|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Guys and My Fair Lady in the RainDateline: 6th May, 2001 Some weeks ago Trevor Nunn, the artistic director of the Royal National Theatre, was attacked in the press for being about to profit personally from the forthcoming transfer of his hit production of My Fair Lady to the West End. Personally I have no problem with that. After all, if a show is a hit, bringing in big audiences, it is only right that those who contributed to its success should benefit. What does give me pause for thought is the fact that the National is doing the show at all.
In the past three years, the RNT has had major hits - financial and artistic - with three well-established, extremely popular musicals: Guys and Dolls, Singin' in the Rain, and now My Fair Lady. Well done, the RNT! And how nice that it brings in extra money through the box office on the South Bank and through the West End transfers. But is this a proper use of public subsidy? Should a company which receives huge amounts of public money be doing shows which would be hits if presented by a commercial management? I do realise that part of the productions' success is due to the fact that they were National Theatre product, that the very name "Royal National Theatre" attached to them would be a drawing point. I also realise that a subsidised theatre has a duty to attract large (or as large as possible) paying audiences, to supplement the public monies it receives. But I am still unsure. Surely the point of public subsidy is to allow the receiving organisation to take risks? to present plays which no commercial management, bound by the necessity to make a profit (or, at the very least, not lose money), would dare attempt? Is it morally defensible for it to use commercial product to compete with the commercial sector? It must be, I agree, the duty of any national theatre to present the classic plays of its country, so the RNT's remit must include Shakespeare and his contemporaries, even though they may also be within the remit of the Royal Shakespeare Company, as well as the other classics from the seventeenth to the twentieth century. It is also its duty to foster the best of new writing, to try to foresee, in a sense, what will be the classics of the future. The National, of course, does both of these things, and I would not have this feeling of unease if it chose to present new musicals by new writers. Indeed a national theatre should present music theatre as well as straight drama, for both are part of a country's dramatic heritage. It is also worth adding here that I also agree that it is right for a national theatre to co-produce with others, as it did with the West Yorkshire Playhouse and Singin' in the Rain. No, it is merely the fact that the RNT has chosen sure-fire commercial product that worries me. I am not saying that I think it is wrong, for the fact is that I am uneasy simply because I cannot make up my own mind. I would welcome your thoughts. Articles Indices: |
|
|