Theater and the financial crisis

Do you know David Hare? Well, if you know British contemporary drama, then you’ve definitely heard his name. I have recently come across an interview with him on YouTube. As it usually happens to me, those things that I find by chance fascinate me more than those that I have searched for. Both on YouTube and in real life...

 It happened to me in Spain, a year ago. Perhaps it would sound weird to say that I “accidentally found a course” on British contemporary drama since it was enlisted in the study program offered also for international students, but it was definitely not my intention to take it. Being sick and tired from Shakespearean tragedies which I had previously read at home, another course on British theatre, even though if that one would deal with plays written four centuries later, was a horrifying perspective. However, I decided to attend the class. The reason of my decision was very simple: it was my second day in Spain and I still had only a few acquaintances, therefore I went everywhere I could in hope of making some friends. Indeed, the practise proved to be fruitful: I met a couple of easygoing Spanish people and a Polish guy with glasses, stunning humour and shocking worldview on that course, which after all, I decided to take. And through his play, I met David Hare of course.

David Hare has been an active participant in the cultural life of Britain from the 1960’s. He is not only a playwright, but also theatre and film director. At the time when he founded his own film company, his name was already well-known for having put on the stage several of his own and other contemporary author’s plays. Later on, his career ascended not only because of the teleplays written for the BBC, but also thanks to experimenting with new theatre genres. His plays have never lost popularity for a moment since the 1960’s. He was given the rank of knight by the Queen for his outstanding literary work in 1998. 

The Power of Yes on the stage of the British National Theatre

Well, but apart from the television and film scripts, what’s the recipe of the popularity of his plays? OK, let’s have a look at The Power of Yes. The protagonist of the play – even though the play lacks a protagonist in its traditional sense of the word – is a character called Author. He is a real person: the playwright himself who, in accordance to the subtitle of the play, undertakes the role of an investigative journalist trying to “understand the financial crisis.”  In fact, Hare interviewed a couple of financial experts on the topic, and then he used their precise words in the play.  In this manner he created an documentary adaptable for stage. The genre is called verbatim theatre. Similarly to the Author, Hare employs the group of the interrogated financial experts in the play. All of them are real persons (such as Deborah Solomon, Alan Greenspan and George Soros), but some of them choose to remain anonymous (the Leading Industrialist, the Young Man and the Hedge Fund Manager) and the whole list is completed with the names of well-known personalities who does not appear in the play but the other characters are constantly talking about them (Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and George Bush).

Hare is consciously creating popular culture of current issues. He did the same when he wrote a play about the railways’ privatisation in Britain (The Permanent Way, 2004) and the Iraq War (Stuff Happens, 2004). Verbatim theatre? Political theatre? Documentary?

I think it’s a pity that this phenomenon, call it as you wish, is not present in our countries. 

On that course in Spain, a year ago, I wrote an essay in which I intended to focus on some of the characters of the play. Having read the essay a year later, I have to admit that I led a rather superficial intellectual life over there in Spain, a year ago. You’ll not going to find a well-evidenced hypothesis in the excerpt, but I think that it still gives you a certain impression of what is the play about. In case you decide to read it. 

“It’s about the death of an idea, isn’t it? (…)  Since the 1980’s people have been saying that markets are decent and wise. And now we know they’re not. They’re not.”

It is the author, who summarizes his knowledge with these words by the end of the play. He acquired his knowledge from a group of financial experts which consists of famous lawyers, academics and bankers, all of them real persons; consequently it is inevitable to take into consideration their real lives if the work’s aim is to analyze the relations between them. This work is going to focus on those characters that appear in (Act) THREE (Masa Serdarevic and Myron Scholes) and additionally on two important figures, Alan Greenspan and George Soros.

Masa Serdarevic became well-known on the day when her photograph appeared on the front page of the newspapers depicting her with a large box in her hands leaving the offices of Lehmann Brothers on the day of their bankruptcy. Although she is the less significant person in the world of finances from those who appears in the drama, Hare converts her into a significant character in the play. She plays an imaginary role of a teacher who explains the Author the crisis and introduces him the appropriate persons at appropriate moments as the development of the drama requires it. Her way of speech is didactic, exact, and highly professional. She intends to speak as much as it is inevitably necessary for the Author and the audience to understand the topic. Myron Scholes is the antithesis of Masa. The American financial economist became well-known with the his equation. In the drama he is depicted as a humorous easy-going genius, who is completely obsessed with his work and does not care about what the world think about him.

After presenting Masa and Scholes, it is rather significant to observe the interactions between the characters and the way they regard themselves. The central topic of the crisis, which is the omnipresent conflict of the drama, evokes ardent debates and supports the characters to form severe criticism about the others. In THREE becomes evident that the first responsible of the conflict is going to be Myron Scholes. Masa, being the youngest and less experienced from all of the characters, does not judge and pronounce her opinion directly on the person who she accuses. However, evading direct conversation she says: “you’ll notice, it’s a running theme, how many of the people who fucked up capitalism came from Harvard.” She refers to Scholes, but speaks to the Author.

George Soros also appears in THREE, however, his character acquires special significance at the end of the play. As a real person he is an investor, business magnate and philanthropist of Hungarian origin. Regarding Sholes he comments that it is “amazing” and “shocking” for him to recognize that in the world of finances people believe that risk can be eliminated by mathematic equation.

 

It is interesting to observe the composition of THREE and FOUR. THREE begins with the conversation between Masa and the Author and develops into a passionate discussion between the characters that comment upon the culpable person’s responsibility. The culpable person is present, but does not intervene to the conversation. This composition remains the same in FOUR; however, the cast is changed. In FOUR, Alan Greenspan will be blamed. According to public opinions, it was Greenspan’s easy-money policies that directly led to the subprime mortgage crisis. 

George Soros makes an interesting comment on Greenspan, relating to his famous speech in 1996: “He was saying that bubbles were irrational exuberance. But he got that wrong. They’re not irrational. When I see a bubble coming, I’m thrilled. I participate. I buy the stock.” This quotation is characteristic for Soros’s style as he is depicted in the play. He uses short, persuasive and eloquent phrases. He is meant to play the role of a wise, elderly man who states the final conclusion of the play (which is actually addressed to Alan Greenspan): “I said ‘Yes, but Alan, the people who end up paying the price are never the people who get the benefits.”