In theatre school we had to read a 'classic' play each week and then write a report; my word but they were turgid affairs. We looked forward to Shakespeare because that at least had some action and a plot.
A lot of the time it felt like we were being instructed to admire the Emperor's clothes, like the required question, "What is it about the dialogue that makes it seem realistic?" I frequently wanted to write "It isn't realistic." but of course I had to come up with something, so I made stuff up.
I often wonder how many people in the industry are doing the same; just going along with the prevailing wind and making stuff up so no-one will call them "uncultured"; pretending the Emperor is wearing fine robes when he's parading down the road in a pair of boxer shorts, while the "tailors" run away with the money.
Often the arguments seemed circular: the play was a "classic" because this brilliant writer had written it, and why was the writer brilliant? Because they'd written so many classic plays, of course.
And this was also why it was so very important for the theatre to be subsidised; because the plays were "important". But if they're important, why did no-one seem to want to watch them? We performed "important and challenging" plays to empty theatres.
After nine months of this, I was supposed to write my own play, so I wrote a comedy. I didn't always write comedies thereafter, nor did I always have happy endings, but I did insist that we always had strong characters and good stories, and were clear who their audience was.
