Council; taxing
In the last month or so, the big theatre story has been about the Arts Council's abrupt, severe cuts to many theatres' grants. This all came to a head yesterday when the Council's CEO met with actors to discuss the cuts and they were, to put it mildly, unimpressed.
My problem with this is related to the vague standards of what constitutes a theatre company deserving of its grant. They seem to be relating it to how much of the money is being made back, and at a time when the trend seems to be encouragingly against the slew of predictable, crowd-pleasing shows this is worrying. Companies dedicated to minorities like the disabled, children, people who might otherwise not get to the theatre, are having their cash axed. The Drill Hall where vanessaw and I saw Death and Dancing, which focuses on GLBT theatre and is currently running a nationwide schools project against homophobic bullying, is one of the victims.
The most high-profile is the Bush Theatre, which may not have hundreds of people watching every show 'cause they wouldn't fit, but which is also one of the most important venues for new writers: Lots of writers now working on much bigger stages, as well as in film and TV, got their first break there. One of last year's big West End hits, Elling, originated at the Bush and again I'm sure vanessaw will back me up in saying that staging that wasn't a waste of time and money just 'cause it started in a small space.
The National Theatre has been unaffected, and I like the National so can't complain, but then again they're more able to find sponsors to supplement their income than the companies that have lost their grants. Probably its biggest recent achievement in making theatre available to everyone has been the annual £10 ticket season, which is achieved through sponsorship.
I don't know how this is all going to pan out, and hopefully a lot of the companies contesting the cuts will be successful; I hope this doesn't start a trend for anyone who wants to do something most theatres aren't providing, not to be given the opportunity.
My problem with this is related to the vague standards of what constitutes a theatre company deserving of its grant. They seem to be relating it to how much of the money is being made back, and at a time when the trend seems to be encouragingly against the slew of predictable, crowd-pleasing shows this is worrying. Companies dedicated to minorities like the disabled, children, people who might otherwise not get to the theatre, are having their cash axed. The Drill Hall where vanessaw and I saw Death and Dancing, which focuses on GLBT theatre and is currently running a nationwide schools project against homophobic bullying, is one of the victims.
The most high-profile is the Bush Theatre, which may not have hundreds of people watching every show 'cause they wouldn't fit, but which is also one of the most important venues for new writers: Lots of writers now working on much bigger stages, as well as in film and TV, got their first break there. One of last year's big West End hits, Elling, originated at the Bush and again I'm sure vanessaw will back me up in saying that staging that wasn't a waste of time and money just 'cause it started in a small space.
The National Theatre has been unaffected, and I like the National so can't complain, but then again they're more able to find sponsors to supplement their income than the companies that have lost their grants. Probably its biggest recent achievement in making theatre available to everyone has been the annual £10 ticket season, which is achieved through sponsorship.
I don't know how this is all going to pan out, and hopefully a lot of the companies contesting the cuts will be successful; I hope this doesn't start a trend for anyone who wants to do something most theatres aren't providing, not to be given the opportunity.