Unholy alliance? Sam Cox and Brian Doherty in God in Ruins at London's Soho theatre. Photograph: Tristram Kenton
I bow to no one in my enthusiasm for the works of Anthony Neilson. But it's probably fair to say that the behind-the-scenes story of his new play God in Ruins is more revealing than what unfolds on the stage. The story behind God in Ruins is a tale of theatre today, as the mainstream - now that it has woken up to the fact that plays can be created in more than one way - struggles to accommodate light-footed new methods within its lumbering infrastructures.
I interviewed Neilson before God in Ruins opened, and he was noticeably cagey and loath to big it up. As Maddy Costa reported in the Guardian, the RSC commissioned a new play from him, with conditions attached - he had to use 11 male actors (who happened to have a gap in their Stratford schedules), and to rehearse over a whopping 19 weeks. In some ways, this was a commendably bold commission: it accepted that Neilson would, as usual, start rehearsals without a script. But it also created problems, by saddling him with a random cast with varying levels of experience (or interest, presumably) in devising; and by imposing a five-month development when Neilson would have preferred his usual hectic five weeks.
The upshot is a show that, by Neilson's admission, one or more members of the cast didn't want to be in, and with which Neilson himself (his habitual curmudgeonliness notwithstanding) seems to have an ambivalent relationship. As it happens, I enjoyed God in Ruins. It's not a patch on The Wonderful World of Dissocia or the unforgettable Realism, but I was a sucker for its anything-goes spirit and thought its virtual-world ending struck a lovely balance between ridiculousness and poignancy.
But its problems raise useful questions. Is it the best use of the RSC's money to lavish 19 weeks' rehearsal on an artist who'd prefer five? (A moment's silence here for the hundreds of theatre-makers out there would slay their Arts Council officer for a fraction of God in Ruins' budget.) Encouraging though it is that all actors these days are expected to include devising among their skills, how useful is it to shoehorn the square peg of Shakespearean thesps into the round hole of Neilson's idiosyncratic method?
I'm not saying the likes of Neilson should be pampered. Compromise can be creative. But I do think the God in Ruins story suggests we're only halfway to an accommodation between mainstream theatre and the most exciting, risk-taking new forms of drama. It invites us to ask: now that the National (who likewise struggled to accommodate non-conformist theatre gadflies Improbable), the RSC and other venerable organisations seek to work with the best and most unconventional artists, shouldn't they make the process fit those artists rather than the other way around?
.png?w=600)
