not to work out.

I said earlier in the thread that The Bridge and other theatres needed to support emerging writers better because such critical panning (both professional and word of mouth) can destroy careers. Ultimately Norris is covering his arse, he needs to work again and he may be valid in his criticisms of the director and the production but sadly what has gone cannot be undone.

I think Hytner and Starr underestimated what made Norris work, I think Laurie Sansom probably wasn't the best person to direct it but if it had been a better work from Norris then maybe these issues wouldn't be so prevalent.

I think he makes good points about transfers such as Misty, Nine Night etc needing to change production teams to cope with the new space and I agree that artistic relationships are important but whilst I think he has been as diplomatic as he can there will be people who won't forget his 'unprofessionalism'.

A bit of a sense of entitlement on display there ? Very unprofessional to air it on Twitter. In film, where most of our writers and directors are keen to work, the writers’ work is routinely altered by others. The commercial theatre (The Bridge) is a step down from that but ultimately something has to be done if the text isn’t good enough.

Theatre directors, either directly or by proxy, routinely alter and add to texts but normally the writer is dead so no one seems to care, witness the hatchet jobs perpetrated by young British playwrights on classic plays by Ibsen and Chekhov which have been highly praised rather than being the subject of condemnation on Twitter citing the sanctity of the writer’s text.