|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
Don't Subsidise: Invest!Dateline: 14th December, 2003Peter Doran's announcement that he is prepared to resign as artistic director at Milford Haven's Torch Theatre over the state of theatre in Wales (see our news story) is, to me, a sure sign that we have got our theatre funding wrong. The problem is, possibly, one of semantics: we talk about subsidising theatre when we really should be investing in it. When we subsidise something, we give it money to keep going: when we invest, we give it money to grow. The biggest increase in grant to theatre in the last few years came as a result of the Boyden Report. It told us what many already knew: that the vast majority of producing theatres in England were trading insolvently. Boyden produced his report and the Arts Council and government reacted, giving an additional £50m to theatres up and down the country. The result of this was that they were able to reduce or eliminate their debt. Accompanying it, of course, came the necessity to "cut the coat according to the cloth" and reduce overheads. There was also an increase in the marketing efforts of theatres and the result was that theatres which were in imminent danger of closure have survived. Cheers all round! Does the future look rosier? In the short term, yes. Obviously, because the theatres are not carrying a crippling burden of debt, but what of the long term? That is much less rosy, for the problems have not gone away. Theatre is still a labour-intensive industry and, beyond a certain point, there are very few ways to reduce costs. There'll be no more help from the government, that's almost certain, so what can out producing theatres do to make themselves more profitable (or, rather, to reduce losses)?
All of these will work, but at a cost. Reduced output means short-term contracts for actors and part-time contracts for most staff, an empty building and little chance of establishing a theatregoing habit in their audience. Producing only crowd-pullers means a limited repertoire, no new writing (too risky), and - very important! - the risk of not attracting a new, younger audience as their curent audience ages. Smaller cast plays means that the spectacle element of theatre, which is one of the ways it draws in new audiences, is lost. Going electronic musically means less work for musicians, therefore fewer musicians, therefore (supply and demand!) ultimately higher costs. Seeking sponsorship may well mean producing plays which are attractive to the sponsor (crowd-pullers again), whilst increasing ticket prices could well result in a loss of audience. In other words, subsidy simply creates a circle which, whilst it may not be vicious, is ultimately self-defeating. So what's the alternative? Investment. Give theatre money which will ensure growth in the future and not simply rescue buildings from the effects of the past. Invest in new writing by giving bursaries to writers to follow their artistic instincts and not be tied to the requirements of a particular theatre and its needs. Give theatres money to develop new ideas through work with a combination of actors and writers. And in both of these cases be aware that the investment is long term and may not bear fruit in terms of new productions within a year or even two. Invest in people. Most continental theatres spend far longer in rehearsal than their British counterparts and have long-standing ensembles, because they have the funding to do it. Fans of the RSC complained bitterly that Trevor Nunn's reforms would destroy the ensemble nature of the company's work because it is one of its biggest strengths. Give regional producing theatres the chance to develop this kind of ensemble. I'm not pleading for a return to the old rep system. Far from it: with its one play on, another in rehearsal and a third in the first stages of development, it put everyone under far too much time pressure to really develop the work. Give actors the chance to work together and with the writer and director over an extended period: it will pay off in much higher production values. Stop spending all the money on bricks and mortar: spend it on the art instead! This article is part of our series on British theatre in the 21st Century Articles Indices:
|
|
|
|