|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
What's a National Theatre For?Dateline: 10th February, 2002 Scotland wants one. It didn't at first, but it's changed its mind. Wales wants two, one working in English, the other in Welsh. Northern Ireland hasn't mentioned it - it's got other things on its mind - but Eire has one. England hasn't got one, but Britain as a whole has. What? A national theatre, of course. Actually, the situation in Scotland is a little more complicated than the very simplistic sentence above would suggest, because the country's parliament is actually listening to Scottish theatre people and taking a sensible line. As Culture Minister Mike Watson said, announcing an additional £3.5m for theatre:
The idea of two Welsh national theatres comes from the largely discredited Drama Strategy of the Arts Council of Wales, which so outraged the theatre establishment that it led to the resignation of its Chief Executive and a restructuring of ACW itself. But, these considerations apart, a national theatre is seen as an essential. However, they do cost a lot of money, so we must ask ourselves why they are necessary. Should a national theatre be a showcase? If so, what for? If Wales is to have a Welsh-speaking national theatre, then its aim must be to showcase theatre in the Welsh language, which, obviously, means theatre written by Welsh playwrights. But how does that sit alongside the Royal National Theatre which has gained a lot of kudos (and money) from its revivals of American musicals. On the other hand, the proposed Welsh National Theatre in English, Theatr Clwyd Cymru, certainly doesn't restrict itself to plays by Welsh writers, but performs from the whole canon of plays written in English. Perhaps we should think of a national theatre as being a theatre composed of the best actors, directors, designers and so on working in the country. However, whilst no one would quarrel with the standard of the RNT's productions, it would be a brave man indeed who would claim it has the best actors etc. in the entire country. Or perhaps it is a - to use that over-used phrase - centre of excellence, a place which symbolises all that is best in the nation's theatre. All? If that encompasses theatre architecture, then the RNT's South Bank building cerainly fails the test. And the proposed Scottish National Theatre will be a company, not a building, and will perform in a number of existing venues. And if we get a Scottish NT and a Welsh NT (or two), then shouldn't we have an English NT? Should that be the RNT, or should it be the National Theatre of GB, with a totally new building/company devoting itself to the theatre of England? National theatres are expensive things. Are they just a sop to patriotic fervour or have they something real to contribute in theatrical terms? And shouldn't we discuss this? Are national theatres just expensive luxuries or are they an essential ingredient of a successful national theatre programme? Your thoughts would be welcome. Articles Indices:
|
|
|