Peter Hall's Diaries: The Story of a Dramatic Battle

by Peter Hall

In these intimate diaries, Hall chronicles the eight frenzied years between 1972 and 1980 when he conducted the historic move of the National Theatre from the Old Vic to the South Bank, and then triumphantly consolidated its position as the leading showcase for theatre in Britain.

With remarkable candour Hall describes his relationship with Lord Olivier; with actors Paul Scofield, Ralph Richardson, Alec Guinness, John Gielgud, Albert Finney and Peggy Ashcroft; with playwrights Harold Pinter, John Osborne, Samuel Beckett, David Hare, Peter Shaffer and Howard Brenton; and with directors John Schlesinger, John Dexter, Bill Bryden, Christopher Morahan and Jonathan Miller. In his startlingly frank, incisive style, he creates sometimes affectionate, sometimes acid portraits of his friends and enemies, of great actors in rehearsal.

In his foreword, Hall casts a critical eye over the state of British theatre today and, through a discussion of politics and the arts in the eighties and nineties, contemplates its future.

Genres: Theatre, Nonfiction, Shakespeare, Biography, British Literature, Drama

560 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1983

About the author

Sir Peter Reginald Frederick Hall CBE was an English theatre and film director. Hall founded the Royal Shakespeare Company (1960–68) and directed the National Theatre (1973–88), and was prominent in defending public subsidy of the arts in Britain.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.

Reviews

[Patrick Neylan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Draft review, because I haven't finished it yet.

Having read Stage Blood by Michael Blakemore, it's difficult to come to Peter Hall objectively. Blakemore is scathing about his former boss, particularly what he sees as Hall's self-aggrandising egotism that crushes all in his wake.

Oddly, none of that comes out in the Diaries. Hall seems a perfectly nice chap. But there are hints that Blakemore might be more reliable. Certainly Hall unwittingly condemns himself, albeit of lesser charges.

First, and most tenuously, these are supposed to be extracts from taped observations, edited for length but not content. I don't buy that. There are a good few examples where subtle, retrospective changes seem have been made.

Second, Hall only seems to have accepted the job because it would have looked good on his CV. He is passionate about every aspect of the theatre except the business of running it. During the early years of crisis, the diaries go on for week after week with little or no mention of his administrative role. Sure, the diaries have been edited, but if you're the boss of a big organisation at a crucial moment in its history then the running of it should take up most of your time and all of your passion. To parody Hall:

Jan: 1974 is going to be a crucial year for the National. We need a successful year on the stage while making sure the new theatre is ready for 1975.
Jan: Talks with Pinter about directing his new play.
Jan: To Germany to discuss directing there.
Feb: Accepted an acting role in a German film.
Feb: To Glyndebourne to discuss directing there.
Mar: To New York to negotiate a release for my film.
Mar: To Germany to film my scenes.
Apr: Am collared by an associate at the National who says the National is directionless and nobody knows what is happening. Baffled.
Apr: Discussions with producers about presenting a TV show on the arts.
Apr: Propose the NT appoints a deputy to run things when I am not there. It is suggested I reduce my outside interests instead. Baffled.
May: Lunch with old friends. Dinner, then theatre.
May: Weekend relaxing and reading plays. Worried about my workload.
May: Day with my accountant. I need to earn more.
May: Accept a role in a TV ad.
Jun: Agree to direct a TV ad.
Jun: To Paris to see an old friend's production.
Jul: A week in Norway to research my adaptation of Ibsen.
…and so on.

Sure, he attends the odd meeting, but by his own account he seems to do little else for the National other than directing plays and accepting resignations. Blakemore's account, on the other hand, focuses on almost nothing but the National and its tribulations.

The book isn't very well put together. The footnotes are irritating. The reader is often distracted from the text to a footnote explaining either the obvious or the uninteresting, such as "Lunch with Bob Smith and Jill(1)" - "Footnote 1: his wife".

There are errors of spelling and grammar; not very many, but too many.

[Alex Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the best evenings of my life have been spent in the National Theatre, so I was eager to learn more about the era in which the South Bank complex was built, and wonderful productions like "Amadeus" and "Bedroom Farce" were staged. Peter Hall gives a vivid picture of the behind-the-scenes drama - - the political maneuvering, the endless worrying about money, the clashes between the management and the stagehands' union, the recruitment of talented directors and writers, the coping with the press (for whom Hall clearly has scant respect). However, Hall, narrating his own story, is not particularly enjoyable company. He is given to frequent bursts of self-pity. In particular, he complains endlessly about the stress he is under as manager of the theatre, director (not only of multiple productions at the NT but also of opera at Glyndebourne, of NT plays that have moved to New York with new casts, and films), and as occasional actor and the interviewer in a tv series. It never seems to occur to him that he could reduce the pressure by saying no to some of these projects, even though that would mean giving up something that he wanted (and cutting back on his lifestyle). He reminded me of the sort of person who endlessly laments being overweight while never considering diet and exercise as a remedy ("Why do I have to give up anything? Why can't I just do everything I want to?"). Since his book is repeatedly punctuated by accounts of flights on the Concorde, elegant galas, dinners with celebrities, massive consumption of wine, luncheons with international charmers like John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson, I found it hard to feel much sympathy. Hall lead a truly demanding life with lots of stress, but this seemed to me to be a case of "If you can't take the heat..."

[Jānis Lībeks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This one has it all - intrigue, personalities, egos, strike actions, royalty, good theatre, excellent theatre, terrible theatre, budget disputes, delayed deadlines, excessive self-confidence, lack of confidence, board meetings, personal troubles, Concorde, surprisingly bad reviews, surprisingly good reviews, UK politics, ocular issues, etc. etc. etc.

[Shelly Dennison · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have a soft spot for theatrical biographies and this was a great read - it focuses on Hall's time at the National Theatre in the 1970s and gives an insight into the personalities and politics of the time.

[Dominic H · Rating 4 out of 5]

Possibly my favourite book ever written on the theatre. I read it when it came out when the events were described were contemporary. It hasn't dated.

[Henry Begler · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book which functions simultaneously as a compendium of wise and witty observations about theatre and directing, a memoir of leading a contentious and dysfunctional organization, and an Amisian comic novel with a hapless, self-defeating protagonist. A total pleasure to read.

[scherzo♫ · Rating 4 out of 5]

30.5A TBR