6,276 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 27, 2022 18:02:13 GMT
There wasn't a thread on this but Nadine Dorries, the Culture Secretary recently announced that spending for arts funding is to increase outside of London in order to address the imbalance that there currently is but also increasing investment in areas of London which are underserved like Brent, Newham and Croydon to name but three.
Would be interesting to know thoughts, I think the intentions are good but I suspect that the big companies like the ROH, National etc will see cuts in their annual funding in order to make this a reality.
|
|
18,774 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 27, 2022 18:22:01 GMT
Good news. You’ll struggle to get much sympathy for the ROH and NT losing funding from anyone outside London. Why would we care? We’re never going to see their stuff. Seen the train and hotel prices? In fact it seems that most people in London aren’t interested in seeing their stuff either.
|
|
6,276 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 27, 2022 18:28:16 GMT
Good news. You’ll struggle to get much sympathy for the ROH and NT losing funding from anyone outside London. Why would we care? We’re never going to see their stuff. Seen the train and hotel prices? In fact it seems that most people in London aren’t interested in seeing their stuff either. It's a very tricky balance, personally I think we should be looking at theatre companies across the UK not just London who aren't pulling their weight like the RSC who I know is an important part of their region in terms of the arts and tourism but given the amount of money they get, it's not exactly well spent. |
|
18,774 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 27, 2022 18:50:26 GMT
Why would Brent, Newham or Croydon be given more funding when they are within a 30 minute public transport ride from the West End/central London? These places are not underserved. They most certainly might be priced out of theatre in central London but that’s a different problem. There’s no problem with access. Is putting cheap, subsidised productions on in Croydon the answer to that? No.
And here I am focusing the discussion on London and the very fortunate arts fans who live in that area. Try being a theatre fan and living in Shrewsbury or Dundee or Belfast or a million other places in the U.K. You only have to read this forum to know how access to affordable theatre is way more available in London than the regions.
Thank god our houses are cheaper 👍🏻
|
|
3,926 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Feb 27, 2022 20:14:43 GMT
Good news. You’ll struggle to get much sympathy for the ROH and NT losing funding from anyone outside London. Why would we care? We’re never going to see their stuff. Seen the train and hotel prices? In fact it seems that most people in London aren’t interested in seeing their stuff either. I don't know about the NT but I know of plenty of people, including myself, who live outside London & go to the ROH frequently. There's also the cinecasts from both companies so those who don't wish to or are unable to travel to London can still see productions. |
|
|
|
Post by nick on Feb 27, 2022 20:15:14 GMT
i've had both sides.
I was brought up in Southport in the Northwest. I assume I was very lucky because we had a thriving local theatre with some great touring shows plus Liverpool and Manchester were both within an hour away. It felt like golden times with many happy memories.
I've now lived in Catford in SE London for 30 years and, again, seen some great theatre. However not that much of it has been in the larger subsidised central London Theatres - bit of NT and the Globe with the odd Opera House ballet. But also little of it has been local - Bromley theatre once and the odd trip to the Broadway Theatre that is within walking distance but has been closed for the last few years. Most of my trips have been to commercial West End shows or the smaller central London theatres - Southwark, Menier, The Vaults, Little Angel etc
I think what I would like to see is the cash spread not so much geographically but around more diverse creative organisations (which of course includes different geographies - The Liverpool Everyman had such a distinct Liverpudlian feel to it and more of that would be fantastic).
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 27, 2022 20:29:47 GMT
It is time to sell off the National Theatre complex and turn it into a truly NATIONAL company.
It can have a base in the Midlands and create work that goes out to all parts of England. Small, mid and full scale productions that speak to the whole nation not an urban metropolitan elite.
That would refocus the place theatre holds in our national cultural life
ENO can do the same.
If you are going to claim public funds as a National company, then you have to take the work to the whole country.
|
|
6,276 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 27, 2022 20:32:24 GMT
I have to admit I was surprised that Newham is getting extra funding because Stratford is getting a fair number of cultural developments within the next few years. Croydon does need more arts funding as it's a bit of a wasteland compared to other boroughs in London.
|
|
6,276 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 27, 2022 20:34:28 GMT
It is time to sell off the National Theatre complex and turn it into a truly NATIONAL company. It can have a base in the Midlands and create work that goes out to all parts of England. Small, mid and full scale productions that speak to the whole nation not an urban metropolitan elite. That would refocus the place theatre holds in our national cultural life ENO can do the same. If you are going to claim public funds as a National company, then you have to take the work to the whole country. I honestly cannot see the National selling off their complex, it's too much of a tourist magnet for Southwark Council and it impact the South Bank. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 27, 2022 20:42:14 GMT
I don't care what the National hierarchy want. They have shown they are not capable of getting the best out of it.
It is time to bring about radical change. Get out of the nepotistic and corrupt mindset that currently finds a home there.
The building can become an international centre for theatre research or a series of commercial spaces for use by a whole range of companies.
We don't need a national theatre building. We do need a company that is there to serve the whole nation. Not Rufus and his mates.
|
|
6,276 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 27, 2022 21:00:13 GMT
I don't care what the National hierarchy want. They have shown they are not capable of getting the best out of it. It is time to bring about radical change. Get out of the nepotistic and corrupt mindset that currently finds a home there. The building can become an international centre for theatre research or a series of commercial spaces for use by a whole range of companies. We don't need a national theatre building. We do need a company that is there to serve the whole nation. Not Rufus and his mates. There is a danger that if the NT sold off the building, it would cease to be a theatre which would disastrous both for the London and UK theatre industry. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 27, 2022 21:08:48 GMT
In what way? It is just a building. It is the work that matters. And they are failing there too.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 27, 2022 21:40:29 GMT
I would never ordinarily agree to the National losing its funding, until HEX and now it should lose its funding because of that and send a very strong message across the arts field that Art Council funding should be about the arts and not nepotism.
Also I would agree because of that the Arts Council should be disbanded and the long arm policy ditched and funding should be brought into Government control, no more free lunches and blank cheques.
What happened at the National was completely shocking.
|
|
6,276 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 27, 2022 21:45:00 GMT
I don't agree that the National should lose its funding and it's unlikely either way because they have a lot of supporters with deep pockets but I do agree ACE should be reformed or replaced by a new funding body.
|
|
2,262 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Feb 27, 2022 21:52:57 GMT
it would cease to be a theatre which would disastrous both for the London and UK theatre industry. You mean there aren't enough theatres in the West End already or the Greater London area? |
|
4,549 posts
|
Post by Mark on Feb 27, 2022 22:46:56 GMT
it would cease to be a theatre which would disastrous both for the London and UK theatre industry. You mean there aren't enough theatres in the West End already or the Greater London area? Losing three stages in central London would indeed be disastrous. We should be hoping for more venues and more choice rather than less and less. |
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Feb 28, 2022 9:06:44 GMT
I would never ordinarily agree to the National losing its funding, until HEX and now it should lose its funding because of that and send a very strong message across the arts field that Art Council funding should be about the arts and not nepotism. Also I would agree because of that the Arts Council should be disbanded and the long arm policy ditched and funding should be brought into Government control, no more free lunches and blank cheques. What happened at the National was completely shocking. Funding should not be in Government control, or we will only see productions that toe the Government party's line. |
|
2,262 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Feb 28, 2022 9:57:21 GMT
Losing three stages in central London would indeed be disastrous. We should be hoping for more venues and more choice rather than less and less. Have to disagree: According to the Society of London Theatre, there are 241 theatres across London ranging from grand West End playhouses to smaller performance spaces in pubs and converted spaces to make way for theatre. Out of these 241 theatres, productions at 46 theatres are eligible for Olivier Awards. If you live outside of London there is nothing like this choice. |
|
18,774 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 28, 2022 10:11:47 GMT
I know there are some very notable NT productions that have gone on tour but I wonder what percentage of their shows actually get seen outside London by the majority of people paying for them? Small numbers I would venture. Perhaps it should be a condition of a production getting staged at the NT, that it has to be suitable to tour. If they’re not prepared to commit to that then what does that say? “It’s only for London people”.
|
|
|
|
Post by teamyali on Feb 28, 2022 10:49:10 GMT
They should tour Small Island to different regions and schools. As well as The Ocean at the End of the Lane (outside the West End). If the NT is looking for their next War Horse-esque box office hit, then these two productions are best fit.
|
|
352 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Feb 28, 2022 10:54:13 GMT
Perhaps worth mentioning in this thread - when the National Theatre of Scotland was created about 2 decades ago it was setup specifically as a touring company with no home base to address exactly these sorts of issues (the feeling being that both Edinburgh and Glasgow were already well served by existing static companies). I can't comment on the quality of their productions really as I've only seen Rona Munro's james plays. But they seem to have stuck to their remit - the new James play goes to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Inverness, and there's another one in this upcoming season that is going to Stirling, Edinburgh, Peebles, Stornoway, Aberdeen, Glasgow (and more as they put it).
Having said that I don't think you cvan remake the National like this. But you could certainly tie their funding to either joint productions with other companies (ideally a bit more far flung than Chichester and Bristol which seem to be their go to for such things) or touring productions out beyond the M25. If they are finding that they need to use more inexperienced actors for the bulk of their roles, then the cast may also be more "willing" to engage in such tours (it is after all what the actors out here in the remote wilds of Yorkshire all do anyway for example). I'm not holding my breath though given the number of people on this board who whine endlessly when things aren't toured into London, which probably reflects more of the mindset of ACE.
|
|
6,276 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 28, 2022 13:29:11 GMT
Have to disagree: According to the Society of London Theatre, there are 241 theatres across London ranging from grand West End playhouses to smaller performance spaces in pubs and converted spaces to make way for theatre. Out of these 241 theatres, productions at 46 theatres are eligible for Olivier Awards. If you live outside of London there is nothing like this choice. London shouldn't be losing any of its theatres just to address the imbalance in the rest of the UK. That'd be like suggesting New York lose one of its theatre just because it has more per capita compared to Austin or Boston. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 28, 2022 13:41:17 GMT
I know there are some very notable NT productions that have gone on tour but I wonder what percentage of their shows actually get seen outside London by the majority of people paying for them? Small numbers I would venture. Perhaps it should be a condition of a production getting staged at the NT, that it has to be suitable to tour. If they’re not prepared to commit to that then what does that say? “It’s only for London people”. They do better than the RSC who supposedly have a commitment to touring as a condition of their ACE grant. NT have started doing quite a few co-productions too, the RSC never do. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 28, 2022 13:50:51 GMT
The building that currently houses the National does not need to close as a series of performance spaces. But the work that the National company creates does not need to be performed there.
The building and the work should be separated. The work that our National Theatre Company produces should be seen all round the country. Not in cinemas. Live on the stages in all regions.
The current building can exist as a receiving house for a whole range of projects. It could take in work from the National Theatre of Scotland or visits from other similar international companies. It could host seasons from the major regional producing houses that rarely get a chance to secure a London season.
It can thrive as a vibrant arts centre that celebrates theatre from all parts of the UK and beyond.
The National Theatre can then focus on producing work that tours the nation and drop in to appropriate London venues as part of that permanent touring schedule.
That way London gets to see more regional treats and England gets a national theatre company that truly engages with the nation it is there to serve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 28, 2022 14:10:55 GMT
The building that currently houses the National does not need to close as a series of performance spaces. But the work that the National company creates does not need to be performed there. The building and the work should be separated. The work that our National Theatre Company produces should be seen all round the country. Not in cinemas. Live on the stages in all regions. The current building can exist as a receiving house for a whole range of projects. It could take in work from the National Theatre of Scotland or visits from other similar international companies. It could host seasons from the major regional producing houses that rarely get a chance to secure a London season. It can thrive as a vibrant arts centre that celebrates theatre from all parts of the UK and beyond. The National Theatre can then focus on producing work that tours the nation and drop in to appropriate London venues as part of that permanent touring schedule. That way London gets to see more regional treats and England gets a national theatre company that truly engages with the nation it is there to serve. The best actors only want to work in London. |
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Feb 28, 2022 15:53:36 GMT
London-based subsidised theatre should tour more, but I think it's naive to see it as a zero sum equation, that fewer London theatres/productions = more for other towns/regions, or that smaller towns could sustain the same per capita number of ticket sales as London. Closing/moving out of the South Bank building would be likely to lead to smaller income generated, fewer productions, redundancies, fewer tech/craft/backstage jobs and associated training/apprenticeships, less tax paid, less tourist money going into the nonprofit sector, less likelihood of attracting well-known actors and directors, damage to other Southbank attractions and businesses, likely a smaller industry overall.
I'd like to see continued support for a thriving London theatre, but a lot more done to piggy back on its success and use that to support theatre elsewhere in the country - things like like increased requirement for touring and co-productions, sharing expertise and training, long term links with other theatres/cities/regions (like the RSC used to have with Newcastle).
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 28, 2022 16:15:16 GMT
The building that currently houses the National does not need to close as a series of performance spaces. But the work that the National company creates does not need to be performed there. The building and the work should be separated. The work that our National Theatre Company produces should be seen all round the country. Not in cinemas. Live on the stages in all regions. The current building can exist as a receiving house for a whole range of projects. It could take in work from the National Theatre of Scotland or visits from other similar international companies. It could host seasons from the major regional producing houses that rarely get a chance to secure a London season. It can thrive as a vibrant arts centre that celebrates theatre from all parts of the UK and beyond. The National Theatre can then focus on producing work that tours the nation and drop in to appropriate London venues as part of that permanent touring schedule. That way London gets to see more regional treats and England gets a national theatre company that truly engages with the nation it is there to serve. The best actors only want to work in London. No. The most entitled actors only want to work in London. Doesn't mean they are the best. Is theatre there to serve the actor or the audience member? |
|
3,070 posts
|
Post by david on Feb 28, 2022 19:02:37 GMT
Just as much as I would love more London based theatre to be toured across the UK, it is also great that Theatre producers are now using Theatre's outside of London to premiere their work (no doubt for financial reasons). It's made a nice change that us theatre goers in the North have been able to see a number of great shows in Manchester (and Newcastle for The Drifters Girl) prior to a WE run and far more cheaply as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Feb 28, 2022 19:20:30 GMT
The best actors only want to work in London. No. The most entitled actors only want to work in London. Doesn't mean they are the best. Is theatre there to serve the actor or the audience member? If they're paying rent/mortgage on a home in London, it's hardly entitled to prefer the option of living at home and seeing partner/kids/friends on a regular basis rather than being away for a few weeks or months. |
|
292 posts
|
Post by properjob on Feb 28, 2022 19:21:48 GMT
The national theatre is not just the theatres it also has all the supporting workshops etc all in one place. If you split it up you will lose that as individual companies and shows won't invest for the long term.
If you just rent it out you will end up with (insert name of long running musical you don't like) in it for years.
Saying every show has to be suitable for touring would constrain the designs far too much.
They should tour more but should also be taking risks some of which won't pay off. Therefore they should wait to see if they have a hit and then if they do, remount it for touring.
We also need to be careful not to dilute London as a theatre centre. Having a large concentration in one place must help it maintain its status as an internationally important centre for theatre.
To compete on the world stage you need a certain size. Broadway isn't going to be split up anytime soon.
To me people seem to being unreasonable. He has done 1 show with his wife in what 5 years?
People complain about the AD but then want to put in policies that would mean anyone else who might consider the job would have to choose over getting to work with their partner for 5+ years.
If he had taken months off to work on this at a different venue no doubt people (perhaps even the same people) would complain he was absent from his job.
|
|
