Michal Lachman: There is a tendency to think about British postwar drama exclusively in terms of realism. Did you want to redefine this tradition in Cavalry?Dan Rebellato: Yes. The basic idea for the play was a story of someone interviewing four men who at some point turn out to be the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. And I thought it would be interesting to do it in a magic realism genre where you have the biblical story but at the same time you try to treat it very realistically. So the language in Cavalry is hyper-realistic; for example, consider the way she speaks in the first half of the recording; she is stumbling over words, she is finishing sentences half way and starting another thought. All that is scripted and the actress, Francis Gray, played it wonderfully well. So the formal point of departure was a juxtaposition of realism of a journalist and ins-and-outs of that profession with the extremity of an apocalyptic story.ML: When listening to your play, it came to me that you can hardly find plays in the history of contemporary British drama that refer to the future or the end of the world. The theme rather features in science-fiction or dystopian literature but not necessarily in modern drama. More often it can be found in medieval drama, like morality plays. Was medieval drama an important context in composing the play?DR: There are some examples, actually; Caryl Churchill has written some dystopian plays like Far Away; Simon Stephens, David Eldridge, and Robert Holman cowrote an end-of-the-world play called A Thousand Stars Explode in the Sky. There are others. I think they are responding to climate change, globalization and more, and I am interested in the way they do so through apocalyptic imagery. In my case, though, the play is deeply anchored in the present. I wonder at what point you guessed that the four jockeys are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Some people guess it very early on and some do not until one of the characters admits that. In that way, the play is completely in the present and it also should seem quite banal; the first five minutes listeners keep asking themselves what kind of an incompetent journalist it is, making a real mess interviewing some jockeys, which, for starters, sounds like the worst idea possible for a play. That is also the reason why we have the initial poor quality of the recording; I wanted people to go and check if the radio is broken.In addition, I am not at all religious and had no commitment to tell a real tale of the end of the world. So in a way it is an alternative take on the present rather than a projection of the future.ML: Right, and, unlike listeners who sooner or later guess the identity of the characters, the journalist is the last to believe that the four horsemen are the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Was it your intention to depict modern man as an individual who is unable to comprehend or tolerate irrationality, metaphysics or the supernatural?DR: The journalist is very much me, in the sense that she denies the possibility of the horsemen being the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. If I were in that bizarre situation I would also be quite reluctant to believe someone saying that they are the Four Horsemen. The play is therefore a mechanism to test the limits of our rationality.What is more, I was interested in the whole context of the fundamentalist Christian millenarianism and the apocalyptic view in some of the extreme American Christian groups for which all the conditions for the Last Judgement are in place and the Rapture is coming soon and we will be leftin chaos. So the play is recognition of the imperfection in the world and a totally fictional attempt to find a solution for it.ML: So is the play a critique of beliefs such as millenarianism?DR: Not really, at least not expressly. The play obviously does write on the iconography and associations of the Four Horsemen, although I did not strictly follow the Book of Revelation in the respect of presenting those characters. …