I regret starting with the use of some dirty words that I fear may offend; words heard often enough that never cease to cause contention and, paradoxically, a relative theatrical silence. Global warming, climate change, green. There, they’re out in the open now and I would suggest airing all offense at this point so my words can trundle along in relative peace.
I am not so much concerned with what theatres can do to make themselves, as buildings and businesses, greener - although this is a valid thinking point. Across the board theatres are seen to be taking steps to make themselves more environmentally friendly, and yet the content of the work produced rarely seems to veer in that direction.
At this point some valid interjections may be offered; ‘what about the recent spate of productions with precisely this theme at some high-profile London theatres?’. In the past two years, both the National Theatre and the Royal Court have tried their hand at environmental theatre with varying successes. In both cases, however, the theatrical production elements have been lauded above the content that, in some cases, has even been sneered at. Climate change as a theatrical theme is associated with moral preachers turning an evening’s entertainment into an evening of misery. We all go home depressed and thoroughly un-entertained.
But hasn’t theatre always held the position of social commentator? If not an instigator of change then at least a platform for talking about it. Debates surrounding climate change might be the best scrap yard for the finding of new material, for theatre makers and creative types generally. According to Michael Billington, writing in The Guardian, “climate change drama is the new growth industry”, so why the silence?
Recent climate change dramas, I’m thinking specifically of Earthquakes in London at the NT or The Heretic at the Royal Court, have stuck close to the human side of the drama whilst dealing with this world issue. Overall, it was the individual stories of the characters that triumphed and, ultimately, what made the productions work. Although the temporal reach of Earthquakes in London was vast, and it had a very large-scale feeling to it, its focus was tight. I’m wondering though, if this tightly focused character-based human element is what prevents climate change issues being adequately dealt with theatrically?
Character and human issues are the essentials of drama; is climate change just too broad in its scope, a huge world-wide issue based in the natural world, to be tackled by theatre makers? As a writer I have often been tempted by climate change, and then been stopped at the first stage hunting for an idea. I do hope, however, that someone someday will find a way and create an Angels in America for the global warming era. Earthquakes in London came close, but I think we can get closer to the core.
Ellen Carr