National Theatre of Scotland

Interview with David Harrower

NTS Web Editor Colin Clark talks to David Harrower.

Hailed as one of this generation’s finest playwrights, Harrower’s plays, including Blackbird and Knives in Hens, have been performed all over the world. He has also adapted a number of works in translation including Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author and Chekov’s Ivanov.

In this interview during the early stages of rehearsals for Mary Stuart, David Harrower discusses his personal reactions to Schiller’s classic play and describes the process of adapting the text.

click here to view video interview

Colin Clark
Phyllida Lloyd, who directed Mary Stuart last year in London, said “The play has everything you crave from a night at the theatre: it has politics, it has passion and it's not without a dose of irony and humour.” Is that a good description of Mary Stuart, do you think?

David Harrower
I haven’t seen Mary Stuart on stage yet. I’m not even sure what I think of the play yet. I reacted to it when I read it, but to see it on stage is a totally different matter. I’m not sure what the audience are going to get from it.

I’m not sure whether audiences will see the story of a tragic queen; I’m not sure whether they’ll see the amount of Elizabethan politicking and subterfuge that went on. And I’m not going to be drawn on what I think it should be, either – sure, it’s full of intrigue but for an audience I’m not sure yet what they’re going to get. I hope that they are going to get the passion; that they’ll get the politics; that they’ll get intrigue, counter-intrigue; plot, counter-plot.

The play is really rich and has a resounding depth to it that I hadn’t seen, even when working on it and it has surprised me how much the play has opened up under pressure from the actors and the director. So I’m loath to say what exactly is going to come from it because it’s constantly changing in my estimation.

CC
Mary Stuart was written over 200 years ago by a German – what kind of perspective does that give us as Scots on our history?

DH
It’s quite an intriguing view because he’s imagined a meeting between two Queens that never took place. I find that really intriguing, as a fellow dramatist, that it’s not a dry historical dialogue; he’s actually brought his imagination to bear on what might have happened.

It’s a history play, but at the same time it’s not because the main thrust of the play didn’t happen. The play exists in this netherland: most of his facts are correct – although he telescopes some of the action in time – but the central conceit of the play is this wonderful extended scene between the Queen of England and the Queen of Scotland. I don’t know if some people are going to believe that this is what actually happened, because the rest of it is broadly as true as it’s possible to be. It’s really intriguing to me.

I’ve been asking some of my friends what they know about Mary Queen of Scots and I’ve been quite surprised. Although we know of her, we don’t know exactly what she means. She holds quite a strange place in our history along with someone like Bonnie Prince Charlie. She’s a kind of icon – though not of failure exactly, or even a derided icon. And she’s not a heroine, she’s not held up as this person who embodies Scottish values or anything . . . we don’t know exactly what she means, and that’s one of the problems. I don’t know what she’s seen as or what she now means to Scottish people.

CC
And do you think this production will help clarify that?

DH
No. Not at all. I hope it wouldn’t. She was a very complex woman who did mightily wrong things, who followed her heart instead of her head. But again, it’s really difficult to say at this juncture in the writing and in the preparation of the play how it’s going to be received and what impressions people will come away with.

In many ways the more interesting part in the play is Queen Elizabeth because she has a longer journey to complete and a bit more slip-sliding and more moral anguish to wrestle with. Mary doesn’t really have that so much; Schiller idealised her quite a lot, and we’re trying to colour that in and make her less idealised, less saintly.

CC
The original text was written by Schiller and translated by Patricia Benneke – what is your role in the writing process?

DH
I was given the literal translation, which is a close approximation of the German – as close as the translator could make it – and I read it a few times. Vicky Featherstone initially sent me to it and I agreed to do it because I didn’t know the play before and I loved the literal translation. Then I got another version of it and I read that too. I then had to ask myself, what can I do to this text? What can I bring to it? Why should I be doing this now?

After I read it, I started to do a first draft – a very broad one, because I had to learn the rhythms of the actual play that Schiller had written in, and what he was trying to do with it. Then I let Vicky look at the first draft and we talked about it and then I did a second draft. But all the time I’m trying to strip it back and – although it might sound a bit arrogant – to meld it more to my own sensibility, to my own rhythm.

The literal translation was really dense and I thought I didn’t need some of it – my sensibility is always to cut back, to use subtext, to use metaphor, and to have people not always say what they feel; I felt Schiller’s version had too much declamation.

Schiller’s text has quite a vaulting poetry to it, and I’ve tried to bring it down but to give it no less – for want of a better word – majesty. It’s still concerned with high concepts and stately behaviour between people, but I wanted to bring it back and make it manageable, make it actable, make it clear and concise. And that’s obviously going to disrupt Schiller’s poetry, but I made the decision that what I wanted most of all was for people to follow the plot. This meant getting rid of a lot of it but I realised that I’d got rid of too much of it and I learned that the dead German knew a bit more than I had given him credit for! 

So that’s been my process throughout – it’s been about finding a requisite language that has some of my sensibilities, conveying ideas in clear prose – clear poetic prose, I hope – with my own rhythm, which comes down to a choice of words, sentence structure, and so on. Even on the page it looks different: I’ve chosen to put the text down in blocks of prose rather than make it iambic; and I haven’t made it rhyme, where Schiller rhymes in places. It’s a total re-imagining of Schiller’s original play.

CC
You’ve previously worked with the National Theatre in England – with Chekov’s Ivanov and a production of Buchner’s Woyzeck at the Royal Lyceum in Edinburgh – what does it mean to you now to be working with the National Theatre of Scotland?

DH
It feels good. I did three adaptations before – two with the National Theatre . . . of England, which sounds strange to say, but it feels good also. There’s something about being part of the National Theatre of Scotland and having actors coming up from London to work, which is a good thing.

I’m not sure what it means to me. I made a decision in my own career, to stay here in Scotland. To be able to work on a classic with a cast of this size is not a chance you’d get too often without the National Theatre of Scotland because of the economies of scale. From my vantage point, the National Theatre of Scotland seems to have dovetailed into the existing structure quite seamlessly and it has really shaken up the sector.

CC
Do you see the effect it’s having on the theatre landscape in Scotland already?

DH
Absolutely. I wasn’t aware of how far-reaching it would be and the extent, not only of what it has to do, but also what it has to be seen to be doing in terms of outreach and education, geographical reach and so on. Of course, I’m a writer and the world is only seen from my desk and I don’t think of all the other things that a National Theatre has to do and what politicians want it to do. It’s quite exciting to be a part of this organisation at this stage, which is still early days.

CC
And do you see the existence of the National Theatre of Scotland having an effect on the way Scottish theatre is perceived internationally?

DH
It’s too early to say but I would hope so. It’s known that I’m doing Mary Stuart; it’s known that I’m doing it for the National Theatre of Scotland which is good for Scottish theatre that there is that interest not just for me but also for NTS. 

Mary Stuart opens at the Citizens Theatre, Glasgow on October 3 and runs until October 21. It transfers to the Royal Lyceum in Edinburgh from October 27 to November 18. There will be a post-show discussion at the Citizens on October 4, and a pre-show talk at the Lyceum October 31.