Thus, cried Sir Andrew Aguecheek, and I suppose it is a toss-up as to whether he would have been poorer for that than for allowing Sir Toby to milk him of his money. I am provoked to these meanderings because I have been 'hit' recently from several directions by e-mail pleas for me to sign a petition to Downing Street calling on HMG to safeguard theatres, mostly provincial ones, from cruel cuts to be administered by the Art Council over the next two years. Incidentally, I gather that part of the reason for this is that money is required for the forthcoming Olympic scandal (Oh, yes, it will be a scandal, mark my words!) in which our drug addicts take on the drug addicts of the world. This reason alone is enough to give me pause, but alas, I still cannot support my thespian friends.
The fact is that all arts subsidies are inherently corrupt and corrupting. They subsidise the occasional good, the frequently bad and the all-too-often exceedingly ugly. The decision as to what constitutes good, bad or ugly is one that should be left to audiences, not to a handful of self-proclaimed experts who in fact discriminate far more viciously than any audience. I realise, of course, that theatres and productions are expensive but they can and should be paid for by audiences and sponsors. This was the situation at the turn of the 16th/17th centuries in which a great deal of dross was written and produced and which has subsequently, and thankfully, sunk without trace. But the cream rose to the top and by and large has remained there ever since - and I don't just mean Master Shakespeare. The real problem with subsidy is usually hidden from view, that is, that government money frequently keeps the fashionable rubbish on the stage to the exquisite pleasure of the mandarins of the Arts Council, and works of uncomfortable merit off the stage altogether.
It will be interesting to see how badly, or not, the provincial theatres fare with less government money. My guess is that a certain amount of shrinkage will take place and that there will be a wholesale return to 'good box office' plays. I have some experience of this because my theatre group owns its own 100-seat theatre purchased by a generous bequest some 35-years ago. It has running expenses that must be paid for and there is always a dynamic between those who want to try the "shock of the new" and those who prefer the safe and sound. Just last week we produced Priestley's old political pot-boiler "An Inspector Calls" and it sold out with people actually waiting for the chance of no-shows - and that for an amateur production! Excellent news for the Hon. Treas., and it will help pay for "Vincent in Brixton", a good play, I am told, but obviously not well known. So a careful mix in the programme can satisfy most people most of the time, and I do believe that under such a financial regime it would still be possible for a new 'Tom Stoppard' to find his way to fame and fortune somehow, someway, just as that country boy from Stratford did 400 years ago. Actually, as I recall, it was via The Questors amateur theatre in Ealing that Stoppard got his first break!
Comments