|
|
||
|
News
|
||
|
News |
Dateline: 25th March, 2005 Details from the Report on Theatre Note The Committee Members
Reason for the Inquiry There was a consensus that the funding uplift of 2002, following the Theatre Review debate and production of a National Policy, had revived British theatre with special emphasis on a regional renaissance. Equally, however, there was unanimity that the freezing of Arts Council funding for the next spending period threatened all that had been achieved. In addition, there was the concern that where the Government led, other sources of funding would follow. New Writing There was strong evidence of markedly weaker support systems for new musical writing, and productions of new musicals, than for drama. Theatre People The need for more effort and initiatives to tackle the lack of diversity in the theatre workforce—as well as in new writing and in audiences—was also raised. There was a need to encourage the provision of appropriate opportunities and role models, as well as candidates for those opportunities, from amongst ethnic minorities. We note the Arts Council’s target that, by 2007/08, 14% of regularly funded organisations would be led by black and minority ethnic artists or key to the infrastructure that supported their work. Theatre Buildings The West End The changing demands and expectations of audiences (including the fact that individuals were getting bigger) and the legacies of completely different social circumstances—for instance separate entrances for the cheaper seats and inadequate facilities for women—needed to be dealt with. The West End’s commercial operators wanted half of this sum to come from a public purse; £125 million over 15 years. The evidence is clear that the West End is a significant economic powerhouse not least in terms of London’s tourist trade with benefits for the UK as a whole as amply set out in a number of studies. In addition the commercial and subsidised theatre sectors are inter–dependent, with a plethora of more or less mutually beneficial relationships. To neglect the substantial national assets represented by the West End theatres—whoever actually owns them—would be negligent in the extreme; penny–wise but extremely pound–foolish. We were dismayed that the West End did not come to the table with more detailed proposals for how the money would be handled in an appropriate, transparent and accountable manner. However, the more serious question is what is the public going to get for its investment? We believe that access to the theatre is the most important thing, and ticket prices and booking fees—in the West End—are significant barriers to that access. Perhaps a satisfactory return for the public’s investment would be a set proportion of “People’s Seats”, in all parts of the house, at a lower price. Alternatively, since the West End is to benefit from the Lottery perhaps it would be appropriate to run a free lottery with an agreed number of tickets put into the pot by theatres benefiting from the initiative. We also took the opportunity to discuss the apparently invidious circumstances in which the price on the face of West End tickets was often not the full cost incurred at the point of sale, due to booking fees. The Office of Fair Trading recommended that theatre advertising be required: to include the face value of the ticket; to indicate that additional fees may apply and could vary depending upon the sales channel and ticket seller used; and to indicate where tickets could be purchased at face value. We agree. A complaisant theatre-going public has for too long accepted this blatant rip-off and it is time it was brought to an end. West End commercial theatre has made a case for public investment in its infrastructure but it has failed to back this up so far with a convincing commitment to accountability during the process nor a return for the wider public. This is not a good start. In addition, we believe that the ‘West End’ initiative needs to embrace the Old Vic (if another solution is not found for its maintenance issues) as this theatre fits the profile set out in the Act Now! report: namely that it is theatrically significant, it is not subsidised, it is in urgent need and it is a national treasure. We conclude that West End commercial theatre’s most compelling arguments rest on grounds of heritage and economic impact. Therefore we believe that the Heritage Lottery Fund, the GLA and London Development Agency should be the major partners in responding to the West End’s call. The Arts Council England should take a back seat, contributing to the structure of the funding package but reserving the bulk of its pressured capital resources for non–commercial theatre which itself has very pressing needs. Lottery Funding Amateur Theatre The evidence presented to us suggests that now is the time for the Arts Council to re–focus its lottery capital programme towards the provision of assistance to publicly–funded, as well as not–for–profit, theatres for the maintenance of their buildings; consolidation is needed not further expansion. There are a huge number of amateur dramatic groups in Britain serving almost every community. The National Operatic and Dramatic Association estimates that up to half a million people, including many young people, participate in amateur dramatics; many to a very high standard; some to go on into professional life in one capacity or other. This activity is largely unsupported by public funding and this demonstrates the depth and breadth of enthusiasm for, and commitment to, participation in the art form. Public Investment in Theatre We believe that the arms length principle of distributing grant–in–aid and Lottery resources to the arts is important as well as practical. Fortunately we see no prospect of the Government seeking to replicate the steps taken by the National Assembly for Wales. However, this does not absolve the Arts Council England from a duty to account for its policies and performance; and its responsibility to put forward a robust case when challenged constructively from whatever quarter. The ITC set out two key criticisms of current public funding from the Arts Council. First, public funding for theatre should be about people and not about costly buildings; and secondly, that the Arts Council was not sufficiently pro–active in losing low–performing clients and not quick enough at recognising and rewarding success in new practitioners.97 The ITC wrote that common questions from members are “ ‘How good do you have to be before you can get Arts Council funding and how bad do you have to be before they will cut you?’ The sad answer to the former is ‘blinding brilliant and you still won’t get funded’ and to the latter ‘ill–managed, criminal, haven’t produced a good piece of work for five years—apply for stabilisation, have a consultant for six months!’ ” We share the concern expressed by the Independent Theatre Council, and by some of the theatres who gave evidence to us, that the Arts Council seems to be entrenched in its existing funding programme. We believe that a more dynamic approach is needed rewarding new entrants, and existing theatre groups, who have innovative ideas while being far more critical of those recipients of funding who have failed to develop their original potential or to fulfil their commitments. Pay It is a scandal that one of the nation’s key cultural activities is in such a state that, at least in part, it relies on professional performers and technicians to pay such a high price by earning such low wages. It is a tribute to the power of theatre that so many of them will do so, but we believe that drama colleges and theatre companies should make a concerted effort to improve financial support and advice for actors and backstage staff alike. Amateur Young People Conclusion Please note that all three Archive indices are very long and will therefore take some time to download.
|
|
|
|