:00:21. > :00:24.writer, actor, and director Steven Berkoff. He spent more than fifty
:00:24. > :00:26.years in theatre and film rocking the establishment with his outspoken
:00:27. > :00:29.and often angry views. His work ranges from appearances in 'A
:00:29. > :00:35.Clockwork Orange' and 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo', to adaptations
:00:35. > :00:39.of Franz Kafka's 'Metamorphosis'. He has also written many of his own
:00:39. > :00:42.plays, one of which he has been appearing in here at the Edinburgh
:00:42. > :00:45.fringe. He believes the art world is letting us all down by abandoning
:00:45. > :00:55.serious quality drama to pursue mass audiences. So what is theatre? Art
:00:55. > :01:25.
:01:25. > :01:29.here. In this play, you depict a world that is populated by people,
:01:29. > :01:35.it seems to me, of towering self regard and fascinating insincerity.
:01:35. > :01:43.Is that what you would say? Not a bit. The nature rob a play is to
:01:43. > :01:52.force the issue. To exaggerate, to make something more palpable, you
:01:52. > :01:59.can to over elaborate the issue. So, people become more self regarding,
:01:59. > :02:07.more intense, more self obsessed. But the issues are quite sincere,
:02:07. > :02:12.and fighting the case for the actor. These actors are debating the
:02:12. > :02:19.life as actors in this 21st century. I haven't met many actors
:02:19. > :02:29.who do not feel, if not identical feelings, something very similar,
:02:29. > :02:31.
:02:31. > :02:36.unless they are wedded to a kind of passive state of being a lovely.
:02:36. > :02:43.There is a lot of that in the play. What I am talking about is the lack
:02:43. > :02:51.of power, that actors have suffered in the recent decades. I am basing
:02:51. > :02:57.that on the fact that years ago actors were not only acting, but
:02:57. > :03:01.eventually directing. The actor, in a sense, is the child. We are all
:03:01. > :03:11.children, listening to the daddy. We are obeying the father and acting
:03:11. > :03:12.
:03:12. > :03:22.out our emotions in a way that is to be totally free, as a childhood. As
:03:22. > :03:27.
:03:27. > :03:37.something that was a regulation, or read law. It was just the norm. In
:03:37. > :03:42.
:03:42. > :03:47.the 19th century actors express themselves in the character that
:03:47. > :03:53.they wanted, and it wasn't up to the director to suggest to the actor
:03:53. > :03:59.what they wanted to do. Laurence Olivier would say, I now want to do
:03:59. > :04:05.Macbeth, for example. These actors then became directors because they
:04:05. > :04:14.wished to guide their career. Over the years, this has been slowly
:04:14. > :04:23.eroded. The reason for that is to develop as directors is that they
:04:23. > :04:33.passed the back on on, of their skill. -- pass the Batten. It is
:04:33. > :04:37.
:04:37. > :04:43.mandatory that actors do that. For the future of the industry. Kevin
:04:43. > :04:48.Spacey is the artistic director of the old Vic at the moment. Yes, but
:04:48. > :04:58.he doesn't direct. Laurence Olivier directed the vast majority of his
:04:58. > :05:04.
:05:04. > :05:06.plays. Extraordinary place. Many many plays. I am trying to
:05:07. > :05:15.understand what has happened in the theatre to make that tradition,
:05:15. > :05:18.which you so value. I was getting to that. The actor passing the baton on
:05:18. > :05:28.is important for the help of the theatre, and the health of the
:05:28. > :05:37.theatre. -- the actor. Instead of retiring, moving to the country,
:05:37. > :05:43.doing the gardening. They are no longer ask, valued, expected, to
:05:43. > :05:48.come and give us a class, for example. Ask Peter O'Toole, give us
:05:48. > :05:55.a class, don't stick him in the pub. Or Albert Finney, he is a fantastic
:05:55. > :06:02.actor, Ian Richardson, Alan McCallan. None of them were ever
:06:02. > :06:10.asked to either direct, or to teach, or to give lessons in Shakespeare.
:06:10. > :06:18.Consequently, that very valuable, invaluable baton passed on, has
:06:18. > :06:22.gradually died. The director, who used to be there just to move the
:06:22. > :06:29.traffic on stage, make sure the sidelines were OK, suddenly has
:06:29. > :06:35.developed a new art form. The director. The actors are simply
:06:35. > :06:39.tools for the director to express him or herself. Exactly, they are
:06:39. > :06:48.tools. Maybe that is not so bad, there have been some great
:06:48. > :06:56.productions. People working in the theatre now, generally come from
:06:56. > :07:02.university. From Oxbridge. They suddenly see, as they did and 50 or
:07:02. > :07:06.60 years ago, the theatre as a valued place to express their
:07:06. > :07:10.lives, their personality, and their career. This was never so. Peter was
:07:10. > :07:18.not considered to be that serious. It was a place where crazy act as
:07:18. > :07:22.acted out. Now it is all coming a rather nice place to be. They are
:07:22. > :07:31.coming into the theatre, and they are directing, but since they have
:07:31. > :07:37.not any skill as an actor this has to be compensated. So, they have
:07:37. > :07:47.skills of creating marvellous imagery, adding certain effects,
:07:47. > :07:47.
:07:47. > :07:53.certain chemical effects. Using video screens, which I think is the
:07:53. > :08:03.most horrible prostitution of theatre. The characters in this
:08:03. > :08:17.
:08:17. > :08:22.play, seem to be always consumed by disappointment. Full absolutely.
:08:22. > :08:28.Absolutely, actors are the most disappointed people. There are a
:08:28. > :08:38.very good actors in Britain, I am not saying the great performances
:08:38. > :08:39.
:08:39. > :08:42.like those of Gielgud or Laurence Olivier. I have seen Paul Scofield,
:08:42. > :08:48.they come from a different tradition. I am bitterly
:08:48. > :08:53.disappointed, I am not seeing that. I am seeing a lot of people who have
:08:53. > :09:02.maybe down a TV series touring few years at being chosen. Because they
:09:02. > :09:09.are celebrities? Purely because they are TV celebrities. What do you
:09:09. > :09:13.think the celebrity has done for the theatre? It has eroded the public's
:09:13. > :09:17.taste for pure acting. The producers in the West End now, if you offered
:09:17. > :09:24.them a play with a very skilled actor, they are likely to say, who
:09:24. > :09:28.can we get? I was doing a production of Oedipus, and I had one of the
:09:28. > :09:35.most skilled actors in Britain playing Oedipus. And they said, he
:09:35. > :09:41.is not that well known. Maybe we can get someone from Doctor Who. So we
:09:41. > :09:49.went to the agent of Doctor Who, and they didn't even bother to reply. So
:09:49. > :09:55.there is an erosion in the public taste. Maybe even in the critic's
:09:55. > :10:05.taste. Now, people say I will go to the theatre because so-and-so is in
:10:05. > :10:06.
:10:06. > :10:13.it. Superficially, free few weeks and they few months, this encourages
:10:13. > :10:18.people to go to theatre. But then, it dies. Because unless the next
:10:18. > :10:26.play is fulfilled with another certain star, the public won't go.
:10:26. > :10:34.So you can't develop the art of an actor, like you develop the art of a
:10:35. > :10:40.dancer, for example. There is purity in the dynamic of a boxer, like a
:10:40. > :10:45.dancer, and the craft is developed. Here, instead of developing the
:10:45. > :10:51.great actors and respecting them and giving them the spotlight, what do
:10:51. > :10:57.we do? Say, oh, we have a movie star who wants to come over and have a
:10:57. > :11:01.bit of a go. Often it fails lamentably. You have been a movie
:11:01. > :11:09.star yourself. You have taken roles in blockbusters, and even Doctor Who
:11:09. > :11:18.wants. It was the worst payer I have ever had. They don't despise it, we
:11:18. > :11:23.actors also need to live. You are not working continuously. They play
:11:23. > :11:33.takes many many weeks, and then it takes many many months to perform.
:11:33. > :11:33.
:11:33. > :19:48.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 495 seconds
:19:48. > :19:55.Often for very low wages. So, one is and a never whinge, unless I am
:19:55. > :20:01.abused of course. You have a reputation for being egotistical and
:20:01. > :20:08.an increasingly angry old man. She think you deserve those reputations?
:20:08. > :20:18.-- do you think you? None of those things. It started when I was trying
:20:18. > :20:21.
:20:21. > :20:26.to work as a director. I was making my own work. I adapted unique works.
:20:26. > :20:34.Some of the works were received well. Others not so well. Sometimes
:20:34. > :20:37.with a mockery because I am treading unfamiliar ground. Sometimes that
:20:37. > :20:44.mockery was so unpleasant, I did a production of Hamlet in the '80s and
:20:44. > :20:48.it was kind of mockery, I angrily defended the productions like you
:20:48. > :20:53.would your children. It was not because of arrogance, it was because
:20:53. > :21:01.I was defending it against an unjustifiable vitriolic press.
:21:02. > :21:09.that mockery take you back to your childhood? It may have done. It may
:21:09. > :21:15.very well. That kind of mockery I felt I would defend with my life.
:21:15. > :21:22.Sometimes I would say things to people which were fairly abusive and
:21:22. > :21:28.abrasive. Quite often you come across as bitter. I am defending my
:21:28. > :21:31.child. My child is the play. We took Hamlet to Europe where we had
:21:31. > :21:38.unanimous and fantastic reviews. We were honoured were ever we went.
:21:38. > :21:46.When we came to London we had mockery. That made me, if you say,
:21:46. > :21:50.arrogant, it was just a way of responding. Normally they say do not
:21:50. > :21:52.respond to critics, they may like you or hate you. What about
:21:52. > :22:02.legitimate criticism that is not mockery. He seemed resistant to that
:22:02. > :22:07.as well. A critic that make sense to me who says that maybe I'm going
:22:07. > :22:11.over the age that it is too long, if they have a reasonable point of
:22:11. > :22:17.view... Can you name a critic who did not like your play who you
:22:17. > :22:25.thought made legitimate points? There were many. Mike Billington of
:22:25. > :22:28.the Guardian sometimes took exception to some things but the
:22:28. > :22:34.nature of his review was still a clear communication, compassionate
:22:34. > :22:44.and sensitive to what I was doing. Jack Tinker was one of the best for
:22:44. > :22:45.
:22:46. > :22:51.the mail. The best ones always die early. -- Mail. There have been many
:22:51. > :22:55.whose opinion I have respected highly. This is Joyce McMillan of
:22:55. > :23:02.the Scotsman. She says that none of you what you picked in the play
:23:02. > :23:08.really matters. She starts off by giving you credit for an amazing
:23:08. > :23:10.lifetime's achievement, the Canning you have. And she says it is
:23:10. > :23:14.disappointing that there are literally hundreds of shows before
:23:14. > :23:19.you see this little and inward looking world, the world of the
:23:19. > :23:26.actor. She asks who cares about it and why does it matter. My response
:23:26. > :23:29.to that is that the woman is flaming ignorant. If I was writing about the
:23:29. > :23:35.lives of miners and their struggles and their strides and their pain,
:23:35. > :23:41.that would be worthy. I have had this before. I am probably one of
:23:41. > :23:51.the only playwrights who writes plays about actors. Of course, the
:23:51. > :23:51.
:23:51. > :23:56.common consensus is that actors are trivial. There is a terrible
:23:56. > :24:03.reputation that actors suffer. This is typical of Joyce McMillan, who is
:24:03. > :24:13.normally a good critic, to say this is nothing. Read the critic from the
:24:13. > :24:18.Times saying how vital, I will not quote her, but that it is a valuable