Reaction to ACE funding of the new Rice company

Yes, indeed. It's very difficult to understand how a brand-new company got such a big chunk of funding on the basis of being in the South West without actually having any productions in the South West announced, when other regional organisations with strong track records had their funding cut.

Or they assumed she meant the Bristol Old Vic?

Arts Council England's response to this article

www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/wise-children-joining-our-national-portfolio

That response doesn't really cut the mustard.

If you look at ACE funding decisions it is very obvious that artistic nepotism (for want of a better phrase) clearly plays an unspoken role.

The response also doesn't come close to answering how a company based at the Old Vic can be said to be a South West company. Or how a company with no history can get such a huge wodge of public cash particularly when that seems to run contrary to the published rules for applicants.

Companies spend years building up to MOP status. Not a few days.

I can understand the sympathy towards Rice after the events of this year. I really can. But this funding decision just looks like ACE breaking their own rules to compensate her. And that is not their role in all this.

Rice should absolutely return to her theatrical roots and continue her style of theatre making. But two million quid of public money seems an over generous bit of seed funding for her future.

The Old Vic is you know is in Waterloo, where you also catch trains to the 'South West'. The new proposed Kings Cross Theatre has in its business plan, to receive funding earmarked for North East Scoland. 

That appears to be the argument. But it makes me wonder how many other people get regional funding because their brand-new theatre company 'will be nationally significant'. It looks an awful lot like they have thrown money at her just because she is Emma Rice, and it came from the South West pot because that's where she is from.

Northern Broadsides was granted standstill funding for 2018-22.

Is there an updated spreadsheet on who gets what please?

Interesting point buried in that original article about Matthew Bourne’s dance company Re:Bourne being based in the South East and the money coming out of that 'pot' - even though their headquarters is in London. They certainly tour nationally and their website refers to a partnership with the Farnham Maltings, but are also a resident company at Sadler's Wells. Surely they don't get over a million pounds a year for community based work in Farnham? They are not alone in the dance world for seeming to get funded away from their home base: the Russell Maliphant Company which has its productions offices at Sadler's Wells and a rehearsal studio in West London gets its funding from the East 'pot' while the Hofesh Shechter company (production office London) gets funded from the South East - even though its current production is going nowhere near there. Clearly all are good companies producing high-quality, innovative work which deserves funding - and there might be good reason why they are all funded as regional organisations. However to the untrained eye it seems to highlight the slightly muddy nature of how the Arts Councils allocates its funds - particularly in order to tell the out-of-London narrative. More transparency about the decision making would be a good thing.

In other sectors, that might be seen as being corrupt...    

One person's 'proven international success and national reach' is now, apparently a bad (corrupt?!?) thing. I can understand small scale companies trying to get on the ladder being annoyed but if they would follow the pathway of 1927, say, and show that they, too, can do it, they would also profit.

On Matthew Bourne, his company is 'New Adventures', 'Re: Bourne' is the charitable arm working with communities and on training. His previous company, Adventures in Motion Pictures, fell apart but that's another story.