ABSTRACT
Gaskill clung to the idea of repertory playing for as long as he could. He accepted that, unless there was an unlikely surge in box-office takings, the policy should be one of reverting to straight runs from the end of July 1966. It could not be done before July because of actors’ contracts. Should the takings increase before July ‘I think we should consider a more limited form of repertory, i.e. two plays a week rather than three for shorter seasons of three to four months, with gaps between for straight runs and therefore possible transfers.’ It is not difficult to gloss this as an attempt to maintain the essential life of the repertory system, while at
the same time deliberately employing ‘prop’ productions to bring in the money. As Gaskill said in the same document, ‘I think it is very important that the continuity of the work and the excitement, which has been generated in an admittedly small audience, which springs from the repertory system, should not be given up without a struggle.’ He had organized the budgets, however, to meet a policy of straight runs from July ‘for the time being’. A further nod in the direction of economy was the proposed reduction of the artistic administration to an Artistic Director, an Associate Director, two Assistant Directors, a Literary Manager and a Casting Director. At the same time, it had proved, against his hopes, very difficult to integrate studio work into the work of the Company, but Gaskill asked for permanent contracts for six young actors both to understudy, play small parts and be developed as a studio group within the Company.
