|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
We'll Just Have to PayDateline: 23rd December, 2001 This close to Christmas normally I'd be writing my theatrical Christmas present wishlist, knowing damned well I wouldn't get what I want but hoping . I even started, but then I thought, "What's the point?" We've had Boyden and The Next Stage: lots of (well, some) money for regional theatre. The government is aiming to have one in five schools as specialist colleges (including Performing Arts colleges) and, with ACE, it's introduced the Artsmark. So am I satisfied with what the government has done for the Arts? Not at all, but I'm pretty damn sure we're not going to get much more. We have just been told by Gordon Brown in his half-year budget statement that, if we want a modernised National Health Service, then we're going to have to have extra taxes to fund it. He does, however, intend to stick by his promise not to increase income tax, so that means an increase in indirect taxation. So what chance have we of losing the VAT on theatre tickets, a move which would help theatre enormously? None! The public wants money spending on health and education. The government wants to join the US in taking an active part in the crusade against terrorism and in rebuilding Afghanistan. Thse things are not cheap, so the arts are going to have to whistle for any extra money in the next twelve months, at least. And if it is a choice between more hospital beds and reducing the pupil/teacher ratio, or giving more money to theatre, where are the majority's priorities likely to be? We've seen an increase in the amount of government money given to the arts - although in real terms we have a long way to go before we make up the ground lost during the Thatcher and post-Thatcher years - and we may even see a tiny but above-inflation increase in the coming year, but let's not delude ourselves: if we want any significant increase in spending - for bigger productions, more adventurous programming, more new writing - then we're going to have to pay for it through the box office. "The Greatest Show on Earth" And while we're on the subject of money, voices have been raised in protest that the "Greatest Show on Earth" initiative has been targeted at the commercial theatre of London's West End, not at the struggling but much more exciting London Fringe theatres. "Why," many have demanded, "is the commercial product - which already makes a profit - being supported and not those who are at the cutting edge of modern theatre?" Isn't it obvious? It isn't theatre that's being supported, it's tourism. The idea is to keep the tourists coming to London, so that they can spend, spend, spend! If all the Fringe theatres were to close tomorrow, it would cause little more than a minor ripple in the city's economy, but if the tourists stopped coming - total disaster! Theatre is not a government, nor a local government, priority. It's not going to be cut, but the "godd old days" are sure as hell not coming back! Articles Indices:
|
|
|