I WISH it could be 2019 again. I got the last ticket. The place was packed. People to the right of me, people to the left. Noisy. Raucous. Nine hundred souls, all in the same room. The curtain goes up. Gillian Anderson. Red hair, red dress, red shoes. “Fasten your seatbelts,” she says to us. “It’s going to be a bumpy night.”
I have to say: that opening performance of All About Eve at the Noel Coward Theatre in the West End, with Anderson in the Betty Davis role, was one of the best nights in the theatre I’ve ever had and, as usual, it wasn’t just because of the show. It was because of the other stuff too: the friends I was with, the food, the beer, the crowd, the noise, the street, the lights, the everything. Then: coronavirus.
The theatres have done their best with it. There have been a few performances with “distanced” audiences, and there are plans for open-air performances too. Pitlochry Festival Theatre, for example, has just announced an outdoor season for the summer (and I look and think: ‘ah, but the rain’). I also remember the freezing night I spent at The Minack outdoor theatre in Cornwall: Atlantic winds. Cornish rain. I forget the show.
I know, in an attempt to fill the gap, there have been online performances, but whereas a real audience can boost your energy, a computer can sap it, so you end up feeling worse, not better. Before the pandemic, I was also a bit of a regular at the National Theatre’s productions beamed into cinemas (including Gillian Anderson, wonderful again in Streetcar Named Desire) and it worked because you still had the live production and you still had the audience. But watching actors on your laptop is not the same.
So what happens next? There’s talk of the innovation continuing and audience expectations changing, but underneath it all is a grim economic reality that you won’t see on the stage or read about in the programmes: most theatres and venues cannot survive on a much-reduced audience of around 20%. They need to be 60% full or in some cases 80% to make it work.
What this means is that many of the shows that will go ahead this summer will make a loss, which leaves most theatres with a dilemma: do they open up with reduced audiences to remind people they’re there (and make a loss)? Or do they stay shut and wait until they can open up again under the pre-virus conditions?
I know which one I’d like. I do not want to sit in a half-empty room with a mask on my face. I want people to the right of me, people to the left. I want it to be noisy and raucous. I want 900 souls, all in the same room, and ideally I want the curtain to go up and Gillian Anderson to say: “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”
I think this is also the best plan for theatres. Not only is opening up early economically risky, there’s the danger of having to close down again if the virus spikes. Many thousands of performers, designers, and other theatre staff have lost their careers; hundreds of shows that were planned never happened. Better to return on a solid rather than shaky foundation; wait until later in the year when theatres can be normal and then open up completely. No masks, no sanitiser, no one-way systems, none of it.
We should be hopeful it can happen, with the vaccination programme rollicking ahead. The surveys show, sadly but understandably, that many people are cautious about going to the theatre again. But I wonder how we’ll feel when we’re back in there? Like many others, I’ve spent an awful lot of time on my own over the last year, but now I think back to 2019. I took that night-out in London for granted. Crowds spread viruses, but crowds are good for us too. They make us feel better. They make us feel happy. They remind us that we are not alone.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel