Wolf among sheep


Tom Maschler <em>Picador, 294pp, £20</em>

ISBN 0330484206

Thirty years ago, when publishers were still regarded as newsworthy, the most glamorous of them all was Tom Maschler, the whizz-kid who turned Jonathan Cape into London's trendiest literary publisher. Tall, dark and endowed with lupine good looks, an advocate of open-necked shirts and corduroy jackets rather than the usual publisher's uniform of chalk-stripe or tweed, he brought to the imprint authors as diverse as Len Deighton, John Lennon, Bruce Chatwin, Roald Dahl and Doris Lessing. Envied, admired and resented in equal measure, he possessed an extraordinary charisma, so much so, that - as one journalist noted - the room would stiffen instantly when he arrived at a publishing party, as though a wolf had been let loose in a flock of sheep.

The only child of a German-Jewish publisher, Maschler was born in 1933, and arrived in Britain five years later. Like most of the best publishers, he started at the bottom, relying on "hunch" or intuition rather than on academic qualifications. After turning down a place at Oxford, he dabbled in films and the travel business before taking a job with the shrewd but penny-pinching Andre Deutsch. Moving on to MacGibbon & Kee, he made his mark by editing Declarations, a collection of essays by such Angry Young Men as Kenneth Tynan, John Osborne, Lindsay Anderson and Colin Wilson. He then spent two years enlivening the comatose Penguin fiction list before moving to Cape in 1960 - much to the irritation of Penguin's director, Allen Lane, who saw him as his heir apparent.

Founded nearly 40 years earlier, Cape had established itself as the most elegant and distinguished of literary publishers, but had run out of energy and ideas by the 1950s. While on his first trip to New York - where he bought the British rights to Joseph Heller's Catch-22 - Maschler learned that Allen Lane was planning to buy Cape on the understanding that his former protege be removed. Much to Maschler's gratitude, George Wren Howard, one of the firm's two founders, stood by him: Lane was seen off, and Maschler was free to revive Cape's fortunes. Such bestsellers as Desmond Morris's The Naked Ape and the egregious Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (not mentioned in these memoirs) funded a poetry list and the early novels of Martin Amis, Julian Barnes and Ian McEwan. John Fowles and Kurt Vonnegut coexisted with a line in lavishly illustrated children's books.

One of the many photographs in Maschler's book shows him wearing a T-shirt that describes him as "the world's greatest publisher". Yet, for all his brilliance, this is (or was, given that he has been a part-time practitioner for the past decade at least) an over-inflated claim. In this country alone, Allen Lane, Paul Hamlyn and Walter Neurath of Thames & Hudson were more innovative figures, who changed the ways books were published and sold. As a talent-spotter, Maschler was no match for magazine editors and part-time publishers such as Alan Ross and John Lehmann. An impresario and publicist quite out of the ordinary, his gifts were more flamboyant and more ephemeral: he combined stylishness and flair with a unique ability to persuade booksellers, literary agents, literary editors and the world at large that most of his geese were swans, and that the Cape colophon was synonymous with excitement and distinction.

Alas, Publisher is a fearful warning about the inadvisability of publishers attempting their memoirs. The early years are oddly touching; Maschler's account of how Cape was eventually sold to Random House will interest those in the trade; and he vividly evokes the full horrors of dealing with Lauren Bacall. But his descriptions of his authors are of little critical or anecdotal interest, and reveal him as a curiously unsophisticated figure, easily bruised and displaying many of the qualities of the star-struck groupie. Like all successful publishers, he was adept at picking other people's brains, yet his colleagues at Cape get short shrift; he tells us little about the workings of the trade, or how it has changed in his lifetime. Few publishers are remembered after their working lives are over: Maschler should be celebrated for the books he published rather than for what he has to say about them.

Jeremy Lewis's Penguin Special: the life and times of Allen Lane will be published by Viking in May

This article first appeared in the 14 March 2005 issue of the New Statesman, To save Africa we must listen to it

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.