The 'monsterists' are fighting to stage big plays with big casts. Is this really the way forward for theatre, or are these playwrights stuck in the past?
So begins today's thinkpiece by David Farr in The Guardian. My insto-response, is no - the problem is that the Monsterists are stuck in the present, where directors, artistic and otherwise, are in the position of shaping theatrical taste. They commission stuff they like. So the plays that get done are of a certain stamp, and size.
DF's programme for the Lyric, as he advertises it, is an admirable plethora. But not all ADs have his robust, inclusive approach. They're not all of them so brave. So it's okay for him to generalise - but only about the Lyric. He's doing a show with Kneehigh - that's fantastic news. But one Emma Rice does not a summer make.
Odd for me to see DF oppose 'monster' with 'miniature', in for instance, 'It can be argued that the solo-written play is at its best when it is miniaturist'. I know he doesn't have my little rejection of writers in mind, but for the record, as I've said elsewhere, there's no opposition, to my mind, between Monsterists and us Miniaturists. They're in the vanguard, we're in the rear, but we're fighting for the same thing - the creative playwright's right to be heard and seen.