Fingers jammed in ears, pillow firmly clamped over the head, we can no longer block out the moaning. The cuts are really beginning to bite, with Arts Council funding issues slicing into theatre budgets. Even the arts, that industry which always tries to hold itself a little aloof from the vulgarities of capitalism, must muck in. Theatre Uncut was conceived as a kind of demonstration on behalf of theatre, a last ditch attempt before the full squeeze of the Arts Council bodice-tightening was felt. Falling on Staurday, 19th of March, it took the form of a day of nationwide short performances from some of the best playwrights.
To see the world of theatre actually getting involved, speaking out and addressing contemporary issues should have been a moment of triumph for the art. A chance to fulfil one of its most important roles in our modern world, to demonstrate the relevance and power of drama. All too often, theatres seem to get bogged down with reproducing established pieces, trying to draw out commentary on contemporary issues by looking backwards. But this day was a chance to rectify that, to prove that theatre can be used to make relevant responses to our issues using modern playwrights. This can only further the utility of art as a form of expression. Artists produce fascinating pieces about the economy, why should theatre not do the same? Theatre is blessed with the ability to rapidly produce responses to the world, to speak to us in ways television and film cannot. And it should be used in this way wherever possible.
Unfortunately, though, the reality felt quite different. Theatre Uncut looked very much like protest for the sake of protest, the need to be seen to speak out driving the act forward rather than it being a eloquent and considered response to a difficult situation. And, at the risk of sounding unfeeling and dispassionate, this is all the cuts are. I, as a rational being, would far rather see the arts have to find ways to cope with a smaller budget than see other, more deserving sectors bled dry. I agree theatre is life-enriching. But I must also point out that hospitals and the emergency services are life-preserving. If we accept cuts are necessary, which I do, surely it is more noble to bear a little less money for the arts for the sake of the our safety and health?
I also believe that theatre is going about protest in the wrong way. Yes, protest can be a positive thing, pushing forward the relevance of what goes on in our theatres to the contemporary world outside. But this protest was nothing more than a litany of complaints, an over-dramatic wail at the realisation that the arts, too, must be affected by the economic situation in that strange world outside their doors. A more mature, proactive approach would have been far more effective; I would like to have seen the industry actually produce constructive suggestions as to how the financial blow might be softened, and how they can go on making art on stage with a reduced budget. I am confident it will be possible, but all I have seen so far are pitiful whimpers and stage whispers of dissent.
The most crucial factor for the continuation of Britain's vibrant arts scene in these dangerous financial waters is clear to me. Theatre has a small audience, as a proportion of the population, a factor which only further reduced the effectiveness of these demonstrations, confined to preaching to the converted. Theatres need to reach out, to look beyond their traditional audiences, and to seek new ways of doing things. Perhaps this will mean needing to produce more of the big money-spinning shows, pantos and popular Shakespeares, or perhaps closer collaboration with corporations will bring more funds. Of course, there is much to be worked out, and keeping the careful balance between artistic quality, the ability to show new work, and providing popular entertainment will be of paramount importance.
York Theatre Royal was under the management of the Takeover team at the time of the nationwide protests. This fantastic opportunity itself seemed to fly in the face of the budget belt-tightening, especially with the announcement of the scheme's continuation next year. A group of under twenty-six year olds were selected to take on the running of the theatre, from box office and marketing to artistic direction and organisation of post-show bands. This team chose to stage three protest performances in the upstairs lobby area where a stage had been created for the entertainment which followed nearly all the performances of the two week festival. This in itself was not ideal. Lucy Kirkwood's Housekeeping was particularly disappointing from this point of view, with a good deal of the dialogue being lost. The central piece was infinitely more powerful, doing justice to Jack Thorne's darkly comic Whiff Whaff, but to finish on an incredibly dull economics lecture, The Fat Man, was disappointing.
Theatre was right to make a stand, but it did not seem this was the most effective way to do it. The financial difficulties we see should be seen as an opportunity to push forward the relevancy and artistic quality of theatre, to get more people inside the buildings. The plays themselves were admirable, prompting debate and discussion, but it is great a shame that they were not more widely appreciated.
