🔗 Share this article

All the outstanding dramatists push the boundaries of theatre. Playwrights like Beckett and Pinter achieved this in their own fashion. The achievement of Tom Stoppard was to take ostensibly specialized topics – ranging from chaos theory to philosophical ethics and the enigma of the mind – and convert them into witty, imaginative and regularly moving theatrical works. Theatre, Laurence Olivier once said, is a great glamorizer of intellect. Stoppard confirmed that with his capacity to bring concepts to life.

Early Discovery

I had the good fortune to come across Stoppard early on. That was entirely because of Philip French, who, besides being a cinema critic, was also a the BBC programme maker. In 1966 he invited me to deliver a brief lecture on two radio plays by a then unknown writer called Tom Stoppard. In The Dissolution of Dominic Boot, an broke writer racked up an ever escalating taxi-fare. And in Glad I'll Be Frank, a bus operator tried to contact his wife who was the speaking clock. I was impressed by the creativity of both plays and got to meet their emerging author.

It says much for Stoppard’s grace of spirit that even after I had appeared on TV in 1968 and given a sniffy premiere review of Real Inspector Hound – which I now love – he remained perfectly gracious. But one thing people overlook about Stoppard is that, as an former journalist himself, he understood the workings of the media.

Intellectual Virtuoso and Heartfelt Substance

From the outset, Stoppard was celebrated as an intellectual gymnast: a man who was motivated by thoughts as much as by personality and plot. But, just as we later came to realise that Pinter was invariably a political dramatist, so we in time came to see that there was an undercurrent of feeling to Stoppard’s brainy concepts. The Death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was praised for its brilliance in constructing a drama out of two minor characters from Hamlet, but repeated viewings reveal that it is about how we are all prey of random circumstances leading to our demise. I remember John Wood, who had portrayed Guildenstern on Broadway and who became an quintessential Stoppard actor, remarking, “In Tom’s plays, the word is all. The word is beating back the quiet, beating back the obscurity … I think this is what makes his plays so emotional and even heartbreaking.”

The distinctive fusion of daring ideas and heartfelt depth was also evident in Stoppard’s 1972 success, Jumpers. This, ultimately, was a play that asked a major moral issue: whether social morality was a instilled reaction to history or whether principles followed an unchanging, heaven-sent law. Not your usual subject for a play, but here the focus of a lecture being written by the play’s protagonist, George Moore. But the more one watched the play, the more one grasped that it was also about the suffering of a failing marriage and the perils of a unraveling society in which astronauts were fighting on the moon and a ex- minister of agriculture had been made Canterbury archbishop.

Thorough Preparation and Emotional Revelation

Stoppard’s achievement – one he shared with Michael Frayn – was to show that audiences were open to plays about complex ideas. His work was also thoroughly studied. I remember, shortly before Jumpers, encountering him on the stairs of the a library in London where he was clutching a stack of books that rose to his chin. “What is that?” I asked. “My next play,” he replied.

With the years, the sentiment of his plays became increasingly apparent. The turning point perhaps came with The Real Thing (1982) which stands up better than most of his plays to revival. It asks a plethora of issues such as whether any civic duty is the result of private derangement and whether notions such as justice and national pride exist outside our views of them. But behind this – and what makes the play so accessible – is a intense realization of the bliss of love and the torment of betrayal.

Even Arcadia (1993), which explores fatalism and free will, classicism and Romanticism, and a multitude of other things, succeeds because it is intensely emotional. Ideas and feeling flawlessly come together in a moment where a exceptional youth, Thomasina, bemoans the loss of past cultures to which her tutor replies: “Intellectual breakthroughs seen briefly and forgotten will have their time again.” And that is exactly what occurs, in that Thomasina’s groundbreaking reinterpretation of the Newtonian universe endures beyond her unfortunately cut short life.

Debating the Power of Art

Stoppard’s genius as a playwright was seldom challenged. What was debated, especially in the beginning, were his reservations about the efficacy of art: something he regularly discussed in discussions. “I used to feel out on a limb,” he said in 1976, “because when I started to write, you were a bad person if you weren’t writing about Vietnam or housing. Now I have no compunction about that. To avert indirectly to Travesties [his 1974 play], Importance of Being Earnest is significant but it addresses no major issues.”

I believe he was totally wrong about that since the play by Wilde offers a running commentary on money, marriage, values, social class, the weakening of the aristocracy and the dominance of trade. But Stoppard weakened his own position by writing a number of works that deal to powerful results with the misuse of civil liberties by oppressive regimes. One of the most remarkable was Every Good Boy, first staged at the Festival Hall in 1977. It depicted a Eastern Bloc activist falsely pronounced insane and locked in a cell with an real lunatic who imagines himself in command of an symphony. It was astonishing both to see the full orchestra on the stage and to see Stoppard exposing the cruel illogicalities of Soviet oppression with dark humour. As I commented at the time, “brutality is met with wit and strictness with a