Boom and Bust

At the beginning of last week British broadcaster James Naughtie mistakenly rechristened Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. I’m sure your imagination is fertile enough to imagine which word was substituted in place of the cabinet minister’s surname, but just in case you haven’t worked it out the slip up has been recorded and reproduced here for posterity.

The problem with having a surname like Hunt, as well as being a member of a Tory government affecting the largest public spending cuts since the post-war period is that this mistake was bound to be made at some point. After all, the Culture Secretary’s name has been a source of new rhyming slang in the arts world for months, ever since the Public Spending Review in October. In these difficult financial times it is understandable that the government would shave spending in order to claw out of the huge debt the country has found itself in, and cuts to arts spending were expected. The debate on whether this is a good or bad decision is not for here. What interests me is the effect rather than the causes of the decisions.

A lot has happened in British Theatre over the last thirteen years. When New Labour came into power at the end of the 20th century, a so-called "centre-left progressive agenda" (no, I don't know what that is either) was put into the heart of governmental policy. This included, as anything even remotely liberal always does, increasing funding for Culture and the Arts. Time will only tell how deeply the theatre industry will be affected by the cuts, but of one thing you can be sure: regional theatres, theatre companies and the country will suffer.

Anyone reading this might think “well of course you would think that: your main interest is the theatre”. True, but I wouldn’t balk at the economic returns of the theatre in the UK. The West End alone amasses £85 billon each year in revenue (which is roughly the same amount that the banks owe us, by the way). This is primarily because of the reputation of British Theatre at home and abroad. Tourists and locals alike still flock to the theatre in spite of other forms of entertainment and the rising cost of living. Despite the recession, I am reliably informed that the Royal National Theatre has never been so financially healthy: a larger repertoire including more new plays alongside revivals and new productions of old “classics” has attracted a wider range of audiences, while War Horse, which has been running for four years and counting, is the most successful production in the National’s history. That’s all very well and good, but one can’t ignore the fact that more and more of the funding for this has come from commercial sources. It is no longer an oddity to see “Such-and-such a Business is the Proud Sponsor of Such-and-such a Production at the National Theatre”. There is even an entire summer season of plays running annually in the Olivier theatre named after its sponsor, Travelex. The truth is that the cheapest and most accessible theatre tickets are made available only through private investment in a theatre company which professes to belong to the nation and which receives the largest government subsidy in the country! If this is the case, what of the smaller theatrical ventures out there?

A couple of years ago, when the Arts Council announced cuts to grants and funding for smaller theatre groups and companies in the regions, there was outrage within the theatre world. Now, with a virtually non-existent repertory system, the fear is that there will be less opportunity for those who don’t happen to live in London or any of the larger UK cities to see quality productions, thus placing more pressure on those companies with the money and reputation to be able go on tour to provide something worth spending on. This effectively means a lot more investment in “safer”, crowd-pulling options such as Shakespeare and a lot less experimentation in new writing or alternative forms of theatre such as physical and collaborative theatre. All this means there will be far fewer opportunities for the ever-growing numbers of professional actors who come out of the drama schools each year.

Only last summer, the online media was crowing about a “boom” in employment opportunities for black actors: Ruined, Joe Allen Has Come and Gone, Welcome to Thebes, Eurydice, and a few other productions overlapping in various theatres in London all meant that there was work for the black actors and the British public were welcoming it. With the exception of modern takes on classical works, where will the opportunities be next summer? It might be a good time for me as a young black actor in training at one of the best drama schools in the world, but what about when I graduate? Who can say? I’m not naïve: I expect periods of unemployment; but it would be nice to not have to be waiting tables for the entirety of the financial year.

Of course, the theatre is not the only performing art at threat, nor are the arts the most endangered species belonging to the country: education, defence, health, and anything else which has ever received taxpayers’ money is at threat, but perhaps the government ought to consider why it is so vitally important to contribute to the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton when they are making cuts to so many longer-term aspects of the day-to-day lives of this country’s citizens. And if you happen to switch on the television, radio, or enjoy a night out in the next few years and notice a dip in the quality, just think what might be the reasons for that.