Walls in the head

<strong>Estates: an intimate history</strong>

Lynsey Hanley <em>Granta Books, 256pp, £12</em>


Estates is an insider's take on the history and realities of life in council housing. Emblematic of a wide range of social problems, estates are a byword for drugs, Asbos, domestic abuse, wayward "hoodies", residual unemployment and gun crime. But residents are usually blamed for their own predicament, and I'm often left biting my lip when these stories appear.

As someone who grew up in a working-class area of Birmingham and still lives in a Brum tower block, I enjoyed Lynsey Hanley's approach to the subject. There are few passionate, articulate voices from within estates that describe their realities without sensationalising or making political capital out of it.

The usual temptations are either to idealise estates or to fall into negative stereotypes and middle-class condescension. Hanley skilfully maintains the delicate balance between these two, mixing social commentary with very personal accounts of her upbringing. Another danger is producing an insufferably dull account of social policy. Yet Hanley writes with an ironic, characteristically Brummie sense of humour and cutting sarcasm, which makes the book colourfully readable. Describing the difficulty of wandering around the estates as a flâneur, she observes: "There's a risk of looking like an intruder, an outsider or, more likely, a wally."

Estates provides its often barbed social commentary through intimate, personal accounts. But it also describes Lloyd George's "homes fit for heroes", designed as a bulwark against Bolshevik ideas; Aneurin Bevan's idealism and refusal to "take the coward's way out"; the cynicism of Harold Macmillan's "housing crusade"; and the Trojan horse of Margaret Thatcher's "right to buy" policy. This account is tremendously important in restating something that should be obvious to most observers, but is usually left out of discussions about hugging hoodies and urban decay. All the grand housing decisions have been made (until very recently) with out consulting the very people who would be most affected.

The geometric vision and minimalist zeal of architects such as Le Corbusier and Karel Teige, writes Hanley, infected the minds of town planners like an "intellectual flu". The generous subsidies given to local authorities and unscrupulous contractors conspired to edge the poor out of a say in their own destiny and contributed to the litany of disasters associated with concrete tower blocks. Whose idea was this? Someone who didn't have to live here.

A further obvious but necessary point is that the failings of housing estates are as much to do with underinvestment in infrastructure as with cosmetic problems. "All the back gardens and spacious front rooms in the world cannot compensate for access to work and education."

For me, Hanley's most valuable contributions to the subject are her insights into the psychological effects of life on estates. The book draws a link between the creation of uniform buildings, induced gloom and the prevalence of mental illness. The eerie silence means that psychosis is almost woven into the design of the houses: "You were put here and you don't know why, your environment makes as little sense as your life."

"The wall in the head" - an almost insurmountable mental barrier to social mobility - is one of the most resonant ideas in the book. Declaring herself an "escapee", Hanley details the low expectations of her estate education, being bullied and the need to learn "middle class" as a completely new language and set of cultural norms. I chuckled when she describes seeing the Guardian for the first time - yet the limitations placed on ambitions, and the paucity of escape routes, are seriously sinister: "If you want a lot out of life, go be a pop star."

I was surprised that Hanley doesn't comment on the current mania for luxury apartment builds. Aided by generous city-council regen eration budgets, £250,000, two-bed flats are springing up the length and breadth of Birmingham at the same time as politicians bemoan the decay and lawlessness in council estates. There's no clearer demonstration of official hypocrisy and how "cut off from the mass affluence" council tenants are.

Estates tactfully manages to avoid reading like a leftist rant: Hanley makes a number of positive suggestions for curing the ills of council estates and understands the very real need for speedy slum clearance. However, "it's not so much what was taken heed of as what was ignored". The real inhabitants of estates were often just an afterthought, and still are. Council tenants continue to be blamed for their own indigence and depicted as a subspecies genetically predisposed to violent crime and drug abuse. Estates are "holding cages for the feral and the lazy". I'd personally welcome more bilingual middle-class/ working-class escapees such as Hanley - the idea of "the wall in the head" deserves to be heard on both sides of the divide.

Soweto Kinch is a jazz musician. His most recent album, "A Life in the Day of B19: tales of the tower block", documents inner-city life in Birmingham

This article first appeared in the 19 February 2007 issue of the New Statesman, Iran - Ready to attack

Almeida Theatre
Show Hide image

Rupert Goold: “A director always has to be more of a listener”

The artistic director of the Almeida Theatre on working with Patrick Stewart, the inaccessibility of the arts, and directing his wife in Medea.

Eight years ago Rupert Goold’s Macbeth made his name. The critics were unanimous in their praise, with one calling it the “Macbeth of a lifetime”. Goold’s first Olivier Award soon followed (Enron won him a second in 2009, King Charles III nearly won him a third last year). It was a family triumph; Lady Macbeth was played by Goold’s wife, Kate Fleetwood.

Now the pair has finally reunited and Fleetwood is his undisputed lead. She is playing Medea in the Almeida’s latest and final play of its Greek season. Directing your wife is one thing. Directing her in a play about a woman who murders her children because her husband abandons her is another. And it’s been harder than Goold expected.

“You live with someone every day, and they don’t age because the change is so incremental, and then you do something together and you realise how much you’ve changed. It’s like playing tennis with someone after eight years: you’re completely different players.”

As it is, Goold thinks the director-actor relationship is inevitably fraught. “There is an essential slave-master, sadomasochistic, relationship,” he says. “The incredibly complicated thing about being an actor is you’re constantly being told what to do. And one of the most damaging things about being a director – and why most of them are complete arseholes – is because they get off at telling people what to do.”

Goold doesn’t. He’s as amicable in person as the pictures – bountiful hair, loose jacket, wide grin – suggest. And when we meet in the Almedia’s crowded rehearsal rooms, tucked away on Upper Street, 100 yards from the theatre, he’s surprisingly serene given his play is about to open.

He once said that directing a play is like running towards a wall and hoping it becomes a door just before the curtain goes up. Has the door appeared? “It’s always a funny moment [at the end of rehearsal]. Sometimes you do a show and it’s a bit dead and the costumes and set transform it. Then sometimes it’s perfect and the design kills it.”

We meet shortly before last Thursday’s press night, and he can’t tell how good it is. But it “certainly feels quite private. The idea that loads of people are going to come and watch it now feels a bit weird. You bring a lot of your sense of relationships and parenting into it.”

Goold has always argued that the classics wither without intervention. So in this revival of Euripides’ 2,446-year-old play, Medea is a writer and her husband, Jason (of Argonauts fame), is an actor. “But it’s not really about that… it’s more about divorce, about what it means to separate.”

“It’s about the impact of a long-term relationship when it collapses. I don’t know whether there is a rich tradition of drama like that, and yet for most people, those kind of separations are far more profound and complicated and have greater ramifications than first love; and we have millions of plays about first love!”

Every generation discovers their own time in the Greek plays. Goold thinks he and playwright Rachel Cusk were shaped by the aftermath of the 1970s in interpreting Medea; “That’s the period when the idea of the family began to get tainted.” And when critics praised Oresteia, the Almeida’s first Greek play and a surprise West End transfer, they compared it to the Sopranos.

Yet there is something eternal about these plays. Goold says it’s the way they “stare at these problems that are totally perennial, like death,” and then offer answers that aren’t easy. Medea kills the kids and a mother rips her son to shreds in the Bakkhai (the Almeida’s predecessor to Medea). Where’s the moral compass in that?

Except there is a twist in Goold’s Medea, and it’s not one every critic has taken kindly to. It was enough to stop the Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish, otherwise lavish in his praise, from calling it “a Medea for our times”. Nevertheless, the reviews have been kind, as they often are for Goold; although The Times’ Ann Treneman was vitriolic in her dislike (“Everyone is ghastly. The men are beyond irritating. The women even worse.”).

In theory, Goold welcomes the criticism. “I’d rather our audience hated something and talked about it than was passively pleased,” he tells me ahead of reviews.

Controversial and bracing theatre is what Goold wants to keep directing and producing; as the Almeida’s artistic director he is in charge of more than just his own shows. But how does he do it? I put a question to him: if I had to direct Medea instead of him, what advice would he have given me?

He pauses. “You’ve got to love words,” he begins. “There’s no point doing it unless you have a real delight in language. And you have to have vision. But probably the most important thing is, you’ve got to know how to manage a room.”

“It’s people management. So often I have assistants, or directors I produce, and I think ‘God, they’re just not listening to what that person is trying to say, what they’re trying to give.’ They’re either shutting them down or forcing them into a box.”

“Most people in a creative process have to focus on what they want to say, but a director always has to be more of a listener. People do it different ways. Some people spin one plate incredibly fast and vibrantly in the middle of the room, and hope all the others get sucked in. It’s about thriving off of one person – the director, the lead performer, whomever.”

“I’m more about the lowest common denominator: the person you’re most aware of is the least engaged. You have to keep lifting them up, then you get more creativity coming in.”

It’s not always simple. When actors and directors disagree, the director can only demand so much, especially if the actor is far more famous than them. When Goold directed Macbeth, Patrick Stewart was his lead. Stewart was a movie star and twice his age.

“Patrick’s take on Macbeth… I didn’t think it should be played that way. I’d played him as a student and I had an idea of what he was.”

“But then you think, ‘Ok, you’re never going to be what I want you to be, but actually let me get rid of that, and just focus on what’s good about what you want to be, and get rid of some of the crap.’”

Goold doesn’t think he’s ever really struggled to win an actor’s respect (“touch wood”). The key thing, he says, is that “they just feel you’re trying to make legible their intention”.

And then you must work around your lead. In Macbeth, Stewart was “a big deep river of energy… when normally you get two people frenetically going ‘Uhgh! Is this a dagger I see before me! Uhgh!’ and there’s lots of hysteria.”

“So we threw all sorts of other shit at the production to compensate, to provide all the adrenalin which Patrick was taking away to provide clarity and humanity.”

Many people want to be theatre directors, and yet so few are successful. The writers, actors and playwrights who sell shows can be counted on a few hands. Depressingly, Goold thinks it’s becoming harder to break in. It’s difficult to be discovered. “God, I don’t know, what I worry – wonder – most is: ‘Are there just loads of great directors who don’t make it?’”

 The assisting route is just not a good way to find great new directors. “The kind of people who make good assistants don’t make good directors, it’s almost diametrically opposite.” As for regional directors, newspaper budgets have collapsed, so they can no longer rely on a visit from a handful of national critics, as Goold did when he was based in Salisbury and Northampton. And audiences for touring shows have, by some measures, halved in the past twenty years.

Theatre has also evolved. When Goold was coming through, “There were not a lot of directors who felt they were outside the library, so for me to whack on some techno was radical! Now it’d be more commonplace.” New directors have to find new ways to capture our attention – or at least the critics’.

But the critics have changed too. A nod from a critic can still be vital in the right circles, but the days when critics “made” directors is long over. “I remember Nick de Jongh saying, ‘Oh Rupert Goold, I made him.’ Because he’d put Macbeth on the front page of the Standard. I owed my career to him, and in some ways I did! But it's an absurd idea, that would not happen now.”

“It’s all changed so much in literally the past three years. There was a time, for better or worse, when you had a big group of establishment critics: de Jongh, Michael Billington, Michael Coveney, Charlie Spencer – they were mostly men – Susannah Clapp. And if they all liked your show, you were a hit.” (“They could be horrible,” he adds.)

“Now I get more of a sense of a show by being on Twitter than reading the reviews.” It’s “probably a good thing”, Goold thinks, and it certainly beats New York, where a single review – the New York Times' – makes or breaks plays. But it’s another problem for aspiring directors, who can no longer be so easily plucked from the crowd.

It’s no longer a problem Goold needs to overcome. His star could wane, but he seems likely to be among the leading voices in British theatre for a while yet.

Harry Lambert is a staff writer and editor of May2015, the New Statesman's election website.