|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Young People and TheatrePart II: Getting Young People into TheatreIn The Next Stage, published a week or so back, the Arts Council yet again makes much of the need to attract young people to theatre. To me the whole thinking behind this "attracting young people" idea seems very woolly: somehow it has become associated with another government buzz-phrase "combating social exclusion". In its paper Addressing Social Exclusion: A Framework for Action, the Arts Council defines social exclusion as "a term used to describe those communities and individuals who are multiply disadvantaged by poverty and other social and economic factors." In other words, it refers to those who feel they don't have a place in society, who feel alienated from the society of which the rest of us are a part. This requirement to address the problem of social exclusion is laid upon education and all aspects of the work of national and local government agencies. As the most alienated are thought to be young people, the idea of broadening access to the arts and combating social exclusion have become one and the same. Woolly Thinking Now here is where the woolliness creeps in. If we look at social inclusion projects in the arts created under such financial initiatives as the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB: monies given to local communities to combat the hardships caused by the loss of the staple major industry - coalmining in the area where I live) we see that they are aimed at using participation in the arts to create a feeling of self-worth in the disadvantaged. This is a very laudable aim, for this is something active arts participation can and does do, whether it's painting a mural on an estate, making a video about the life of the community, or creating a theatre piece. But what has this got to do with attracting the young disadvantaged into theatres? That is not something that is ever going to be successful, because, for these young people, the theatre is one of the symbols of the society which they feel has rejected them. In fact, it is a very powerful symbol of that society, for it is perceived as being the preserve of the middle class or - as I have heard it described by many of these young people - the "posh". Initiatives to combat social exclusion by spending money on cheap theatre ticket schemes are doomed to failure. Those who will benefit are those who would want to go to the theatre anyway. Some will benefit simply because they will pay less for their tickets, others will benefit because they will be able to afford to go more often, but none of them are going to be the "excluded". Wishful Thinking It may be argued that they will benefit eventually, for their participation will lead them to an appreciation of theatre and a desire to go on a regular basis. However my experience of thirty or more years of teaching Drama tells me that that is wishful thinking. I have had thousands of kids involved in the kind of drama which social inclusion projects use, and hundreds who have appeared on-stage in productions. Out of all of them, those who go on to be regular theatregoers are a very small minority, just as, in society at large, theatregoing is a minority interest. In addition, the sort of show that most of them will go to is music theatre: the straight play simply does not appeal to anything like the number who go to musicals. Just look at the big blockbusters in the West End or on Boadway: they aren't the plays, they're the musicals. Plays like The Blue Room, Amy's View, Closer, even Art, big successes and award winners though they are, never attract the numbers that Phantom, Cats or The Lion King do. Receiving houses do far better business with musicals than with plays. I have sat in a house of six to see a play: the poorest attended musical I've ever known has played to a lowest audience of at least ten times that number. Some years ago I directed a school production of Little Shop of Horrors which took over £1,200, a fantastic box office take, especially considering the area in which we are based. Four months later we did John Godber's Teechers with the same cast, and that made a profit of just over £3, in spite of costing much less to put on! Take a look at the audiences of the many amateur socities around the country: the vast majority are middle-aged or over. A month ago I sat in the audience for an amateur production of Peter Whelan's The Accrington Pals: probably a tenth of the audience were under forty, and the majority of them were there because they had friends onstage. Normally, so I am told, they don't appear. And we are talking here of university students, the young people one would think most likely to to be interested in theatre. And the concessions offered mean that they can get tickets for far less than for any cinema. Yes, all of this "evidence" is anecdotal, not statistical, but it accords with the experience of many right across the country, and I am sure that the statistics will bear it out. Theatregoing is a minority interest, and, given the society we live in, with the easy availability of ultra-realistic dramatic entertainment on film, TV and video, looks set to remain so. I am absolutely convinced that a love of theatre comes not from its availability and cheap tickets, but from something inside the individual. Sad but, I believe, true. Articles Indices:
|
|
|