Conference

'More Than Just Osborne?'
5 September 2006, 18.30-21.00
at the British Library Conference Centre
96 Euston Road
London NW1 2BD

This event explores in an entertaining and informative manner some of the recollections of the period of the practitioners and members of the theatre audiences who have been interviewed by the Project.

Comments

[Thomas]

The plays of John Osborne have defined the Post War Period of theatre. Discuss.

[Ewan]

I think it's true that Osborne has to some extent defined post-war theatre historiography. In some ways both arguing 'for' or 'against' Osborne's theatrical importance inevitably prioritises him. I was interested to hear (at last night's event) so many references to Osborne's 'The Entertainer' being a more explosive work than 'Look Back in Anger'. I wonder, in considering Thomas's intial remark, if anyone would like to contribute their perspectives on this play?

[stephen wischhusen]

I prefer to see Osborne's plays as benchmarks, rather than theatre-world-shattering events.
Not everybody read Tynan or Hobson, so their reviews only influenced a certain number, and for more many of us, the much de-rided "well made play" provided the entertainment we sought. Many of us in the London suburbs were unaware of The Royal Court; "Theatre" in my case, The Wood Green or The Finsbury Park Empire, where we often went to see plays and not variety.
Even the Intimate Theatre Palmers Green was more than likely to offer nothing more progressive than "Roar Like a Dove" and incredible though it may seem a comedy such as Max Rietmann's "Hot and Cold in all Rooms" would play to full houses three or more weeks in a year in 1962. There was theatre existing totally unmoved by anything Osborne wrote.
As I grew older I read and saw more plays, In my teens I found that I could identify more with "The Entertainer" and the plays of Anne Jellicoe than "Look Back in Agner". Perhaps because the Theatre depicted in "The Entertainer" was so much like theatre I had experienced when younger.I had attempted to persuade the management at Palmers Green to produce more adventurous plays and asked "What happens when all these old ladies in the audience die? Who will come then ?" And I was answered by "More old ladies".
I realise this will horrify many if not most readers of this site - but that is how it was even in suburban London, not 6 miles from the Royal Court in the years 1961-68.

[stephen wischhusen]

I'm sorry,|I do not know how to edit once I have passed "Preview". I should have concluded with the fair;ly obvious comment that theatre as entertainment existed in parallel to the Royal Court. AS in many provincial towns, there were the more progressive theatres which did not supercede the more traditional offerings until much later - after the advent of ITV across the regions, not suddenly at the advent of televison itself, nor suddenly at the arrival of John Osborne at the Royal Court

[dominic shellard]

I'd like to endorse Ewan's request for more testimony from people who saw an early run of 'The Entertainer'. This would be fascinating. In terms of structure and method, it is a much more radical work than 'Look Back in Anger', whilst retaining a similar disillusionment with the world of the 1950s and an engagement with both the public and the private.

What struck me most at the BL evening was the variety of different perspectives about Osborne and LBIA - ranging from grateful relief that LBIA was now no longer seen as the epitome of 1950s theatrical activity to those testifying to the truly life changing impact that the play (and, significantly, reports of the play) had on them as individuals.

I wouldn't want people to feel that the theatre archive project is simply concerned about Osborne. Far from it. There is a wealth of transcript testimony on everything from repertory theatre, Waiting for Godot, tea matiness, musicals, regional productions, censorship, famous actresses, music hall etc etc. But it is true that LBIA has been seen as key turning point and the gathering of first hand testimony that indicates that there may be a different story to tell is fascinating.

[stephen wischhusen]

For me some of the most interesting parts of this fascinating project are the interviews. Here we have events of the time recorded by the practitioners and the spectators. What could be better ? Aha ! I find I can argue with some of the recollections, and having given an interview myself, I realise I am holding myself up as an aunt sally as well.
I hope a moderator is able to edit out names where I shouldn't mention them, but, as an example, I would like without prejudice of any kind to cite Donald Roy's interview. This maybe what we would have called a typo some years ago, but I would have thought the "new theatre" was worthy of capital letters i.e. The New Theatre, that being its name.
The Carl Rosa Opera Company here is described as tatty but, like Wolfit's company at the beginning, it took more productions on tour without subsidy of any kind to more theatres in the UK than see touring productions or any productions now. The Carl Rosa in its oringal form ceased c1958. In its latter years it had received some form of grant aid from the Arts Council. A Trust was formed, many of the costumes and documents from the early days remain and it has reformed and tours still. It has its own web site which glosses over early history, but which is a useful reference site.
I don't think, considering the limitations of style and finance of the times, it should be regarded with too much disdain. It may not be how things are done now, but it has a worthy place in history.
Donald Roy talks of music hall artists too. Gertie Gitana's husband, Don Ross, was also her manager and it was he who persuaded many old time stars to return in a bill called "Thanks for the Memory" which toured for many years post war. I saw G.H. Elliott in a variety bill at the London Palladium in the 1950's. He did not just stand there and sing. He did somewhat eccentic soft shoe dancing as well. And I would argue about Randolph Sutton being a black face performer. He was Bristol born and bred and in pantomime could fill the Bristol Theatres for a 16 week run. I will stick my neckout and say he was not black face at all !
I would like to suggest that theatre researchers may find much useful material in cinema films. "The Blue Lamp" has scenes filmed in the Metropolitan Edgware Road. Here one sees the back stalls bar, from which a view of the stage could be obtained, and on stage Tessie O'Shea going through her act.
There is an old Robert Newton film (The title of which and date, I shall dig out later) which has scenes filmed in a theatre, including the long gone Queen's Poplar. Here one sees the pit paybox etc. I find it fascinating. (Others of course may not)

[Sarah Burbridge]

I think that it would be far too much of a sweeping statement to claim that John Osborne’s plays alone defined post-war theatre. It is doubtless that they were highly significant, in that they introduced a new genre to the British stage, but it is important that they are seen as only one element in a series of influential plays which led to revolution in theatre.
Both ‘The Entertainer’ and ‘Look Back in Anger’ are examples of the new genre of social realism, giving a far more accurate representation of life in Britain, especially in comparison to contrived portrayals in previous plays, such as those of Rattigan and his predecessors. The sexual politics of ‘Look Back in Anger’, with Jimmy swapping partners between Alison and Helena, and Archie’s open attitude to adultery in ‘The Entertainer’ demonstrates a definite shift in what could be classed as acceptable upon the British stage. In addition, compared to previous representations (such as in Rattigan’s plays) of solely upper/middle class characters, not only are both families in Osborne’s plays working class, but Jimmy consistently berates the upper classes and their values throughout ‘Look Back in Anger’: “You see, I know Helena and her kind so very well. In fact, her kind are everywhere, you can’t move for them. They’re a romantic lot. They spend their time mostly looking forward to the past.” (57)
Nonetheless, whilst this is all highly significant, once the plays are contextualised, it is necessary to also recognise the significance of other areas of theatre. Admittedly, social realism was an important introduction, but also was the newly founded Absurdist theatre and the plays of Ionesco and Beckett, and also arguably musicals such as ‘Oklahoma!’, whose success was due to raising spirits in the wake of the War.
Therefore I can conclude that Osborne’s plays were indeed significant, but not necessarily defining.

[Alison Norden]

The plays of John Osborne have defined the Post War Period of theatre. I would not go as far to say that they were the individual plays that generated a turning point in British Theatre since other playwrights had already begun experimenting with ‘real-life’ plays. However, Osborne’s plays such as ‘Look Back in Anger’ and ‘The Entertainer’ succeeded in drawing the public’s attention to a new style of theatre.
Firstly, the themes being constructed in the two plays show how meaning and messages change. In ‘Look Back in Anger’ war is confronted as Jimmy says, ‘appeal to all Christians to do all they can to assist in the manufacture of the H-Bomb’. This may be a common issue that defines post-war theatre. Unemployment is highlighted, and there is a sense of dissatisfaction with politics as Jimmy says ‘invisible politics’, ‘plundering and fooling everybody for generations’. Again this features in post-war theatre and is replicated in ‘The Entertainer’ where politicians are denounced a ‘grubby lot of rogues’, and of society, people ‘haven’t got the gumption to do anything for themselves’. In post-war theatre there seems to be an inherent acknowledgement of class divide and unemployment. Billy in ‘The Entertainer’ comments on how his children’s private school education got them nowhere.
Osborne’s plays focus on the futility of life which is demonstrated also in plays by Beckett, Ionesco and Pinter. Jimmy, who semi-autobiographically mirrors Osborne’s life, says, ‘No one can raise themselves out of their delicious sloth’. It seems that a recurring issue is the fact that no one knows what they want and if they do have aspirations they are not motivated to achieve them. Sarcastically, Jimmy who is pronounced the ‘angry young man’ who typifies post-war theatre, says, ‘Let’s pretend that we’re human beings, and that we’re actually alive.’ Frustration is apparent and this is reflected in the desired revolution, ‘The Big Crash is coming’. ‘The Entertainer’ also employs songs about not caring, and despite a strong sense of national pride and self obsession about looking out for the self, they simply sit back proud and do not turn good intentions into actions. Religion is removed as they say there is no God. A final theme which Osborne induces in post-war theatre is feminism. Although a minor feature, in ‘Look Back in Anger’ Jimmy calls Alison ‘pusillanimous’, and, ‘a refined sort of butcher’. Despite both the women of the play wearing Jimmy’s shirt, suggesting a possibility for women to attain power, Jimmy manages to undermine both in use of language and through Alison’s miscarriage she is rendered futile to the command of Jimmy.
Through the use of themes and more appropriately raw emotion which is demonstrated through the language, such as in ‘The Entertainer’ when Phoebe gets upset over Billy eating Mick’s welcome home cake, the audience is engaged in the real emotions of every-day life. This real emotion characterises post-war theatre as a desire to express the decline of England after the war and the denial of a role in society was felt. In these plays there is a sense of hope, but there is no progression towards a positive future, striking the audience with a British reality.
The change in theatre was primarily that plays depicted life as it really was. The sudden change was that people could see that theatre could be done differently however, plays were probably being scripted like this before Osborne’s plays, but they were simply shown in club theatres and small venues. Osborne may simply have been one of the first playwrights to have a production that was viewed widely and accelerated the rate of change. For people at the time of this transformation it may have been obvious, but Howard Brenton of the Independent said ‘When somebody breaks the mould so comprehensively it's difficult to describe what it feels like’. So whether the transformation was a shock or not is difficult to determine however, change is noted and Arnold Wesker supports this in saying Osborne ‘opened the doors of theatres for all the succeeding generations of writers’. You can certainly see how other playwrights adopted similar styles. After watching Harold Pinter’s ‘The Caretaker’ at the Crucible it is noticeable how an inconclusive, every-day life is used and overall defines post-war theatre.

[Sinéad Gray]

Osborne’s theatrically powerful words in ‘Look Back In Anger’ created a voice of the present in 1956. Osborne himself said ‘I want to make people feel’ and wasn’t afraid to criticise the dissatisfied, emotionally disengaged, inert and stifled society that had emerged in post-war Britain. In ‘Look Back In Anger’ Osborne openly addresses issues relating to the war (‘…moving appeal to all Christians to do all they can to assist in the manufacture of the H-Bomb’), politics (‘Brave New-Nothing-Very-Much-Thank-You’) and sexual relations (‘he actually taunted me with my virginity’) and in doing so redefined what was acceptable theatrical material. Yet it was not just Osborne’s realism and honesty that defined post-war theatre; absurdist plays such as Beckett’s ‘Waiting For Godot’, the musical ‘Oklahoma!’, and the controversial issues addressed in ‘A Taste of Honey’ all contributed to the theatrical evolution that occurred in Britain.

[Louise Harrison]

I don’t think it’s correct to say that Osborne’s plays have defined post war theatre, I think it would be more accurate to say that they define a certain type of post war theatre, the best name for which is hard to find, in the same way that Waiting for Godot defined absurdist post war theatre. Looking just at The Entertainer and Look Back in Anger it is very clear that certain themes run throughout Osborne’s work, the most noticeable feature for me being the intensity of feeling and the way in which his characters rail against the circumstances in which the find themselves. Indeed it is possible to draw comparisons between the type of characters he uses, for example I think that Phoebe and Alison have a lot in common as to Jimmy and Archie, the only main differences being their ages. However I agree with the first comment made on this blog, the fact that we are being asked to take a position either for or against Osborne automatically pushes his plays to the forefront of our awareness. I actually enjoyed Look Back in Anger a lot more than the Entertainer and I think this was because Archie’s stand up routines and songs were poignant in a way that unsettled me and the way that Archie spoke to and about his family seemed much crueller than Jimmy’s rantings.

[Ellie Purkis]

I am in agreement with the majority regarding this question; that whilst Osborne’s plays unequivocally portray a new type of theatre, he was merely one of a handful of Playwrights all creating new types of play, such as Ionesco and Beckett’s Absurdist plays.

Essentially, the Post War Period of theatre cannot be defined by the plays of one Playwright, but by a general dramatic shift in the whole idea and purpose of theatre. This can be attributed to the confusion and bewilderment that accompanied the ending of the Second World War, coupled with the new freedom of theatres to show plays for a purpose other than to distract people from the horror of war, and the newly available funding ending the necessity for all plays to appeal to the majority.

Playwrights could now afford to be realist, or even Absurdist, in their works. Thus this period can be characterised by a widespread liberation of ideas, plots and taboos within plays. (cf. The miserable endings and unfamiliar structure of Rattigan’s Separate Tables, the sinister absurdity and inevitability of Ionesco’s ‘The Lesson’, the cyclical nature of ‘Waiting for Godot’, and its references to religion and suicide, the presentation of sexual taboos in ‘Look Back in Anger’, such as Helena and Alison’s sharing of Jimmy and Jimmy’s controversial views on homosexuality and the crude realism of ‘The Entertainer’).

[Sarah Tough]

It is without question that the plays of John Osborne had a significant impact on the development of twentieth century British Theatre. Both ‘The Entertainer’ and ‘Look Back in Anger’ are often looked upon by critics as a turning point in theatre, owing to the contemporary and innovative subject matter which they successfully and prolifically encapsulated for the very first time. What separates Osborne’s work from that of his predecessors is the specifically political climate in which his plays were rooted. Thus, the function of theatre quickly evolved, moving from a simple form of entertainment to a far more complex and profound means of shedding light on a range of current affairs circulating throughout society at the time of writing. Osborne specifically constructs his plays in order to create an accurate representation of British society in the 1960s, drawing upon a range of topical material to reinforce the underlying significance of his
work.

It is presumptuous to assume, however, that Osborne’s work alone solely contributed to defining post-war drama as one of the most significant periods of theatre history. The plays of Beckett and Rattigan, for example, had already demonstrated a shift in theatrical perspectives; ‘Waiting for Godot’ and ‘Separate Tables’ oversaw the arrival of absurdist and realist characteristics onto the stage and explored relationship dynamics in a far more astute and creative manner than previous playwrights had managed to achieve.

In conclusion, I propose that the plays of Osborne, along with his contemporaries, collectively contribute to the growing revolution of theatrical performances erupting on stage during the 1950s and 60s. They consistently collaborate to produce a precise reflection of a society infiltrated with widespread political concerns. ‘Look Back in Anger’ and ‘The Entertainer’ - in addition to the equally enthralling works of Beckett, Ionesco and Rattigan - are very much products of their time, and hence can all be seen as a way of defining theatre of the post-war period.

[Melanie Woodhouse]

The Entertainer and Look Back in Anger examine the mood of society in the years after the war and show a sombre, rather unhopeful frame of mind. In The Entertainer, the Rice family are despondent and almost resigned to their fates. This can also be seen in Look Back in Anger. It seems that Osborne portrays average people doing very little in both these texts. There is a sadness to both plays and this may reflect the post war dip in moral and attitudes to British policies and that society was not placing enough emphasis on regrowth and prosperity.

I admire the ability of Osborne to bring forth interesting dialogue in situations that are montonous and to some extent have no purpose.

The change in theatre is emphasised by the lack of plot, similar to the absurdist plays and also to the work of Terence Rattigan. Osborne confirmed with these plays the interest that can be raised by ordinary, everyday people without the need for extravagant plot lines and big finales.

There is a certain circularity to both Look Back in Anger and The Entertainer, both the Porters and the Rices are in the same position at the end of the play as they are at the beginning.

Death seems to play an important part in both texts and remind the audience of out mortality and give an opportunity to experience the emotions of the characters.

Before Osborne and to some extent Rattigan, theatre didn't concern itself with emotion, but rather with plot and events. Osborne also evokes thought in the audience about how society can enforce unhappiness on an individual by differentiation of class and expectations.

[James Morris]

“All the qualities are there, qualities one had despaired if ever seeing on the stage … the sense of lacking a crusade worth fighting for ... the determination that no one who dies shall go unmourned.” Kenneth Tynan, Observer, May 1956

‘There are cruel steel traps lying about everywhere, just waiting for mad, slightly satanic, and very timid animals. Right?’ – Jimmy Porter, Look Back In Anger.

The protagonists of both Look Back In Anger and The Entertainer are men of contradictions, whose lives seem to be defined and dependant on their relationships with women. Jimmy Porter’s search for a mother figure mirrors and correlates with his search for a fulfilling relationship on equal terms; one hears of his affair with Madeleine; a women ‘old enough to be his mother’, while the opposing forces of Mrs Tanner and his mother-in-law provide the play with a symbolic, binary class conflict which is based on Jimmy’s acceptance of the former over the latter to the complete rejection of his wife’s unmarried existence. Osborne chooses quite radical imagery to describe Porter’s inward tension and conflict, expressed in his abuse of his wife, in the guise of the vocabulary of conception and miscarriage.

“Anyone who’s never watched somebody die is suffering from a pretty bad case of virginity.” Death, for Porter, is akin to the Victorian ‘little death’; it is his wife’s ‘untried’ status that elicits his passionate reaction or repulsion. The phrase ‘evil-minded little virgin’ is directed insult toward Helena in the moments preceding the instigation of their affair: a strange parallelism which invites comparison with the immediately proceeding discourse of the ‘well-known debutante’ who ‘killed and drank the blood of a white cockerel’ in a fertility rite. Birth, or innocence, is tainted in Look Back In Anger. The one life that is conceived in the text falls foul of its father’s somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy. In an early scene:

“If you could have a child, and it would die. Let it grow, let a recognizable human face emerge from that little mass of indiarubber and wrinkles … if I could only watch you face that. I wonder if you might even become a recognizable human being.’

Porter’s own indignation towards women, unconsciously or superficially, and towards the passage of the reproductive cycle engenders his own inhumanity, and a form of divine judgement in the miscarriage that Alison suffers. It is as if, through the rejection of the Judeo-Christian God of his forefathers, Jimmy’s elevation of women to a both redemptive and judgemental status is reflected in his self-created reality; he incurs his own sentence and engenders, like the prophet of some ‘Coptic Goddess’, the destruction of a part of himself. Alison’s suffering, although the touch paper of reconciliation between herself and Jimmy, still requires a sacrifice to bring about catharsis – ‘It’s cost him his child’.

[Agnieszka Sikora]

The day 'Look Back in Anger' was first staged at the Royal Court was considered the commencement of a new era in British Post-War theatre. As John Russel Taylor writes in 'Anger and After': “Then, on 8 May 1956 came the revolution…” and further on “…at least no one can deny that Look Back in Anger started everything off…”
Osborne introduced new structures in playwriting. If we have a closer look at 'The Entertainer' we notice that it is composed of an ouverture,13 numbers and two intermissions what clearly alludes to music-hall performances and therefore brings back the greatness of the (lost?)popular entertainment.
The Rice family may be seen as a picture of the 50s’ Britain. Jean is politically involved against nuclear weapons, Mick has never came back from the Suez war, Phoebe’s only way to accept the reality is alcohol… Through the character of Archie Rice, a music-hall comedian, Osborne makes a connection between the old order (“the heart of England”) and the 50s’ Britain. Old Billy appears as a 'survivor' from the past and criticizes the modern world lacking entertainment and values.
Contradiction is an essential element in Osborne’s plays. In both 'Look Back in Anger' and 'The Entertainer' the past is seen as a period of greatness, impossible to reach in modern Britain. Ordinary, everyday language that Osborne uses in his plays was another thing that defined post-war British theatre.Its simplicity erased barriers between classes and therefore made Osborne’s plays accessible to everyone. Jimmy's violent and angry words may be the response to the post-war reality.

[James Morris]

Apologies for the roughness of my above post; here it is again in a more comprehensible form:

“All the qualities are there, qualities one had despaired of ever seeing on the stage … the sense of lacking a crusade worth fighting for ... the determination that no one who dies shall go unmourned.” Kenneth Tynan, Observer, May 1956

‘There are cruel steel traps lying about everywhere, just waiting for mad, slightly satanic, and very timid animals. Right?’ – Jimmy Porter, Look Back In Anger.

The protagonists of both Look Back In Anger and The Entertainer are men of contradictions, whose lives seem to be defined and dependant on their relationships with women. Jimmy Porter’s search for a mother figure mirrors and correlates with his search for a fulfilling relationship on equal terms. One hears of his affair with Madeleine; a women ‘old enough to be his mother’. Elsewhere, the opposing forces of Mrs Tanner and his mother-in-law provide the play with a symbolic, binary class conflict, based on Jimmy’s acceptance of the former over the latter to the complete rejection of his wife’s unmarried existence. Osborne chooses quite radical imagery to describe Porter’s inward tension and conflict, expressed in his verbal abuse of his wife in the guise of the vocabulary of conception and miscarriage.

“Anyone who’s never watched somebody die is suffering from a pretty bad case of virginity.” Death, for Porter, is akin to the Victorian ‘little death’; it is his wife’s ‘untried’ status that elicits his passionate reaction or repulsion. The phrase ‘evil-minded little virgin’ is directed insult toward Helena in the moments preceding the instigation of their affair. This strange parallelism invites comparison with the immediately proceeding discourse of the ‘well-known debutante’, who ‘killed and drank the blood of a white cockerel’ in a fertility rite. Birth, or innocence, is tainted in Look Back In Anger. The one life that is conceived in the text falls foul of its father’s somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy. In an early scene:

“If you could have a child, and it would die. Let it grow, let a recognizable human face emerge from that little mass of indiarubber and wrinkles … if I could only watch you face that. I wonder if you might even become a recognizable human being.’

Porter’s own indignation towards women, whether unconscious or superficial, and towards the ‘natural’ passage of the reproductive cycle engenders his own inhumanity, begetting a form of divine judgement: Alison’s miscarriage. It is as if, having rejecting conventional ‘religion’, Jimmy has endowed ‘women’ with a status that is at once redemptive and judgemental, transcendent. This is reflected in his self-created reality; he invites his own ‘sentence’ and engenders, like the prophet of some ‘Coptic Goddess’, the destruction of a part of himself. Alison’s suffering is the touch paper of reconciliation between the couple, yet the underlying, ‘primal’ narrative still requires a ‘sacrifice’ to bring about catharsis – ‘It’s cost him his child’.

[Emma Nolan]

There’s no doubt that John Osborne was one of the key, important figures in this period and that his plays did mark a significant changing point in theatre; however, I would have to argue that post war theatre definitely was ‘more than just Osborne’.

This period of theatre spawned so many different genres, playwrights and theatre companies, and each of these helped to define this period in their own way. For example, the late plays of Terence Rattigan signalled the changing tone of theatre; Bertolt Brecht, Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco provided incredibly influential genres of the epic and the absurd; Joan Littlewood and Theatre Workshop brought new, ‘collective’ methods of production and development of scripts, as well as some plays with a somewhat ‘taboo’ subject matter (A Taste of Honey).

All of these literary influences, in addition to the influences of the changing British culture and society, had a great impact upon the subsequent plays. Each offered a different slant or interpretation of what they believed to constitute theatre, prompting each other to challenge conventions and look at things in other ways; experimenting in individual ways, and challenging audience attitudes and expectations.

In terms of British theatre and British dramatists, it could be said that Osborne ‘defined’ post-war theatre, as he was the first to break away from the conventions. He arguably adopted aspects of the epic and the absurd, and used his plays not only to entertain, but to voice political, social and cultural critiques of the contemporary society - for example, the emergence of the ‘Angry Young Men’. Another way in which Osborne could be credited with defining this period of theatre is that his plays opened in the Royal Court; the mainstream and ‘legitimate’ stage. It was performed to wider audiences than the plays that were on in the theatre clubs, possibly creating a higher impact.

[stephen wischhusen]

If readers would like to hear the west end production and therefore how the play sounded in performance in 1957, they could buy the new classics for pleasure double cd of the Palace Theatre London Cast which included Laurence Olivier and Joan Plowright. It should perhaps (like The Caretaker qv) be in the library of every univesity drama department

[stephen wischhusen]

Those having easy access to Harrogate may like to see the new production of "Look Back in Anger" which is at the Harrogate Theatre from 10th February to 3rd March Interestingly, the Guardian "Guide" of 10th March poses much the same questions as this blog: viz "Is John Osborne's famous kitchen sink drama 50 years old or 50 years young ? Was it a radical deparrture for British Theatre, as is so often claime, or did its arrival stifle all other forms of theatre which might otherwise have emerged and flourished in a late 1950's Britain where Beckett's wprk was getting a hold on the stage/"