|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles
|
Self-Sufficiency and TheatreDateline: 19th March, 2006 The lead story in The Stage on 16th March tells us that the DCMS is considering the idea of extended grants for what they call "key" companies (at present they ACE clients have to apply every three years for a renewal of their grants) but in return these companies would be expected to become self-sufficient through box office income and sponsorship at the end of that period. This would be part of the restructuring being planned for Arts Council England. Although no particular companies have been mentioned, the assumption must be that they include at least the National Theatre, the RSC, the Royal Opera House and English National Opera. Commenting on the government's intentions in relation to ACE, culture secretary Tessa Jowell added that the principle of arms' length funding should remain "whatever else might change". The aim of the restructuring, she went on, was to improve the Arts Council, not kill it off. These assurances are welcome, doubly so in the light of the major changes taking place in the remits of ACW and SAC, and the prospect of longer funding with the concommitant benefit of allowing longer term strategic planning does have its attractions, but it has to be said that it seems something of a pipedream. The RSC receives £13.9m annually from ACE, more than 40% of its income, whilst the National gets £17.4m,(about 45%). In both cases sponsorship is much less. - £2.2m in the case of the RSC and around £5m (includes sponsorship, donations and subscriptions) for the National. The Royal Opera House (ACE grant £23m) gets around £15m in sponsorship and donations. (It should be pointed out that the sponsorship etc. figures from the different organisations cannot be compared directly as each presents them slightly differently in their accounts. ACE grants, of course, are directly comparable. It should also be pointed out that the figures for the ROH include the Royal Opera, the Royal Ballet and the orchestra and chorus, so in this case even the ACE grant cannot be compared directly to those of the theatre organisations.) There has to be a limit to the amount of sponsorship available and, indeed, to the number of donations, so it would be, I would suggest, impossible for these organisations to make up the loss of grant aid in that way. The only other way would be through increased box office (more shows or higher prices - or both!) and a reduction in costs. Undoubtedly there is room for tighter cost-control - there always is, in any organisation (including government!) - but there comes a time when cost-cutting becomes counter-productive, affecting the quality of the work produced. It's the same with increased productivity: for example, reducing rehearsal periods to increase the number of productions will inevitably lower standards. But even if it were possible to increase the number of productions without reducing quality, the savings would not be as great as might appear at first sight. It may result in more economic use of staffing, but it will also lead to increased production costs. Both the National and the RSC give, I believe, very good value for money. It was not always the case, it has to be said, but the current managements have embraced a very outgoing approach which has led both to more engagement with the theatregoing public throughout the country (more touring, for example) and - and this is, I think, very important and one of the strengths of the new National Theatre of Scotland - with smaller companies, witness the RSC's work with Cardboard Citizens and the forthcoming Compelete Works season and the National's involvement with companies like Kneehigh and Complicité. Both do a great deal of education work - the National's Shell Connections is a wonderful initiative. And of course one of the great strengths of the RSC under Michael Boyd is the ensemble, but it is very expensive and it is hard to see how it could continue if the company had to be self-sufficient. Although it has a superficial short-term attractiveness, this new DCMS idea will, in the long run, lead to lower standards, despite all the efforts that the companies would undoubtedly make to maintain their artistic integrity. It arises from a total misunderstanding of the nature of theatre and the arts. You cannot equate making theatre with business but in the last quarter-century successive governments have behaved as if you can. Back to the drawingboard, Ms Jowell!
|
|
|
|