Dream On

          There was a piece in the paper that caught my attention, perhaps because, as I turned the pages, it was the first story not to be about the geopolitical nightmare that is the background to our lives and the daily, debilitating fodder of journalists, commentators and readers such as me. What attracted my eye was a photograph of the interior of “the world’s smallest theatre”, with its youthful, creative director standing there, radiating her pleasure, pride and optimism with a glorious, uninhibited smile.

          The theatre, which is in a former public toilet in Malvern, seats only twelve, so its financial viability must be a challenging prospect (you see what a pessimistic mindset I have been reduced to), but micro-theatre and micro-economics can be made to work, bringing sustenance and happiness to those involved. Not every venture has to be scaled up to succeed.

          The very next day, we saw theatre on the grandest scale, with Donald Trump featuring in a lavish production that, were it to be given a title, might be called The King and I – but for the small matter of copyright law. Insofar as we were not physically present at the show, what we actually saw was the equivalent of ‘the film version’. But that was the producers’ intention, it seems, as stage-management was of the essence in this case. We, the audience, had to be convinced – despite the shaky acting and implausible plot – that the story being told was leading us all to a happy ending. Dissenting voices must be kept away from the stage for fear of discrediting the fantasy.

          As this charade works its way to a flawed finale, what I see is a tale as old as humanity: two individuals, who have come into power by villainous methods (Trump by lying and inciting hatred, King Charles by inheriting unquestioningly the common wealth acquired forcibly by his ancestors), engaged in a tentative dance, choreographed to boost the power and prestige of the President on the one hand and limit the damage to the economy and independence of the UK on the other. The outcome has been predetermined. Since it is well known that the President is something of an Anglophile, an admirer of our monarchy and a sucker for flattery, the UK government has played the appropriate cards to best effect. New money meets old money and as is its wont, seeks its validation and approval.

          Some will argue that it’s as well we have a monarchical heritage resplendent with pageantry. “You see, it does have a role to play”, they say. But what if we had used the nation’s riches not to glorify an unelected family but to invest, instead, into a renewed common wealth? Would our national economy then be as impoverished as it is and as subservient to that of the USA?

          We peasants can be distracted easily from seeing the bigger picture: dangle baubles that are just beyond our reach, divert our attention from their power-grabs by creating enemies for us to hate – it’s a universally successful technique. All these ingredients are mixed into the script of the show currently playing. The Americans are offering to boost our economy by investing billions of dollars into our digital infrastructure (something we should have done ourselves), creating jobs for blue- and white-collar workers alike. But they will be calling the shots and the price we will pay is fealty to the economic and political values they preach and want us to espouse.

          And what of the existential problems of the world: eco-destruction and the wars driven by it and the naked greed of nationalism? These themes, apparently, have no place in their programme. I’m hopeful they will find a spiritual home, at least, in theatres where they do still dream – like the one in Malvern.