Talk:Private Fears in Public Places

Discussion about whether the play was extended

This discussion was made on the Alan Ayckbourn talk page about the comments about the Orange Tree's version being extended. (That comment was actually deleted from the Ayckbourn Page yonks ago but somehow I ended up reading it.) I've accepted this claim as verified and incorporated it into this article. Archive of discussion below.

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Extended version of Private Fears in Public Places?

I'm currently working through creating articles for the recent plays, and I'm probably going to do Private Fears in Public Places next. However, on this page, it claims that the version in the Orange Tree Theatre was an extended version. After a quick look on the official Ayckbourn website, I can't find anything to verify this assertion.

Will someone clarify whether this is the case (preferably with a reference so I can incorporate this into the article), or shall I just delete this?

Also, I propose to delete the cast list of Couers from this page. That really belongs on the Couers page. Any objections?

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Scarborough version came in at 90 minutes, timed by User:John Thaxter here. Michael Billington in his review of the Richmond version has it at 110 minutes, here. Seemingly it was extended for the revival. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. In that case, next question: does anyone know where the extra twenty minutes came from? The most obvious explanation is that extra lines were put in the script, but it might just have been down to re-directing the same play at a slower pace (which would be just about possible from 90 to 110 minutes, but I can't think why Alan Ayckbourn would do that). Any clues as to what happened? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that no-one but the local press and British Theatre Guide bothered to turn up to review the original Scarborough production of Private Fears in 2004; certainly there are no 2004 reviews archived in Theatre Record, a matter for complaint by Benedict Nightingale in his 2005 Richmond review for The Times.

However, the Scarborough version was at last given its North West premiere, opening at the Library Theatre in Manchester in September 2006, when my Manchester colleague, the ever-reliable Natalie Anglesey reviewed it for The Stage. And as you can see from her text, she duly clocked it in at 90 minutes.

When I reviewed the extended version for The Stage at the Orange Tree in May 2005, the theatre press release (which I did not retain) mentioned that the version being performed was expanded from the original 90 minutes to 1 hour 50 minutes without an interval. I have the programme before me and it reads "Running time 1 Hour and 50 Minutes with no interval: the bar will stay open until 10pm." I also have my original draft review which shows that I recorded the running-time at exactly 1hr 50mins, in other words, 20 minutes longer than at Scarborough. That precise timing also appears in the production notes in the heading to my review as published in the 19 May 2005 issue of The Stage.

I do not recall our being offered any explanation for the expanded timescale, but my guess is that Alan Ayckbourn, having previously left some nuggets on the cutting-room floor, wanted to re-incorporate them in the Orange Tree version before transfer to New York and the Brits Off-Broadway season. Surely this happens all the time, especially when, as in this case, the author is also the director.

The only oddity is why the Manchester director Chris Honer not leave them in for his 2006 North West premiere? The clue to this could lie in the fact that at the Orange Tree Paul Thornley as the cashiered subaltern and Alexandra Mathie as the born-again Christian with a dominatrix kit in her carrier bag (both outstanding performers), were new to play and may have been rewarded with additional lines for the transatlantic tour which were not part of the published text.

Just for the record, according to Theatre Archive, Chris Honer's 2006 Manchester cast list was:

Robert Perkins (Dan)

Malcolm James (Ambrose)

Olwen May (Charlotte)

Leigh Symonds (Stewart)

Alice James (Imogen)

Imogen Slaughter (Nicola)

While Ayckbourn's original 2004 Scarborough casting was:

Stephen Beckett

Melanie Gutteridge

Paul Kemp

Adrian McLoughlin

Sarah Mayle

Billie-Claire Wright (those in bold not at the Orange Tree).

Hope all this helps rather than confuses. John Thaxter (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Here's a funny thing, when Gill Stoker reviewed the play at Scarborough in 2004 for British Theatre Guide she made a positive song and dance about the two hours running time without an interval - I kid you not, do have a look. So where does this leave us - did Ayckbourn crop it to 90 minutes after a disastrous first night? Bit of a laugh though. Best wishes to all my patient readers. John Thaxter (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've only just come across this intriguing page and haven't come across this time problem before. I'm Alan's archivist and run his website and I have the prompt scripts for 2004 and its Orange Tree / New York 2005 revival and the published texts in front of me and there's no discernible difference between any of them - aside froim a notable typo in the Faber edition which has a profound effect on how we perceive Aubrey's character. The play was not extended between productions and I don't recall any substantial differrences other than the cast change between productions. I hope that helps a bit. Smurgatroyd (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2008

ABSOLUTE CLARIFICARION: I have just spoken to the stage manager on the 2004 world premiere and for the 2005 Orange Tree / New York revival. In 2004, the shows ran on average 1hour and 47 minutes. This is taken directly from the daily Stephen Joseph Theatre show reports. The running time the following year was the same. I have also confirmed there were no changes to the script between 2004 and 2005. So the correct running time is approximately: 1 hour and 50 minutes. The question of how Manchester reduced it to 90 minutes without substantially cutting material is another matter as Alan's original production (which subsequently toured) was probably the tightest production of the play you're ever likely to see. I hope this is of help. Smurgatroyd (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008

Discussion on how to reference this

The following discussion was made on my talk page about referencing Private Fears. I'm moving it here where this really ought to belong.

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I've only become aware about the running time issue for Private Fears today and I've posted some material on the Fears discussion page. But just to let you know, I can say with absolute certainty the original production did not run for 90 minutes, it ran for 1hr 47mins running to 1hr 48 mins according to the daily show reports at the Stephen Joseph Theatre. Hence the Richmond time is also accurate. That just leaves the question of Manchester, but as this had nothing to do with Alan or the SJT it's not really relevant. Good work on the play pages, if I can ever be of assistance please don't hesitate to email me at simon.murgatroyd@sjt.uk.com

Smurgatroyd (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Just read your correspondence to me. I think you can cite the stage management (or show reports) at the Stephen Joseph Theatre - it doesn't get any more authoratative than that! With regard to images, it's fine to reproduce them. I would always suggest crediting them to the appropriate copyright holder (for SJT productions, this is: Scarborough Theatre Trust). Hopefully, you should be able to copy them from Alan's website. Meanwhile, apologies if I'm posting correspondence in the wrong pages etc, I've never used the mytalk section before so I'm picking it up as I go along. Smurgatroyd (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So how do I reference it?

{{helpme}}

Okay, I've incorporated these comments into the article, but I need advice on how to cite this. I'd argue (and I'm sure no-one will disagree) that the Stephen Joseph Theatre show reports are more likely to be correct on running times than those quoted in reviews, but how can I cite this? I haven't seen these reports, and they are (I assume) not easily verifiable by members of the public, and all I have to go on is the word of another contributor to Wikipedia, albeit a pretty authoritative one.

My current proposal is to cite the reference as "Correspondance with archivist at Stephen Joseph Theatre" with a link to the talk page where he gave the running times, but is there a better way of doing this.

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

*You can't do that. You can't use Wikipedia as a source, even if it is a talk page post made by an authoritative source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This may not be a solution, but may help clarify something. The show reports I quoted are held in a publically accessible Archive (The Bob Watson Archive at the Stephen Joseph Theatre, Scarborough). So it is possible for anyone to call the archive and access that information. Presumably there is a way to cite this as otherwise how do you cite other material held in archives that is not accessible via the web? I hope that helps in some way.

Smurgatroyd (talk) 09:45, 01 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, I've been meaning to get in touch with you about this. As far as I'm aware, that would fit citation rules perfectly. The only slight technicality is that there's a rule here that says you've got to say where you saw the information, and I haven't seen it myself. So this leaves two options:

1) I cite it myself anyway. This is bending the SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT rule a little, but that really refers to citing secondary sources quoting primary sources and I doubt anyone would mind.

2) You can include the reference yourself. Wikipedia does have rules on conflict of interest, but simply tidying up articles about someone you're associated with ought to be fine. If you want to do this, all you need to do is replace the {{fact}} tag with <ref>Textofreferencehere</ref>, and the reference will appear like magic.

Let me know which option you prefer.

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. I think I'd prefer the first option if that's OK. I'm not really confident with altering material on wikipedia other than on the most basic level and don't want to mess it up. Hopefully, this may also help you and others in future as I can verify information from the archive as it's going to be as definitive source of verifying facts as you're likely to find for articles.

Smurgatroyd (talk) 10:16, 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Who was the designer?

Webpage says Roger Glossop, programme says Pip Lackenby. Can someone tell me which is correct? Or were they both involved?

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Chris

I would totally trust the independent Arts Archive performance listings to have the correct technical line-up. They show that Pip Leckenby (sic) was designer for:

Stephen Joseph Theatre (premiere with original cast) 12 Aug 04 - 4 Sep 04

Stephen Joseph Theatre (pre-tour version with revised cast as Orange Tree) 21 Apr 05 - 30 Apr 05

Orange Tree Theatre 5 May 05 - 4 Jun 05

The Orange Tree programme makes no mention of Roger Glossop in connexion with this production,

Best wishes, John Thaxter (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Chris: I have edited the page, with several extra links. The Orange Tree is an in-the-round theatre and is modelled on the SJT. Best wishes, John Thaxter (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What does Charlotte do at the end?

I think Charlotte reads her Bible in the final scene, but I can't remember, and it doesn't say on the official site. (Incidentally, many thank to Simon Murgatroyd and his official synopses for jogging my memory on many occasions.) Can someone help me?

There again, I'm popping to the Stephen Joseph Theatre this weekend so I might sneak a look then.

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: She opens a folder. Sysnosis corrected. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No reviews archived at Theatre Record?

According to John Thaxter's edits, there were no reviews of the 2004 production archived in the theatre record. However, according to this link[1] there does seem to be one archived review in 2004. Is this an error or have I misunderstood how the Theatre Review archive works?

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While not entirely relevant, you can find several of the reviews for Private Fears on Alan Ayckbourn's website at [2]. It did not receive many reviews but certainly, as you can see, The Guardian, Sunday Times and Daily Mail reviewed it.

Simon Murgatroyd (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)