By Mursi Saad El-Din What I like about the British is their insistence on their Britishness. They often criticise or even attack certain aspects of their country, but when it comes to their identity, they take a strong stand. Recently the question of British national identity has come under intense discussion. Perhaps this is a reaction to the multiculturalism of which Britain is a prime example, the debate being an expression of a lingering fear that in the middle of umpteen ethnic groups, British identity may alter or even disappear. For some reason the debate about British identity is usually at its strongest at Christmas and New Year's time. For one thing, it has been claimed that Christmas is a British invention, in that it is as much the brainchild of Charles Dickens as a religious occasion. Besides, when the British make their new year's resolutions, these always has something to do with the British identity. As a farewell message to the year 2006, the London Daily Telegraph 's "Review of the Year" examines the Britishness of the British. The "Review", which came out on 23 December, discussed different aspects of British life. The content of the issue deals with films, theatre, music, dancing, opera, ballet, art, radio, television, architecture and, last but not least, literature. The articles carry such titles as "Boom time for British film", "Glorious Nation of Great Britain" and "How British theatre got its swagger back." Out of these different topics I have chosen the theatre to present, since it is my favourite subject. I had the good luck of enjoying the British theatre during its heydays, immediately after the end of World War Two. I arrived in London in mid-1945 to take up my job as secretary of the newly- founded Egyptian Institute. I was later to become culture attaché for twelve years. After the war period when almost every cultural activity was stopped, the post-war years witnessed a revival of the theatre, among much else. Those were the golden days of British theatre. In those years I watched on stage such leading actors as John Guilgud, Ralph Richardson, Lawrence Olivier, Sybil Thorndike, Vivien Leigh and a score of American actors and actresses. I watched the plays of Shakespeare, Shaw, Wilde, as well as of non-British playwrights like Ibsen, Strindberg, Chekov and Wilder. The unique characteristic of British theatre is its embracing of foreign writers and making their works part and parcel of its repertoire. But let me go back to the article "How British theatre got its swagger back". It deals with the state of the theatre in 2006 which the writer, Charles Spencer, describes as "a terrific year." Spencer compares the state of the theatre in London and Broadway in the States. Though there is some justification for the current concern about the state of "the straight play" in the West End, which is now presenting more musicals than ever before, the situation is far better than on Broadway, which can normally only manage just one "snob" hit each season. In London, however, there is an "infinite variety as well as the West End" so that you can take your pick from the National, the Donmav, the Almeida, the Royal Court, the Royal Shakespeare Company and countless other regional and fringe venues. Spencer then goes on to mention the straight plays shown in England last year, by such playwrights like Tom Stoppard, Peter Morgan, Kathleen Turner and others. After discussing the theatre in cities other than London, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham, Spencer says that "From plays to musicals, London to Edinburgh, the stage world is in rude health and in fighting form."
