Steven Berkoff - Actor, Writer and Director HARDtalk

writer, actor, and director Steven Berkoff. He spent more than fifty

years in theatre and film rocking the establishment with his outspoken

and often angry views. His work ranges from appearances in 'A

Clockwork Orange' and 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo', to adaptations

of Franz Kafka's 'Metamorphosis'. He has also written many of his own

plays, one of which he has been appearing in here at the Edinburgh

fringe. He believes the art world is letting us all down by abandoning

serious quality drama to pursue mass audiences. So what is theatre? Art

here. In this play, you depict a world that is populated by people,

it seems to me, of towering self regard and fascinating insincerity.

Is that what you would say? Not a bit. The nature rob a play is to

force the issue. To exaggerate, to make something more palpable, you

can to over elaborate the issue. So, people become more self regarding,

more intense, more self obsessed. But the issues are quite sincere,

and fighting the case for the actor. These actors are debating the

life as actors in this 21st century. I haven't met many actors

who do not feel, if not identical feelings, something very similar,

unless they are wedded to a kind of passive state of being a lovely.

There is a lot of that in the play. What I am talking about is the lack

of power, that actors have suffered in the recent decades. I am basing

that on the fact that years ago actors were not only acting, but

eventually directing. The actor, in a sense, is the child. We are all

children, listening to the daddy. We are obeying the father and acting

out our emotions in a way that is to be totally free, as a childhood. As

something that was a regulation, or read law. It was just the norm. In

the 19th century actors express themselves in the character that

they wanted, and it wasn't up to the director to suggest to the actor

what they wanted to do. Laurence Olivier would say, I now want to do

Macbeth, for example. These actors then became directors because they

wished to guide their career. Over the years, this has been slowly

eroded. The reason for that is to develop as directors is that they

passed the back on on, of their skill. -- pass the Batten. It is

mandatory that actors do that. For the future of the industry. Kevin

Spacey is the artistic director of the old Vic at the moment. Yes, but

he doesn't direct. Laurence Olivier directed the vast majority of his

plays. Extraordinary place. Many many plays. I am trying to

understand what has happened in the theatre to make that tradition,

which you so value. I was getting to that. The actor passing the baton on

is important for the help of the theatre, and the health of the

theatre. -- the actor. Instead of retiring, moving to the country,

doing the gardening. They are no longer ask, valued, expected, to

come and give us a class, for example. Ask Peter O'Toole, give us

a class, don't stick him in the pub. Or Albert Finney, he is a fantastic

actor, Ian Richardson, Alan McCallan. None of them were ever

asked to either direct, or to teach, or to give lessons in Shakespeare.

Consequently, that very valuable, invaluable baton passed on, has

gradually died. The director, who used to be there just to move the

traffic on stage, make sure the sidelines were OK, suddenly has

developed a new art form. The director. The actors are simply

tools for the director to express him or herself. Exactly, they are

tools. Maybe that is not so bad, there have been some great

productions. People working in the theatre now, generally come from

university. From Oxbridge. They suddenly see, as they did and 50 or

60 years ago, the theatre as a valued place to express their

lives, their personality, and their career. This was never so. Peter was

not considered to be that serious. It was a place where crazy act as

acted out. Now it is all coming a rather nice place to be. They are

coming into the theatre, and they are directing, but since they have

not any skill as an actor this has to be compensated. So, they have

skills of creating marvellous imagery, adding certain effects,

certain chemical effects. Using video screens, which I think is the

most horrible prostitution of theatre. The characters in this

play, seem to be always consumed by disappointment. Full absolutely.

Absolutely, actors are the most disappointed people. There are a

very good actors in Britain, I am not saying the great performances

like those of Gielgud or Laurence Olivier. I have seen Paul Scofield,

they come from a different tradition. I am bitterly

disappointed, I am not seeing that. I am seeing a lot of people who have

maybe down a TV series touring few years at being chosen. Because they

are celebrities? Purely because they are TV celebrities. What do you

think the celebrity has done for the theatre? It has eroded the public's

taste for pure acting. The producers in the West End now, if you offered

them a play with a very skilled actor, they are likely to say, who

can we get? I was doing a production of Oedipus, and I had one of the

most skilled actors in Britain playing Oedipus. And they said, he

is not that well known. Maybe we can get someone from Doctor Who. So we

went to the agent of Doctor Who, and they didn't even bother to reply. So

there is an erosion in the public taste. Maybe even in the critic's

taste. Now, people say I will go to the theatre because so-and-so is in

it. Superficially, free few weeks and they few months, this encourages

people to go to theatre. But then, it dies. Because unless the next

play is fulfilled with another certain star, the public won't go.

So you can't develop the art of an actor, like you develop the art of a

dancer, for example. There is purity in the dynamic of a boxer, like a

dancer, and the craft is developed. Here, instead of developing the

great actors and respecting them and giving them the spotlight, what do

we do? Say, oh, we have a movie star who wants to come over and have a

bit of a go. Often it fails lamentably. You have been a movie

star yourself. You have taken roles in blockbusters, and even Doctor Who

wants. It was the worst payer I have ever had. They don't despise it, we

actors also need to live. You are not working continuously. They play

takes many many weeks, and then it takes many many months to perform.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 495 seconds

Often for very low wages. So, one is and a never whinge, unless I am

abused of course. You have a reputation for being egotistical and

an increasingly angry old man. She think you deserve those reputations?

-- do you think you? None of those things. It started when I was trying

to work as a director. I was making my own work. I adapted unique works.

Some of the works were received well. Others not so well. Sometimes

with a mockery because I am treading unfamiliar ground. Sometimes that

mockery was so unpleasant, I did a production of Hamlet in the '80s and

it was kind of mockery, I angrily defended the productions like you

would your children. It was not because of arrogance, it was because

I was defending it against an unjustifiable vitriolic press.

that mockery take you back to your childhood? It may have done. It may

very well. That kind of mockery I felt I would defend with my life.

Sometimes I would say things to people which were fairly abusive and

abrasive. Quite often you come across as bitter. I am defending my

child. My child is the play. We took Hamlet to Europe where we had

unanimous and fantastic reviews. We were honoured were ever we went.

When we came to London we had mockery. That made me, if you say,

arrogant, it was just a way of responding. Normally they say do not

respond to critics, they may like you or hate you. What about

legitimate criticism that is not mockery. He seemed resistant to that

as well. A critic that make sense to me who says that maybe I'm going

over the age that it is too long, if they have a reasonable point of

view... Can you name a critic who did not like your play who you

thought made legitimate points? There were many. Mike Billington of

the Guardian sometimes took exception to some things but the

nature of his review was still a clear communication, compassionate

and sensitive to what I was doing. Jack Tinker was one of the best for

the mail. The best ones always die early. -- Mail. There have been many

whose opinion I have respected highly. This is Joyce McMillan of

the Scotsman. She says that none of you what you picked in the play

really matters. She starts off by giving you credit for an amazing

lifetime's achievement, the Canning you have. And she says it is

disappointing that there are literally hundreds of shows before

you see this little and inward looking world, the world of the

actor. She asks who cares about it and why does it matter. My response

to that is that the woman is flaming ignorant. If I was writing about the

lives of miners and their struggles and their strides and their pain,

that would be worthy. I have had this before. I am probably one of

the only playwrights who writes plays about actors. Of course, the

common consensus is that actors are trivial. There is a terrible

reputation that actors suffer. This is typical of Joyce McMillan, who is

normally a good critic, to say this is nothing. Read the critic from the

Times saying how vital, I will not quote her, but that it is a valuable