Product Description

Examines the importance of the renaissance in British theatre that began in the 1990s with a rash of rude, provocative pieces by a group of twenty-something playwrights, whose debuts startled critics and audiences with their mix of sex, violence and street-poetry.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #71605 in Books
• Published on: 2001-03-05
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 256 pages

From the Publisher
Praise
'A definitive new book on the phenomenon [of in-yer-face theatre]' Saturday Telegraph

Customer Reviews

Well-argued and readable account of 1990s British theatre
Sierz argues that much 1990s British theatre can be characterised as possessing a shared sensibility, which he labels 'in-yer-face'. He is referring here to work by Sarah Kane, Mark Ravenhill, Patrick Marber, Alex Nielson, Joe Penhall, Phyllis Nagy, Jez Butterworth and others - edgy, violent, graphic and, for Sierz, 'experiential'. By this he means the plays don't debate issues so much as put the audience through the experience they explore - not literally, of course, but emotionally. There was certainly a new and exciting mood in th theatre in the 90s, though whether everyone will agree with Sierz's definition of it is another matter. I persnally found his arguments convincing and was impressed by his fair-minded and thorough approach to the topic, and by the depth of his research. His book is an excellent introduction to the theatre of the past ten years, and a thought-provoking one. In the same class as 'The Theatre of the Absurd', 'Anger and After' or Elsom's 'British Theatre Since 1945', though some will consider Sierz's concentration on playwrights an antiquated approach.

Read with caution as an introduction.
Unfortunately this is the only publication that deals specifically with the 'new wave' of young writers that emerged in British theatre during the 1990s. As an introduction to the work of these new writers it is adequate, but Sierz's opinions often seem somewhat out of touch and he makes some very poor conclusions as to why the new young writers desired to stir controversy during the decade. It has some useful interview material with playwrights, introduces the opinions of critics and offers views on basic themes but it is often difficult to take Sierz seriously.

Primarily this is because his central thesis is fundamentally flawed. Labelling playwrights as 'in-yer-face' suggests they are closely related and misleads students into believing it is a genre. Sarah kane really has no relation whatsoever with, for example, Jez Butterworth, or many other people mentioned in this book except that she depicted graphic violence. It's a bit like saying Quentin Tarantino and Ridley Scott have similarities: both present violence, but in very different ways. Vague to say the least. Sierz's claims that the links are because theatre became more 'experiential' is also difficult to grasp; what is theatre if its not experiential?

The critics who discredited the publication at the Uni of West of England in 2002 should be given some credit by saying: '...to be shackled to a specific era or genre places a responsibility on a play and creates expectations before reading or performance. In essence, it disrupts the artistic integrity through preconceived notions of a play because of a simplified label.' Read with caution.

A trudge through recent British Theatre
This book is an attempt to create a school of new British playwrights analogous to the mythic 'Angry Young Men' of 1956. It argues that certain recent theatre work attempts to put audiences through experiences rather than allowing them time to think. Some playwrights, apparently, wish to encourage us to emote more and to think less. As one who has seen most of the plays discussed here, this surprises me. Any attempt to put the witty and cerebral works of Nagy, Wallace, Kane or Pritchard alongside the mindless laddism of Tracy Lett's 'Killer Joe' or Jez Butterworth's 'Mojo' deserves an A* for effort but perhaps rather less for discernment. The book gives plenty of space to an enumeration of the horrors depicted on stage, but rather less to any sustained analysis of the impact of the plays in performance. Much too much time is given to newspaper critics without any adequate analysis of the limitations of reviews as a resource, and yet it is continually asserted that many of the people who came to these plays would not ordinarily have set foot in a theatre. There isn't much evidence offered here, and this is a shame. The interviews provide a useful resource, and the list of plays discussed provides a decent introduction to some of the most interesting work of that era. For this reason, it is probably worth reading.