|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Thoughts on the NewsDateline: 26th July, 1999 The news that Sir Laurence Olivier's papers are to be sold and have been offered to the British Library for £1.2m brings back memories. It's not that long ago that we had the furore over the Churchill papers and, whilst the cases are not exact parallels - the papers of the war-time Prime Minister have to be more important to the nation than those of an actor, no matter how great, and, in the Olivier case, at least the family has not set a deadline - they are sufficiently similar to warrant raising, yet again, the question, "Shouldn't there be some mechanism for dealing with situations like this?" I honestly believe that there is a strong case for requiring that the papers of major politicians and statesmen should be available for study by historians whilst they are in the possession of the families and, should the families wish to sell them, they should go to the British Library or other such institution (such as a university or college library where scholars can have free access to them) and not be sold on the open market. Obviously the families should be compensated, but not at the hugely inflated prices that "market forces" would bring.
The case of an actor (or playwright, or poet, or other artist) is, clearly, different. Many families already make a gift of such papers to libraries - the library of my own college (King's, Cambridge) has benefited greatly by such gifts - and some artists leave their papers to an institution in their wills, as Sir John Gielgud intends to leave his papers to the British Library, but what should be done about those papers which are put on the open market by the heirs of the artists? If you believe that the afore-mentioned market forces should rule everything, there's no problem, but if you believe, as I do, that there are certain things that should not be left to the greed of others (Oh, what a give-away!), then we do have a real problem. However I am sympathetic to the intentions of the artist, who wants - naturally - to provide for his family after his death, and I am also conscious of the proper constraints of copyright law. On the other hand, there is no doubt that these papers provide an insight into the artist, his work and his time, and are therefore of great value to scholars. How do we reconcile these contradictions? I don't know, is the honest answer. But we've got to, otherwise when archives such as the Olivier papers are broken up and scattered throughout the world, scholars of this and future generations are deprived of the opportunity to have light thrown upon many aspects of the artistic life of the time. Ulrika quits The news that Ulrika Jonsson has left The Pajama Game in mid-tour should not surprise anyone. She has no theatrical training and had very few singing lessons before taking on the lead role, and so it was inevitable that her voice would not stand up to the demands of a major tour, followed by a West End run. Miss Jonsson is a very beautiful young lady and her personality makes her an excellent TV presenter, but to assume that these qualities qualify her to take the lead in a major musical production over a long run was a bad mistake on the part of whoever was responsible for the show's casting. Admittedly this sort of gamble pays off occasionally - it did in the case of Philip Schofield and Joseph - but it is a major risk. Why do producers take this sort of risk? Obviously because they feel that they need a "name" to make the show succeed, to bring in the non-theatregoing punters. But do these shows really need such "stars"? I don't think so: it's the show that makes the star, not vice-versa. Evita made a star of Elaine Page, Les Mis catapulted Ruthie Henshall to fame and Miss Saigon made Lea Salonga. These women had the basic training and experience to be able to handle the parts and their talents blossomed in them. Beauty and an attractive personality do not a music theatre performer make. Even talent is not enough: without the necessary training the performer will not be able to stand up to the physical demands of the show. And I wonder how many extra punters these "names" actually bring in. I suspect it isn't enough to make up for the extra expense of bringing in a replacement just five weeks into the run! Increased audiences How encouraging it is to hear that so many theates across the country are experiencing significant increases in audiences. From an 8% rise in Bristol to a 55% increase in Doncaster, this is good news for British theatre. The interesting thing is that none of these theatres get specific funding for new audiences. Barbara Matthews, president of the TMA, draws some interesting conclusions. "Obviously funding is always welcome," she says, "but if venues are left alone to use their expertise, then they can do wonderfully well." She goes on to say, "Theatres must have the freedom and confidence to experiment with work of quality - to do what they do best rather than operate within a bureaucratic nightmare." Over the last few years management-speak has crept gradually into theatre. We now talk of business plans and management systems; we make bids for funding in which the amount you write seems to be as important as what is written; now the proper funding of companies is often at the expense of others. Almost two years ago I wrote that The Managers Are Coming and said, In the rest of public life, management-mania finally stands revealed for what it is, a money-guzzling aberration. It is surely not the time to introduce it into the arts world which, up to now, has been mercifully, if not free of it, at least less oppressed by it than other sectors of public life.Just call me Cassandra! A brighter future? In spite of much bad news, I do get the feeling that things are beginning to look up. The newly restructured ACE gives signs of being more responsive to the real needs of the arts world, and not just in theatre: last month Dennis Scard, general secretary of the Musicians Union, delivered a slashing attack on ACE's attitude towards the UK's orchestras, but last week he declared himself "happier and more confident" about the organisation after its restructuring and reflected the growing attitude in the arts world that ACE should now be given the space to prove itself. And although the government has not lived up to expectations, it is nonetheless doing more for the arts than its predecessors, and in Chris Smith we have a Secretary of State who is at least enthusiastic about the arts in a way that those who held the post under the Tories were not. There is much to be done, but there is light at the end of the tunnel - it may be just a tiny pinprick but that's a damned sight better than the stygian darkness of three years ago! Articles Indices: |
|
|