The theatre, our theatre, comes from the Greeks.

The truth has got to appear plausible on the stage.

Violence is never a solution in my plays, just as ultimately violence is never a solution in human affairs.

We are still living in the aftershock of Hiroshima, people are still the scars of history.

We may seem competent, but by the end of next century there will be new deserts, new ruins.

What I try to do in a play is put a problem on stage, head-on, without evasion.

What Shakespeare and the Greeks were able to do was radically question what it meant to be a human being.

Whatever the economy needs to maintain itself, the government will do it.

When humanness is lost the radical difference between the bodies in the pit and people walking on the street is lost.

You have to go to the ultimate situation in drama.

You have to learn the language of Hamlet.

All you now do is pursue your private objectives within society. Instead of us being a community, everybody is asked to seek their own personal ends. It's called competition. And competition is antagonism.

I don't think it's the job of theatre at the moment to provide political propaganda; that would be simplistic. We have to explore our situation further before we will understand it.

Now, drama is quite useful at helping us to understand what our position is and, conversely, we might then understand why our theatre is being destroyed.

Violence is hidden within democratic structures because they are not radically democratic - Western democracy is merely a domestic convenience of consumerism.

I think there is no world without theatre.

It's insulting to ask a dramatist what his view of his play is. I have no opinion.

At the turn of the century theatre does not have to be prescriptive.

In the end I think theatre has only one subject: justice.

Art is the close scrutiny of reality and therefore I put on the stage only those things that I know happen in our society.