Reviving a 1972 Maltese Dockyard Drama
A youth theatre in Bormla, made up of fourteen actors aged 15–18, has been invited to a local heritage festival to present a 50-minute adaptation of a Maltese-language family drama first staged in 1972 at a workers' club. The published script has nine speaking roles, a single interior set, and a scene in which a radio news bulletin refers to an industrial dispute. The director wants to cut the radio scene, move the action to 2024, and reduce the cast to six so that every young actor has a substantial part. The venue is a 110-seat converted chapel with no wing space and a three-metre-wide entrance. The festival funding is labelled 'heritage', and the organisers expect a talk-back about the play's original context. The script's published introduction mentions that the original production used a bare set and that the author revised the ending after the first run. No production photographs have been found.
1. What historical research should the team complete before approving the director's cuts, and how should it handle gaps or conflicting evidence?
Read the worked answer
The heritage label raises the stakes: the team is not just making an adaptation but making a public claim about a past production. Research should therefore be triangulated, not treated as a single 'true' version.
- Script history: compare the published script with any surviving draft, prompt copy or author's note. The introduction already says the ending was revised after the first run, so the team must decide which version it is adapting and say so publicly.
- Production context: search local newspaper reviews, theatre-programme archives, union or workers'-club records and oral-history interviews with audience members or surviving company members. A 1972 workers'-club premiere suggests questions about venue, class, censorship and amateur/professional status.
- Gaps: no photographs is a real limit. The team should record that absence rather than invent period detail. Use documented evidence for anything the talk-back asserts; label inference as inference.
- Conflicting evidence: if reviews disagree about the set or ending, present the disagreement in the programme or talk-back. That is more honest than smoothing it out.
A useful rule: research should change the production only where evidence or a clearly argued interpretation supports it. The team should keep a short research log so that cuts can be justified to the festival and to the young cast.
2. Analyse the radio bulletin's likely dramaturgical function and recommend whether to cut, keep or adapt it in a 2024 setting.
Read the worked answer
Even without seeing the scene, the bulletin is likely doing several jobs at once:
- it locates the family in a wider economic and political world;
- it creates a sound bridge or pause that changes rhythm;
- it may expose a generational gap (adults listening to news, young characters indifferent);
- it can make the kitchen feel less self-enclosed and more pressured.
Cutting it entirely risks turning a social drama into a private family quarrel. But moving the play to 2024 while keeping a 1971 bulletin would be an unmarked anachronism. The best option is usually adaptation rather than deletion: keep the dramaturgical function but change the medium and content. For example, a contemporary radio or phone voice-note about a local industrial or employment issue could play while the family continues a conversation, preserving the overlap between public and private. If the company cannot verify a specific contemporary event, use a generic but plausible news report, or keep the sound abstract.
The test is whether the replacement does the same structural work: it must interrupt, inform the audience of offstage pressure, and affect the next exchange. If it only decorates the scene, cut it; if it changes what the family is arguing about, keep and adapt it.
3. The director reduces nine roles to six. What casting and adaptation risks follow, and how would you mitigate them?
Read the worked answer
Reducing nine to six is not just a casting convenience; it changes the social texture. Risks include:
- Composite characters: merging two relatives can produce a character who contradicts themselves or carries attitudes that belonged to different generations.
- Lost chorus/community: smaller casts often make the family seem isolated, which may weaken the play's social argument.
- Doubling confusion: if actors play multiple roles without clear markers, the audience may not know who is speaking, especially in a converted chapel with limited sightlines.
- Cut relationships: removing a role can erase a key alliance or conflict, making later choices unmotivated.
Mitigation: map each cut role's functions (plot information, conflict, comic relief, theme) before merging. Use visible costume markers and consistent physical stances for doubled roles. Keep at least one scene that shows the family in a wider community. Rehearse transitions so that doubling is clear. Finally, state in the programme that this is a six-actor adaptation, not the original nine-role text, so the heritage claim remains honest.