![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/63f0863487b53eb3653b28705a24c7df.jpg\" "\\"Red")
\nSam Swann <\/strong>discusses how theatre is owned, funded and influenced by elites, and calls for a far more challenging, radical and diverse theatre<\/em><\/p>\n Most theatres have fundraising events for donors, maybe BP, maybe Goldman Sachs, and other assorted wealthy individuals to booze and schmooze with the theatre\u2019s staff. They donate their monies, accrue a few anecdotes to boast to their friends about, maybe avoid some tax, and ask all those vital and riveting questions like \u201chow do you learn all those lines?\u201d The theatre\u2019s workers are often warned about how essential and important these people are. We must be nice to them. They pay our wages.<\/p>\n So is it possible for theatre workers to use their art to challenge the class that pays their wages? Can the upper echelons who own and greatly influence the forces of theatre production be effectively challenged in the very buildings they control?<\/p>\n I would say no. Work in establishment institutions is limited in three main ways: censorship; self-censorship; and a systemic filtering out of people who are not amenable to reproducing theatre for the bourgeoisie.<\/p>\n Huh?<\/strong><\/p>\n Okay so censorship. In our not-too-distant past there has been active censorship by this \u201ccultivated elite\u201d. In his book Stage Blood, Michael Blakemore describes the establishment of the National Theatre (NT) as dependent on \u201can extensive network of supporters in high places\u2026 With their easy access to business and the world of money, to government and the law, these were the sort of people theatre boards like to attract.\u201d<\/p>\n Blakemore describes Kenneth Tynan, the NT\u2019s literary manager having \u201chis wings clipped by the Theatre Board\u201d. Tynan was extremely keen on programming Rolf Hochhuth\u2019s play \u201cSoldiers<\/em>, which dealt with the carpet bombing of German cities during the war.\u201d But the theatre\u2019s Chairman, Lord Chandos, considered it \u201cto be a slur on the memory of his friend Winston Churchill.\u201d Despite the support of Artistic Director Laurence Olivier, the board unanimously turned the play down, and Ken was \u201cdemoted and obliged to share his responsibilities with a new member of staff.\u201d<\/p>\n What about self-censorship?<\/strong><\/p>\n Individuals aware of their benefactors often won\u2019t wait to be censored, altering their work to make sure that it is \u2018fundable\u2019. Many young creatives are asked by their drama schools or employers to wine and dine donors. \u201cWhen starting out,\u201d Andrew Whyment, a director who has worked on the fringe, for drama schools, and established theatres told me, \u201cfresh out of uni, I put some of my taste and instinct on ice. And when considering ideas thought \u2018is this going to be something rich people will fund or programme?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Systemic filtering though?<\/strong><\/p>\n Often there is no need for self-censorship however. We can follow a similar line of argument to that used by the anarchist intellectual Noam Chomsky in 1996 when he was interviewed by the BBC\u2019s Andrew Marr.<\/p>\n Chomsky suggests that the majority of journalists think that theirs \u201cis a crusading profession, \u2018we stand up against power\u2019. A very self-serving view.\u201d Chomsky argues that they hold this \u201cself-serving view\u201d despite the fact that \u201cthe media is a sham\u201d, owned by wealthy men who run their institutions in their own interests.<\/p>\n Marr misinterprets Chomsky, asking him \u201chow can you know that I\u2019m self-censoring?\u201d<\/p>\n Chomsky replies, \u201cI\u2019m not saying you\u2019re self-censoring. I\u2019m sure you believe everything you say. What I\u2019m saying is that if you believed something different you wouldn\u2019t be sitting where you\u2019re sitting.\u201d<\/p>\n Theatre clearly has glaring parallels here. Often self-servingly seen as a noble art in which \u201ctruth\u201d is paramount, despite the fact that the industry mostly churns out old plays for old rich people. It is no surprise that the theatre is dominated by privately and Oxbridgely educated white guys. Amenable, charming and untroubling for the donors. This is the theatre successfully reproducing itself.<\/p>\n Some work is radical though. What about that?<\/strong><\/p>\n Even when work gives the appearance of radicalism, its rarity and novelty can be tolerated and probably enjoyed by the establishment, as Franca Rame, the Marxist feminist theatre maker noted in 1969:<\/p>\n We had realised that, despite the hostilities of a few, obtuse reactionaries, the high bourgeoisie reacted to our \u2018spankings\u2019 almost with pleasure. Masochists? No, without us realising it, we were helping their digestion. Our \u2018whipping\u2019 boosted their blood circulation, like some good birching after a refreshing sauna… This bourgeoisie did not mind our criticism, no matter how pitiless it had become\u2026 but only so long as the exposure of their \u2018vices\u2019 occurred exclusively within the structures that they controlled.<\/em><\/p>\n So what is to be done?<\/strong><\/p>\n Though Franca Rame\u2019s point might seem nihilistic, we just need to make sure we focus our energy in more effective ways. Theatre is really fun to make, and that\u2019s a fantastic reason to do it, but let\u2019s not trick ourselves into thinking we are challenging the powerful rather than \u201cboosting their blood circulation\u201d. The most effective ways for us to make real the structural changes we want, will be through our targeted collective efforts as workers and activists.<\/p>\n We need to change who owns, influences, dominates, participates and feels comfortable in our theatre spaces. I think there are two strands to this project.<\/p>\n One: Funding and Ownership<\/strong><\/p>\n We need alternative models of funding and ownership, while divesting our industry of dirty money, so that we are no longer answerable to a small number of wealthy individuals for our work to exist. Exciting work has already been done on this by The Movement for Cultural Democracy<\/a>, which came out of The World Transformed festival in 2017.<\/p>\n Their recent manifesto outlines radical redistribution of funding and resources to arts and cultural institutions, ensuring that fully transparent and accountable decision-making is at as local level as possible. This would mean decentralising power from London, and rejuvenating long-neglected regions. The manifesto also suggests that local residents and workers have agency over every public cultural institution by introducing community and trade union representation onto their independent boards.<\/p>\n They also insist that cultural institutions only receive public funding if they are free from sponsorship by \u201cunethical corporate interests\u201d. It is an embarrassment to our community that BP and other fossil fuel companies get to appear as philanthropists, with climate change wreaking havoc in the global south, and threatening further global devastation in the near future.<\/p>\n And when it comes to public funding for the arts, we need to shout about the fact that this country is a sham. Arts Council England\u2019s (ACE) total budget is comparable to the city of Berlin\u2019s culture budget. Yes, you read that correctly. One German city\u2019s culture budget is approximately equal to ACE\u2019s total budget. Like I said: a sham. We need to demand a drastic increase in funding, rather than relentlessly competing for scraps.<\/p>\n Two: Workforce reform<\/strong><\/p>\n The other strand of this project is transforming our workforce so that it better represents our societies. This requires us to see our industry as part of a greater political ecology. So that we can see a lack of diversity as a problem forged outside of the theatre \u2013 due to the systemic economic oppression of working-class people, disproportionately people of colour, disproportionately women \u2013 rather than this being solely the fault of gatekeepers.<\/p>\n