Category: Theatre structures

German Theatre: Behind the Scenes of its Structures

German Theatre: Behind the Scenes of its Structures

The structure of theatres in the Federal Republic of Germany is characterized by a great number of theatres with a wide range of names: national theatre, state theatre, regional theatre, people’s stage, people’s theatre, residency theatre, municipal theatre, or also regional stages and open-air stages. These are ambivalent testimonies to past conditions in German history. Structurally speaking, the former court theatres have mostly become state theatres, where today’s state has taken over the responsibilities of the erstwhile court. The people’s stages movement is closely tied to the history of the workers’ movement. Today’s open-air stages not uncommonly had their origin as ‘thingspiel’ locations during the times of Hitler fascism. — This is a general overview of today’s constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany’s theatre structure.

Analogous to the different genres these theatres can have different branches, depending on size. We then talk about “multi-branch theatres” (Mehrspartentheater). These generally comprise ballet, opera and drama. In some cases, puppet theatre or children’s and youth theatre are also part of it. Oftentimes, the branches are also situated in independent theatres whose function is hinted at in the title, as in, for example, the Oper Köln (Cologne Opera), the Schauspiel Frankfurt (Frankfurt Theatre), the Schauspielhaus Bochum (Bochum Theatre), the Puppentheater Magdebug (Magdeburg Puppet Theatre), the Theater der Jungen Welt Leipzig (Leipzig Theatre of the Young World). From time to time, you can also find the names of the architects in the names of the theatre, as is the case of the Semperoper in Dresden. Frequently the former use is hidden in the name of production companies, which are needed by theatre collectives of the independent scene for artistic processes, as in Kampnagel in Hamburg; or its current purpose as a place of reunion immediately stands out, as in Forum Freies Theater (Free Theatre Forum) in Düsseldorf (FFT).

Positions

We may be confused by the Theater am Gendarmenmarkt in Berlin. A classicistic building by the architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel, it was opened in 1821 as Royal Theatre, and was used as a Prussian state theatre between 1919 and 1945; today, however, it is a concert hall and can be rented for major events. Nevertheless there are still orchestras with their own concert halls, such as the Gewandhausorchester in Leipzig or the Berliner Philharmonie. As opposed to straight theatre, the infrastructure of music is widely ramified; even smaller cities have small orchestras, such as, for example, the Mitteldeutsche Kammerphilharmonie in Schönebeck an der Elbe. To simplify matters, they agreed on the label Theater- und Orchesterlandschaft (theatre and orchestra landscape), in other places its labelled municipal theatre system. The theatre and orchestra landscape as such was added to the state-wide directory of intangible cultural heritage in 2014 on the initiative of the Deutsche Bühnenverein and the Deutsche Musikrat (German Stage Union and the German Music Council).

Independent from the name-giving, theatres differ with respect to public funding, so-called subsidies. These benefits are either granted exclusively by the city, the municipality or the community, or are supplemented by state funds, or are exclusively supported by state funding, respectively. The contentions between theatre makers in the cultural field for a fair allocation of these funds have been going on for around 60 years. On the side of the artists, discussions are ostensibly held around the emancipative relevance of a specific aesthetic form; on the side of the politicians, the numbers regarding the occupancy rate are brought up for discussion; audience members themselves have diversified, which, in the sense of the concept of a theatre for everyone brought up in the 60s, means the inclusion of all societal groups. The latter development increasingly also comprehends stage operations as such, of which the post-migrant ensemble at the Gorki Theater or the RambaZamba theatre by people with intellectual disabilities are not the only examples.

In the background, however, fiscal parameters create facts that force theatres into a transformation due to their structural establishment. The black zero is of central relevance in this context. This term is a metaphor for the debt brake that has been effective since 2009, and which dictates a constitutional limit to new debt for public budgets. In the so-called “new states”, where spending on the Reunification have increased the debt mountain, austerity plans have yielded specific consequences. We have furthermore observed that the legal form of a theatre has been changed, or that they are changing from cameralistics to double-entry bookkeeping, in the matter of accounting. Management companies like VG-Wort or GEMA are currently subject to a deep change as well. During this discussion about cultural diversity theatre makers insinuate that, in the name of cultural and creative industries, a connectivity to a global market governance is being created, which would cancel out means of production grounded in tradition. The current dispute about the Volksbühne in Berlin, during which a cultural secretary of state replaced the stage director and artistic director, Frank Castorf, with a Belgian curator and museum manager, is a textbook case for this discussion. Theatre makers speak of an enemy takeover and protest openly in order to protect their interest in the preservation of artistic freedom.

Basic Parameters

With the expansion of the EU domestic market in the 90s, which favours the Europe-wide call for open assignments, cities, communities and municipalities have begun competing with one another. This fact becomes clear with simple train rides. Signs and announcements in train stations treat cultural heritage often as a characteristic of the city: there is Bach-city, Luther-city, and many more. Theatre and orchestra are intensively included in the new marketing of a city. On the other hand, theatres have been closed, including the famous example of the Schillertheater in Berlin. After the reunification of the German Democratic Republic (DDR) with the Federal Republic, some 40 theatres were affected by closings in the so-called “new states”. A first understanding of the current make-up of the theatre and orchestra landscape requires a look into the responsibility for culture, both the financial basics and some central reference numbers.

a) Culture as a task for the states

The Federal Republic of Germany is a federal state in its borders from 3 October 1990, consisting of 16 states, whereby the city-states of Berlin, Bremen, and Hamburg are considered states. The jurisdiction for culture comes from Article 30 of the German constitution. Legislation and administration fall under the domain of state culture. Since the federal government is not competent in this case, the term cultural sovereignty of the states is used. Likewise, the states are bound to the principle of subsidiarity. This means that the lower administrative units like cities, communities, or municipalities must give way when it comes to the resolution of state responsibilities and can only help in a complementary way. Performing arts belongs to a department of culture in a city, community, or municipality. There is a ministry of culture at the state level—as there was for example until the federal state elections in 2016 in Saxony-Anhalt—or culture is part of the ministry for family, children, youth, culture, and sport, like is the case for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

 b) Federal Cultural Politics

During the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (1998 to 2005), the office of the Federal Commissioner for Cultural and Media Affairs (BKM) was created in the Federal Chancellery with the goal of bringing together cultural policy responsibilities that were previously carried out by different ministries. The current Federal Commissioner for Cultural and Media Affairs is Federal Minister of State, Monika Grütters. The federal government is directly involved in project advancement due to the founding in 2002 of the German Federal Cultural Foundation (Kulturstiftung des Bundes), which is located in Halle (Saale). The artistic director of this institution is Hortensia Völckers. One of the goals of this institution is the advancement of innovative programmes and projects in international contexts and to drive the cooperation with the Cultural Foundation of the German Federal States (Kulturstiftung der Länder). The general project funding and programme funding are directly responsible for project advancement in the area of performing arts. For project funding there is currently the program 360° – Fund for New City Cultures, with which institutions of all kinds are supported in order to diversify their programme, audience, or personnel and to promote the inclusion of immigrants and following generations. Furthermore, the programme TURN – Fund for artistic cooperation between Germany and African countries and the Doppelpass Fund, which supports the cooperation of independent groups and established dance and theatre houses. These existing cooperations can be expanded for a third partner, a theatre, or production house, even when they are located abroad.

 c) The Financial Basics

For theatres there exist what are known as “theatre contracts”. They do not have the same weight as treaties, such as those with Christian churches and public broadcast (TV, radio). Churches can cite land they mortgaged to the government in the 19th century when they wish to secure an important source of income. The public broadcasting channels (with the exception of the Deutsche Welle) can rely on a broadcast fee treaty as well as a broadcasting financing treaty for the security of their financial needs. Since 2013, these treaties allow for the charge of 17,50 € each month per apartment, based on population and living space, which can hurt, even for independent theatre critics. The broadcasting companies were able to take 8.1 billion euros in 2015, with the help of various compulsory enforcements. This sum is almost equal to the total amount that was spent on art and culture in Germany, including monument conservation, national libraries in Leipzig and Frankfurt, performing arts and much more. In 2011, they took in around 9.4 billion, or 0.36 % of the gross domestic product. Theatres in Germany are unable to compete with churches and broadcasting companies when it comes to finances; although in terms of cultural policy, traditionally the theatre is also intended for sacral tasks in the sense of beauty, truth, and goodness, and thus has a certain spiritual responsibility. The artistic direction—also known as Intendanz in German—changes on average every four years, and the financial needs of the theatre must then be renegotiated, which the German Stage Union (Deutsche Bühnenverein) does on behalf of the theatre. Financial subsidies are pitted against an intangible cultural heritage whose production costs are covered by the administrative term public services. Theatres in Germany are equal to other public services like education, sanitation, hospitals, cemeteries, or interstates, hence the talk of “cultural care”, which, much like educational institutions, would govern the reach of theatres and orchestras based on a commuter belt and demographic statistics. In general, the financial contributions are voluntary services from the public authorities, which, unlike for churches and broadcasting companies, can be disposed of at any time.

 d) Benchmarking Data

Indicators of a theatre are a permanent ensemble and a repertoire, which is why this is also called ensemble and repertoire theatre. The density of theatres and orchestras in Germany is characterized by 140 publicly funded theatres and 220 private theatres with 130 opera, symphony, and chamber orchestras, around 70 festivals, approx. 150 theatres and venues without permanent ensembles, and around 100 tour and guest performance stages, as well as many shows by independent groups. It is interesting to note that not one of these enterprises would survive without public funding. Yearly, 35 million spectators of all ages visit the approx. 126,000 theatre shows and 9,000 concerts. The German UNESCO commission in Bonn reported on this in its announcement from 19 December 2016, and made known that this theatre and orchestra landscape is nominated for the international UNESCO list of intangible cultural heritage.

Associations

The Federal Republic of Germany is an area state in which unions are the central form of organization for groups that share a particular interest. The theatre and orchestra landscape is split into two large groups that are closely related to the post-war history of the Federal Republic of Germany in its borders before 3 October 1990. On the one side there are the so-called institutionalized forms of theatre work in the field of cultural policy, and on the other side are the so-called emancipated forms of theatre work. The original confrontation came about because of the student protests of the 60s, which dealt with the adoption of forms of aesthetic representation and its reformation. After an era of liberation of aesthetic limits between emancipation approaches and their subsequent institutionalization—that is, the broad integration of independent and in their own self-image emancipatory projects during the processes of metropolitan theatres in the 90s and the first decade of the new century—the conflicts of recent years have been postponed. This postponement is most noticeable in relation to the confrontation of the public sector with the debt limit, with the establishment of an EU domestic market, and the accompanying integration into city marketing, as well as with the novelty of the free trade agreements GATS, TISA, CETA in publications and thematic series. The social partnership that was established after the war is experiencing depreciation as a feature of the Rhine capitalism (Michel Albert) in the old states. Nevertheless, the two large groups define themselves based on their organizational structure to this day. On the one side there is the historic heritage, which precedes the social partnership: labour associations and unions. On the other side are the organizational forms of the independent scene.

a) Deutscher Bühnenverein (German Stage Union)

The largest interest group and at the same time employer’s association for theatres and orchestras in Germany is the Deutsche Bühnenverein, founded in 1846. It currently accounts for 214 theatres (34 national theatres, 84 municipal theatres, 24 state stages, and 72 private theatres) and 31 independent symphony orchestras (7 state orchestras, 23 municipal orchestras, 1 national orchestra) as well as 129 personally active members. Its responsibilities include: to discuss all artistic, organizational, and cultural policy questions, audience development, the formation of legal frameworks, and the social position of artists. Ulrich Khuon serves as president of the German Stage Union since 24 January 2017. Since 2017, Marc Grandmontagne is the managing director. Together they form the management. There are six groups within the union, which form the executive committee, represented by the chairman of each group: private theatre group (Christina Seeler, director of the Ohnsorg Theatre), directors group (Hasko Weber, general director of the German National Theatre & Staatskapelle Weimar), state theatre group (Hans Heinrich Bethge, senate director, Cultural Office of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg), state stage group (Kay Metzger, director of the State Theatre Detmold), metropolitan theatre group (Gabriel Engert, cultural advisor of the city of Ingolstadt), exceptional members (Charlotte Sieben, managing director of the Berliner Festspiele). The German Stage Union publishes theatre statistics, work statistics, books, brochures, and papers on cultural policy. It is a member of the Performing Arts Employers Associations League Europe (PEARLE*).

 b) Genossenschaft Deutscher Bühnenangehöriger (The Guild of the German Stage)

A second large interest group is the Guild of the German Stage (Genossenschaft Deutscher Bühnenangehöriger, GDBA), which was founded in 1871 and whose current president is Jörg Löwer. This organization represents members of the artistic and artistic-technical sector. Organized into seven state unions, the GDBA covers the career fields of solo, dance, opera chorus, and equipment, technology, and management (ATuV). Specific types of contracts for workers rights in theatre can be traced back to them. Their members receive legal protection and consulting free of cost. Together with the German Stage Union, it upholds the stage court jurisdiction, meaning the trade court for the stage. An improvement in retirement arrangements is a goal. Responsibilities include pay scale policy and cultural policy, especially the definition of work and wage conditions for those associated with the stage. The GDBA publishes, among others, the German Stage Yearbook, the Journal of Set Designers (Fachblatt “bühnenbildgenossenschaft”), an updated copy of the normal contract (for the stage) and a commentary to the normal contract (for the stage). It is a member of the International Federation of Actors (FIA).

c) Further union representation

The Fachgruppe darstellende Kunst der Vereinten Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft (Occupational Group Performing Arts of the United Services Union) (Verdi) also offers union representation. Heinrich Bleicher-Nagelsmann is the unit manager. It offers legal advice and legal protection regarding work and social court lawsuits, civil service law, and job-related contract and copyright law, as well as consultation on employment references and test cases on work, social and administrative court in all courts, as well as strike support. Furthermore, there is the Vereinigung deutscher Opernchöre und Bühnentänzer e.V. (Union of German Opera Choirs and Stage Dancers) (VdO). It is both a professional association and union of the members of the opera choirs and dance groups of the German stages, Stefan Moser being the federal chairman.

d) Organizational Structure of the independent scene

Whoever is not employed by a theatre is considered to be independent. As far as social insurance coverage, this circumstance means that the Künstlersozialkasse (KSK) (Artists Social Security Benefits Office) is responsible instead of the Bayrische Versorgungskammer (Bavarian Provision Association). In addition to the Bund Deutscher Amateurtheater (Association of German Amateur Theatre), the so-called independent scene has an umbrella organization of all 16 state associations, mainly also due to the Bundesverband Freie Darstellende Künste (Federal Association of Independent Performing Arts), founded in 1990; it represents the interests of the approximately 2,000 independent theatres in Germany, amongst which solo theatres, troupes and theatre companies. Amongst other things, its responsibilities include consulting the cultural and social policy makers on matters regarding the independent performing arts, as well as effectively representing them. Members and interested parties receive information regarding tenders, performance locations, festivals, (advanced) education and technical questions via the regular information centre OFF-Informationen. The Federal Association considers the social and economic state of the dance and theatre creators one of the central themes. Janina Benduski (State Association Independent Performing Arts Berlin), Anne-Chathrin Lessel (State Association Independent Theatres Saxony), Tom Wolter (State Centre Acting & Theatre Saxony-Anhalt), Harald Redmer (State Office Independent Performing Arts North-Rhine Westphalia), Susanne Reifenrath (Umbrella Association Performing Arts Hamburg), Ulrike Seybold (State Assocaition Independent Theatres in Lower Saxony) and Axel Tangerding (Association Independent Performing Arts Bavaria) are its board members. The Federal Association Independent Performing Arts campaigns for a stable social security benefits office for artists and a good income for all of their colleagues. It fights for fair and transparent funding conditions. Another purpose is consulting public and private sponsors on the development and work of the scene. Last year, in cooperation with the Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft (Cultural Policy Society), Ulrike Blumenreich’s study “Aktuelle Förderstrukturen der freien Darstellenden Künste in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der Befragung von Kommunen und Ländern” (“Current Funding Structures of the Independent Performing Arts in Germany. Results of A Survey of Municipalities and States”) was published on this key subject. The first comprehensive study on the economic, social and labour-law related state of independent theatre makers in Germany was already published in 2010 in the “Report Performing Arts”, which the Federal Association Independent Performing Arts, together with the Fonds Darstellende Künste (Performing Arts Fund), got off the ground. The latter has been funding projects of all branches of performing arts since 1988. In the past 30 years, the fund has awarded approx. 16 million euros for approximately 3,000 individual projects and project conceptions in all federal states, and in more than 300 municipalities. The fund receives a yearly subsidy of currently 1.1 million euros by the federal commissioner for Culture and Media. Wolfgang Schneider (director of the Department of Cultural Policy at the University of Hildesheim), Ilka Schmalbauch (lawyer and advisor of the board of the German Stage Union) and Wolfang Kaup-Wellfonder (independent puppeteer) are its board members.

Lobbying, Representation, Networking

The Republic of Germany establishes a free and democratic basic order in its constitution, and this is demonstrated practically with the help of democratic principles. Due to the fact that interest groups organize in unions and that there is a pluralism in the landscape of political parties that allows each party a speaker for cultural policy, the Deutsche Kulturrat (German Cultural Council) is an umbrella union that represents all cultural associations and political contact persons for politics in matters of cultural policy since its founding in 1981. One of the main characteristics of the field of cultural policy is the caucus work, during which it works towards a balancing of interests and, when needed, a consensus decision. Furthermore, the media representation that builds an important basis for discussion and networking of theatre makers was and is a defining factor, leading to differentiation in the field of cultural policy, which in turn can bring about the creation of new forms of organizations.

a) Deutscher Kulturrat

The German Cultural Council serves as a contact in politics and administration in the states, at a national level and in the European Union. Its stated goal is to encourage discussions on cultural policy at all levels of politics and to defend the freedom of art, publications, and information. Central issues of the last years include the protection of cultural goods, copyright, free trade agreements, gender equality, cultural integration, economic and social questions or the issue of threatened cultural institutions by introducing a Red List. The managing board includes Christian Höppner (president), Regine Möbius (vice-president), and Andreas Kämpf (vice-president). The administration consists of Olaf Zimmermann (director) and Gabriele Schulz (deputy director). Members include the Deutscher Musikrat (German Music Council), the Rat für darstellende Kunst und Tanz (Council for Performing Arts and Dance), the Deutsche Literaturkonferenz (German Literature Conference), the Deutscher Kunstrat (German Art Council), the Rat für Baukultur und Denkmalkultur (Council for Building Culture and Monument Culture), the Deutscher Designtag (German Design Group), the Deutscher Medienrat für Film, Rundfunk und Audiovisuelle Medien (German Media Council for Film, Broadcasting and Audio-visual Media) as well as the Rat für Soziokultur und kulturelle Bildung (Council for Socio-culture and Cultural Education). Some of the associations mentioned are also members of the Council for Performing Arts and Dance and Ilka Schmalbauch is their contact person. The Deutsches Zentrum des Internationalen Theaterinstituts (German Centre of the International Theatre Institute) is also a member, and has made the mutual understanding of theatre cultures of the world its goal. Along with books, dossiers, addenda, and studies, the German Cultural Council publishes the journal “politik & kultur” quarterly. They also produce a free newsletter, with subscription via their website.

b) Representation in the Media

Beyond professional reports, local and cross-regional daily newspapers and magazines carry out reporting on theatre, in print as well as online. The Deutscher Bühnenverein publishes a monthly magazine, Die Deutsche Bühne. Theater der Zeit, theater heute, and nachtkritik.de occupy the space of theatre-specific publications. Along with magazines, Theater der Zeit also has a book publishing house which produces a yearly workbook dedicated to a certain artist or issue and includes academic essays (research series) or books on theatre architectures, copies of theatre pieces (dialogue series) or books about a certain theatre. The Alexander Verlag is one of the most important publishing houses among the theatre branches of the large publishing companies (Suhrkamp, Fischer, Hanser). Theatre publishers are important to theatrical distribution less for their image towards the outside and more for their internal representation, for example the Verlag der Autoren, Henschel Schauspiel Theaterverlag Berlin, Drei Masken Verlag, or Felix Bloch Erben. Last but not least is the Theateralmanach from Bernd Steets, which offers a short and manageable overview of updated questions on the topography of the German-speaking theatre landscape in the field of cultural policy.

c) Networking

Fusion and the closing of venues have characterized the changes to the German theatre and orchestra scene since 3 October 1990. Until 3 October 2003 alone, one in eight jobs at German theatre or operas were done away with, which equals five and a half thousand from forty-five thousand jobs. This broad fusion of theatres into theatre clusters in large swathes of land has led to a further loss of jobs and to the introduction of even more artists into the independent scene. This change in cultural policy has an effect on the labour agreements and finally on the net income and workload. Actors are worst protected from changes, a condition that has structural reasons. Even their interest representation is nowhere near as well positioned as that of musicians. Due to this dismantling of the German theatre and orchestra scene, actors have joined together against the poor labour conditions, against the low wages, and to fight for humane treatment. The newest example is the artbutfair initiative and the Ensemble-Netzwerk. Artbutfair works for fair labour conditions as well as appropriate wages in performing arts and music. The Ensemble-Netzwerk is a movement connecting theatre makers with one another and fighting for their labour conditions in metropolitan theatre and their artistic future. “Freiheit der Kunst, bedeutet nicht Knechtschaft der Künstler*innen” (“Freedom of art does not mean servitude for artists“) is the motto that inspires an overwhelmingly young generation to work together with unions, the Deutscher Bühnenverein, directors’ groups, politics, artists, and associated professional organizations. Their goal is to push for good occupational conditions for artists in public theatres.

 

 

Published on 6 June 2017 (Article originally written in German)

Theatre in the UK: Politics, poetics and resistance

Theatre in the UK: Politics, poetics and resistance

On Fire

In 2015, I found myself in the Dorfman Theatre at the National Theatre for the closing of the Spill Festival of Performance, watching a transgender artist (https://heathercassils.com/) perform a dangerous act of self-immolation in Inextinguishable Fire, as part of the Spill Festival of Performance. The piece saw the artist, following extensive training with professional stuntmen, burn themselves on stage in a controlled performance inspired by Harun Farocki’s film with the same name, exploring the impossibility of representing trauma. The event was a two-part piece: the live, one-off performance in the Dorfman, and a follow-on film projected outdoors, on the side of the Southbank Centre’s Royal Festival Hall.

The burn itself lasted fourteen seconds, preceded by extensive physical preparation involving fire-resistant materials. This body is drenched in cooling gel, ready to undergo a temporary state of hypothermia and needs to avoid any breathing in for the period of the burn. The lights on the stage and in the auditorium never go down, and there’s an underpinning, uncomfortable drone sound coming from the speakers, just enough to create a sense of anticipation, but not to support any spectacle.

This feels momentous: watching a gender fluid, non-British body on a National Theatre stage, speaking of trauma, undertaking a performance that is in equal measure theatricalised and de-theatricalised. The audience is silent, and I watch in anticipation, knowing that this will not culminate, it might simply end; knowing the resonances are both poetic and formal; knowing that I am a witness, not a spectator.

It’s surprising, not only because the National Theatre has, for the past decade, under the directorship of Sir Trevor Nunn (1997-2003) and Sir Nicholas Hytner (2003-2015) created a distinct identity that favours adaptations, and a particular British-European canon that excludes the kind of performance work that the theatre world has embraced elsewhere. It’s a notably gendered space too—the National Theatre has yet to see an Artistic Director who is not a white British male—although there is promise of a shift under the tenure of Rufus Norris. In what direction, and under what circumstances, perhaps it’s too soon to tell. Cassils’s event, with its explicit interest in the architecture of the theatre, but resistant to theatricality itself, marked a moment of politicisation ahead of the era of Donald Trump and Brexit.

Cultural Policy (The Politics)

In 2016, Ed Vaizey, then Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries published the first White Paper on the government’s approach to culture in over fifty years. It foregrounds the move towards patronage and private sponsorship model for the arts, and places increased pressure on the economic sustainability of culture (in terms of profitability and re-investment). It also emphasises culture’s ability to increase soft power and to provide measurable community engagement. The outcome indicators stipulate economic growth, reduction of poverty and unemployment rates and ‘improved subjective well-being’, in the promise for culture to deliver successful communities.

It’s no surprise that theatre plays a key part in this vision; despite the West End’s relative economic success, much of the pressures come down to the subsidised theatre sector—from major to local institutions. Yet this reorientation of the cultural agenda has its roots in the Conservative Government’s austerity measures, which, in 2010, resulted in a 30% cut to the Arts Council England budget, the main funding body. This was followed by cuts across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, although these played out differently in each of the devolved administrations. Despite local governments having some autonomy over austerity measures, Westminster remains a powerful lead in overseeing the agenda for cultural policy and funding. And it is precisely this reorientation that has resulted in a notable fracturing of the theatrical ecology, from the point of view of its infrastructure, as well as its artistic factioning.

To speak of the landscape of British theatre in the UK is to speak of a series of intertwined political, social and governmental shifts, at a time of increased desire for sovereignty and a tumultuous relationship to the European Union. Britain’s theatrical landscape is shaped as much by a fluctuating community of immigrants, diasporas and locals, as by major political shifts. Whilst Britain prides itself on the economic profitability and dynamism of its creative industries, it is also structurally a pressurised, neoliberal cultural landscape. There is a powerful conservativisim within British theatre, one that is also resisted by a plural, reactive, shifting community of artists and institutions questioning identities, structural inequality and continuing to explore immaterial questions of generosity, care, community and, of course, dramatic form itself.

There is also a distinct differentiation on the part of its artistic communities between theatre and live art (as developed and championed by The Live Art Development Agency under Lois Keidan and C J Mitchell), with performance as a nomadic network of cultural intersections in between. This is particular to the UK, and has come as a direct result of the inconsistent and sometimes untransparent distribution of public money to support experimental or marginal practices. What becomes part of these categories is constantly shifting. If live art has sought to make space for marginalised debates and dissolve the boundary between art and life, between experiences of marginalisation and their representation, theatre post-Thatcher has been battling a tension between subsidized and commercial sectors, between new writing and adaptations, between British and international work.

Struggles and Poetics

The rise of Conservative government in England as a political stronghold, echoing policies that go all the way back to Margaret Thatcher, has also seen a dynamic theatrical and performance culture. Tate Modern opened its new extension in 2016, providing more space and resourcing to the archiving of theatre, performance and live art, whilst other museums, such as the Victoria & Albert, have seen successful exhibitions and programmes about theatre and performance. Organisations such as the Live Art Development Agency and Artsadmin have invested resources and efforts to create a culture inclusive around questions of gender and sexual identity, race and ability, environment and ecology, as well as questioning ideas surrounding diversity and their systemic undermining. The rise of festivals such as the London International Theatre Festival, Spill Festival of Performance, In Between Time, Buzzcut Festival and many more has provided an alternative network for international work to be circulated beyond cultural strongholds, namely major cities like London, Cardiff, Glasgow or Manchester.

Changes in major institutions, such as London’s Royal Court under Vicky Featherstone, the National Theatre under Rufus Norris, and The Globe under Emma Rice (who, following a dispute with the Shakespeare Globe Trust Board on the use of lighting and sound technology, is now leaving the venue at the end of its 17/18 season) have provided programming that attempts to engage with problems of representation, both in terms of labour and artistic output, notably gender, race and disability, although these are politically limited and embedded in complex questions surrounding theatre as a cultural establishment.

This, at the same time, has given rise to questions surrounding nationhood and sovereignty, identity and borders, at a time of global dispute. The term ‘European’, recently debased by playwright Sir David Hare as ‘infecting’ British theatre – and elevated by critic Michael Billington in his critique about the National Theatre’s season omitting ‘European classics’ evidence a misunderstanding that’s recently regained traction. This is between Europe as a continent, and the European Union itself, as well as the association of the term with radicalism that pertains to the late eighties and early nineties and the rise of Regietheater, or a classicism that excludes cultures at the heart of European Modernism, and ignores the important role postcolonial critiques play in unpacking histories of practice.

David Hare’s remarks attempt to protect the now historicised state of the nation play, giving the example of the successful Jerusalem by Jez Butterworth. At the same time, it derides the rise of devising, collective work and new writing at the heart of much British culture and its international reach—and its mainstream presence, such as The Barbican regularly commissioning collaborations between Simon McBurney’s Complicite and Berlin’s Schaubühne, following the successful controversy of the international co-production Three Kingdoms in 2012 (written by Simon Stephens, directed by Sebastian Nubling, with design by Ene-Liis Semper).

If venues such as the Young Vic, the Barbican and the Royal Court regularly programme works in collaboration with artists across Europe and beyond, there is still a battle between form and topicality, nationhood and internationalism in British theatre. In part, this comes out of a lack of questioning of what is meant by ‘nation’ in post-Empire Britain on its major stages, although some excellent work has been supported by Battersea Arts Centre with London Stories: Made by Migrants, exploring London’s diverse migrant community through the stories of its inhabitants, and Vlatka Horvat’s 15th Extraordinary Congress, which speaks of the dissolution of Yugoslavia through the stories of seven London-based artists born in its different republics. Counted amongst some of the most welcomed productions of 2016 are Oil by Ella Hickson, which speaks to the broad history of oil and its political, social and environmental damage, Annie Barker’s The Flick about a failing Massachusetts movie house and its low paid workers pushed out by the digital, as well as works by black American playwrights like Ma Rainey, Amiri Baraka and Suzan-Lori Parks. These show a wide range of topical engagements, supported by an ongoing interest in European and American revivals (including Tennese William’s Streetcare Named Desire, Federico García Lorca’s Yerma and Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler).

There remains however, a disparity between agendas for cultural involvement and representation, the language of inclusivity and the infrastructures both cultural and institutional that create such complex problems across the board. In January of this year, Live Art UK launched Diverse Actions, a multi-project initiative that aims to support culturally diverse ‘ambition, excellence and talent’, focused on leadership and new work, with an agenda for embedding more sustainable practices.

Performance (or?)

If the mid 2000s saw a rise of artist-led, independently run spaces, such as performance space, run by Bean and Benjamin Sebastian, and The Yard Theatre, and the development of local projects by major institutions, such as the Royal Court’s work in Peckham, South London and LIFT’s work in Tottenham, North London, following the Olympics in 2012, there is a general sense that DIY models are short lived, but infrastructurally necessary to the development of an experimental scene in London and beyond. Whilst the division between regional performance, and that in major cities remains a problem, particularly in light of the concentration of artists and institutions in places like London, there is an increasingly neoliberal culture that is pushing institutions to rely on philanthropy, and artists to navigate complex systems of fundraising and patronage in order to ensure sustainable cultural activity.

In part, certain institutions like the Tate Modern have attempted to provide spaces of debate on these questions, whilst also harnessing their resources to familiarise a visual art and heritage audience with performance work, particularly with artists like Anne Theresa De Keersmaeker, Suzanne Lacy or Marina Abramovic. On the other hand, Live Art Development Agency has been instrumental in introducing a certain level of ethical debate, drawing a link between the political shift of cultural policy and funding and the development of certain artforms, supporting the work of collectives like Platform, who were behind the protests on Tate’s BP sponsorship which has now ended, as well as engaging in publishing activities, and artist-support networks.

So whilst institutional, there is an apparent porosity between theatre and performance, between historical lineages that emerge from visual art and those at the heart of European modernism, this landscape looks altogether different according to which vantage point you take. It’s a shifting paradigm, one that at times might suggest a spectrum rather than a binary, but under the current guises, there remains much tension to work through.

 

 

Published on 19 May 2017

Where do parallel lines meet?

Where do parallel lines meet?

If you want to understand what’s going on in the Hungarian theatres, you have to be aware of the fact that Hungarian culture is politicized to the utmost extent. The party of Viktor Orbán, Fidesz, first won an absolute majority in Parliament in 2010. Since then system of democratic institutions and the financing of culture has become totally different. Simultaneously, the walls between left and right-wingers have become higher and higher.

“Távoli dal”, Vígzsínházs, directed by Mark Eitzel © Daniel Damolky

Left-wingers (creators):
are usually liberal, too
are urban and cosmopolitan
were too subsidized by the political system before 2010, today their subsidies decrease or stagnate
focus on the Western world
would not limit methods of creations
are provocative
think theatre raises problems, enhances critical thinking and triggers debates.

Right-wingers (creators):
are rather conservative
are mainly from the countryside, strongly believes in national values
too subsidized by the present political system
focus on the East
would limit the methods of creation
think provocation is self-important
think theatre should represent values, give answers, enhance a common standpoint.

These are of course stereotypes, some of them being attached to one side by the other side. It is also a characteristic of the cruelty of this divisiveness that related to something even those count as left- or right-wing who would never label themselves so (though might consider themselves as sitting in the opposition). If we want to understand how this condition affects the circumstances of Hungarian theatre, we have to clarify some basic concepts.

Funding of Theaters

Currently, the majority of theaters in Hungary are being sustained through municipal support, which means that performing arts in Hungary largely depend on state subsidies. Examples of patronage exist, but given the small size of the country, the system is rudimentary; sponsors prefer to invest in more “spectacular” projects. Besides financial aid, theater revenues result from seat sales and the so-called TAO [Corporate Income Taxes] which means that national business establishments may offer part of their corporate taxes to theaters, which may receive 80% of their annual seat sales through this method. (This system is rather recent and according to its opponents, it benefits the larger, stronger, high-seat-capacity theaters in addition to facilitating a huge number of abusive practices.) Based on the financing of the different institutions, theatres can be divided into the following groups:

Stone Theaters: Repertory theaters disposing permanent troupes and playgrounds. Partly
subsidized by the municipality, partly subsidized by the state, there are countless such theaters in Budapest, amongst which the most significant are the Katona József Theater, the Örkény István Theater, the Radnóti Miklós Theater and the National Theater (this is a subjective list). In addition, there are stone theaters outside of Budapest, primarily in regional municipalities, specifically in larger cities. There is a significant difference, inasmuch as the theaters in Budapest may easily establish their own identities, whereas this task is more difficult for regional theaters, since it is the same establishment providing operas, musicals, children’s plays, studio theater performances, etc.

Private Theaters: they exist sporadically, generally playing tabloid-type presentations. The most significant among them is the Orlai Produkciós Iroda [Orlai Production Office] and the
Átrium Film-Színház [Atrium Film-Theater]—these also participate occasionally in setting up independent theater performances, or at least act as host establishments.

Independent Theaters: formerly referred to as amateur theaters, later alternative theater troupes that have no sponsors, functioning on project funding from tenders and competitions and usually having no permanent playgrounds. The bulk of dance troupes and numerous children’s theater-and-theater education companies belong in this group. The accomplishments of independent troupes are recognized worldwide, but in Hungary these troupes are forced to work under increasingly harsher conditions. Thus, as a matter of course, part of their presentations automatically takes place in international co-productions. The troupes struggle in different ways with this situation: Viktor Bodó’s company, the Szputnyik, chose to close down due to uncertainty and unpredictability. Béla Pintér’s company resigned from the two annual presentations and raised ticket prices (luckily, they can afford it, having a huge fan base, tickets are sold out for months, within hours of their announced performances on the Internet). Kornél Mundruczó’s company, the Proton, always present their show abroad, the same is true for the productions of Árpád Schilling’s company. (Incidentally, he has completely disconnected his artistic activities from Krétakör, [Chalk Circle] now primarily engaging in projects of social dialogues and responsibility-taking.)

Host Theaters: these present guest performances and productions of troupes without a permanent playground. Their important role is to pave the way for startup troupes. In this regard, the Jurányi Inkubátor Ház [Juranyi Incubator House] is a unique phenomenon, operating out of an old schoolhouse building, which offers a rehearsal room and other infrastructure to “lodger” troupes, serving as well as a host platform for community groups. The Szkéné [Theater of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics] works largely with permanent troupes, the MU Theater concentrates mainly on dance, startup troupes and lately on community presentations. The most significant host theater is Trafó, the only place where foreign guest performances can be seen continuously during the year.

It is important to know what the above concepts mean because, as we will see, divisiveness is not only a political, but a structural question as well.

Two Theatrical Organizations and Two Performing Arts Acts

There are two organisations for authors and young writers—or even history teachers—one is left-wing, the other is right-wing. In some cases, the right-wing organizations came into existence as opposing organisms. This is what happened in the case of the Magyar Színházi Társaság (MszT) and the Magyar Teátrumi Társaság (MTT – both names mean Hungarian Theatre Association with the only difference that ‘színházi’ is the Hungarians version of the word theatre, and ‘teátrumi’ is a less used, Latin version). The MSzT was established in 1997, its purpose was to represent the interests of the Hungarian theater profession and its main ambition was the legislation of the work in performing arts. Parliament finally adopted this law in 2008. In essence, it was the dissatisfaction with this law that gave rise to the MTT, which primarily included regional theaters as members, with Attila Vidnyánszky becoming its leader, who is currently the most influential person in the Hungarian theater world, with numerous positions: director of the National Theater, president of the MTT, and the director of the Kaposvári Egyetem Színházi Intézet [Kaposvár University Theater Institution]. The purpose of the MTT was the enforcement of the interests of regional theaters which,—according to them—have not sufficiently prevailed within the MSzT. They stressed the fact that the law should have included the esthetical and qualitative aspects. This point of view, according to their critics, has not succeeded in the case of theaters clustering in the MTT, as those at the helm were political appointees, presenting mainly tabloid-type plays or shows for entertainment.
In 2011, the 2008 law was finally modified (currently this version is in force), and the MTT has reached another important modification. The 2008 law guaranteed that the independent associations would receive 10% of the subsidies destined for theaters. The modification terminated this guarantee: now the law only states that the Nemzeti Erőforrás Minisztérium [Ministry of National Resources] may grant an aggregate, unspecified support to independents theaters. The Független Előadó-művészeti Szervezet [Independent Performing Arts Association] (then still Független Színházak Szövetsége [Independent Theaters Association]) protested, understandably, against the modification, since, as of this year, the allocation for their support has been considerably reduced.

Festivals

It is due to this bipolarity, i.e., the existence of two theatrical associations, that a rather absurd and a seemingly insolvable situation has surfaced, namely that when the Hungarian theater scene is expressly aspiring to bury the rifts and reach a balanced decision, they summon individuals from “both sides”. The best example for this is the POSzT- Pécsi Országos Színházi Találkozó, [Pécs National Theater Festival], one of the most important festivals, for which a selector nominated by the MSzT and the MTT has been choosing the productions for years, and where the seven-member jury is also carefully chosen to represent people from both sides.
From the outset, a certain kind of indecision is encoded in this situation, since the two associations to this day could never reach a definite agreement regarding the POSzT’s fundamental mission. According to certain opinions, the best productions should be participating in POSzT, while according to others, the nature of the festival is a more important viewpoint, namely, that the greatest possible number of theaters be in attendance. Thus, many hold the inherent situation of the festival as hopeless, and they have been neglecting it for years. The owners (The city of Pécs and the two theater associations) posted a contest for the management of POSzT. Thus, the winner set up a professional advisory board, intended for the reinvention of POSzT, which is currently under way.
For a long time, there was no international festival in Hungary that would also be considered significant in Europe. This is the gap that the MITEM [Madách International Theater Festival] is currently trying to fill, with the festival organized by the National Theater under the direction of Attila Vidnyánszky, for which, for that matter, there is plenty of state support, since Vidnyánszky is favored by the authorities (especially when compared to the former director, Róbert Alföldi, who, even before the Orbán regime, has managed the National Theater with much less funding). According to festival critics, the concept of the selection is not apparent in the program, leaning primarily toward Eastern Europe and Asia, concentrating on major national theaters. In 2017, for example, performances by Silviu Purcărete, Krystian Lupa, Eimuntas Nekrošius and Alvis Hermanis will be coming to the MITEM.
The Magyar Színházak Kisvárdai Fesztiválja [Kisvárda Festival of Hungarian Theaters] is mandated to present Hungarian theaters beyond the border. That is to say, that there is a considerable Hungarian minority living in Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and Serbia, whose theater professionals had hitherto no chance to meet each other, or those of their homeland. That is why a festival came into existence in a small Eastern Hungarian town, which does not even have its own theater. At the time, this seemed to be a practical solution due to the geographical situation; today, however, the lack of infrastructure makes the organizing quite difficult. Nevertheless, the town is fond of the festival, while their demand for “audience friendly” performances is clearly expressed.
Besides these, a number of smaller festivals are provided with full or partial theatrical profiles and given topics or artistic genres. International audiences take part in limited number in these festivals, an exception is the rhapsodically held Kortárs Dráma Fesztivál [Contemporary Drama Festival] due to financial reasons, and, of course, the showcase-type DunaPart [Duna Banks] festival, specifically organized for foreigners, set up every two years (next in November 2017). These last two festivals are often accused of being biased and of ignoring the achievements of countryside theatres by the right.

Theater Esthetics

There is indeed a striking difference between the regional and the Budapest theaters, especially as regards the characteristically conservative esthetics in the countryside, especially since people appointed by Fidesz [Hungarian Civic Party, i.e. Viktor Orbán’s party] landed in the directors’ chairs. This, of course, is a tendency at best, and does not mean that there are no exciting, good quality performances in the countryside – more and more of what the left-wing press considers to be right-wing theaters and politically appointed managing directors are inviting progressive directors to their associations. Neither does it mean that the fresh, contemporary productions are exclusively in the non-right-wing theaters of Budapest.
However, the observations about esthetics expressed by the directors of the MTT nevertheless show some common traits. The expression “theater of hope”, by now a household phrase, may be linked to these esthetics, according to which theaters must transmit positive messages to the spectators, giving answers to issues raised by the plays in question. According to them, the theater is a tool for the cultivation of the Hungarian language, and there are certain stylistic and dramaturgical solutions that distort the author’s intention. The arts and the theater formerly supported by the cultural/educational policies (prior to the current Orbán regime) shift excessively to the West, copying the German theater, where provocation is the strongest element.
According to the esthetics of the opposition, the most important mission of the theater is the posing of questions, the purpose being collective thinking. A work of art, a production, can only be important if they also have relevance in the present. In an ideal case, theater should educate the spectators for open and inclusive social responsibility, and should basically be political, since in given cases it deals with social issues.
How much emphasis it receives, how these esthetics are carried out and how well they are able to actually address the audience, that is another matter. The opinions of different generations in all likelihood disagree in this respect. We could say, in a somewhat polarizing fashion, that in stone theaters, above all, psychological realism and theater direction still predominate, while the characteristics of the majority of independent theaters are risk-taking experiments, among which several genres, slants and trends may be found. These specifically include documentary-based, physical, community-and-participatory type improvisational and devised theater. We may also state that in stone theaters, in certain constellations (in cooperation with guest directors and associations), where sometimes excursions to unfamiliar territories are made, the “results” of independent theaters certainly are, in many respects, an inspiration to stone theaters as well. Meanwhile, theater-makers of the youngest generation who would like to distance themselves from these battles and from the point of view determining whether people belong to “them” or to “us” are coming forward. They reference all this in their productions and often ostensibly dissociate themselves from politics.

Election of Directors

The present government avows itself to the aesthetics of the right side, and has done a lot for the spreading of it by putting “its own people” in the positions of theatre directors.
In Hungarian theaters, the funder invites tenders for the position of theater director every five years. The applications are judged by a committee (whose members belong to the profession, to the given theatre as well as to the funder), who will read the applications and audition the candidates.
The publication of tenders is not compulsory, but the majority of applicants avail themselves of the opportunity (or the “pirated” copies of a given tender are often diffused). The committee proposes a motion to the funder of who would be considered qualified for the post of director, although the funder is not obliged to take the committee’s opinion in consideration. Thus, it often happens that the powers to be know in advance whom they would want to have as a director of their theater, but nevertheless get to act out the entire charade.
It happened, for instance, in György Dörner’s case, who, in 2011, was nominated to be at the helm of Újszínház [New Theater] by István Tarlós, the mayor of Budapest, despite the objections of the committee and a protesting crowd. György Dörner had applied together with István Csurka, a former president of an extreme right-wing party; he and the artists he likes working with have made several anti-Semitic, homophobic statements. Incidentally, György Dörner was re-elected in 2016, notwithstanding his moderate success even in right-wing circles.
The newest case is related to Tamás Jordán, the founder (!) and current director of Weöres Sándor Theatre in Szombathely. His theatre is very popular and successful, but when Jordán’s mandate ended, the municipality did not choose him as director again despite the fact that he was the only aspirant and that there were demonstrations in his favour. His contract was only extended by a month, and instead the municipality will soon tender his position.. The municipality seems to wait for the “right” aspirant, anyone but Jordán is acceptable for them. Jordán is probably “punished” because he invited directors, namely Róbert Alföldi and János Mohácsi who are considered to be enemies by Attila Vidnyánszky. In the past few years, it even happened a few times that a director was replaced before the end of his mandate. According to recent regulations, the funder is not obliged to publicly justify the removal of the leader, so the reasons for the premature change of directors never came to light.
Thus, to a large extent, theaters depend on the authorities and funders who in the past decade have but rarely been mindful of professional opinions. Barely known people in the wider profession with little experience were being appointed to the helm of well established theaters with a great past.

The Critics

The Hungarian critical discourse is dominated by non-right wing voices. However, Tthere is less and less room in Hungary for professional critics, and nowadays one can no longer make a living from writing reviews or editing. Thus, writing reviews is becoming a hobby; most of the critics have a primary job in some type of earning trade and do their writing on the side. Fees received for articles (40-50 euros) have been stagnant for at least ten years, and some theater segments save precisely on complimentary tickets or tickets sold to professional establishments. According to one part of the critics, the fees received for their articles barely cover the amounts spent on theater tickets. Another problem is that not too many critics can afford to attend small town/countryside performances, as most of them live in Budapest. Employers can no longer afford to pay travel expenses and accommodations, not to mention how time-consuming it is for critics, beside their work, to travel back and forth in order to attend a performance. Hence, criticism is often accused of being centered in Budapest. What is also strange, that some primary jobs held by some critics are linked to theaters, associations or lodgings, which, for the time being, produces uncertain situations. There are also many “career-changer” critics, who decided to abandon the strenuous, amphibious way of life.
The critics have an organization to safeguard their interests, the Színházi Kritikusok Céhe [Hungarian Theatre Critics’ Association] (where the members themselves vote to decide who can be a member). In recent years, the prestige of the organization has grown somewhat, thanks to the Színikritikusok Díja [Theater Critics’ Award]. These awards are given out every season in fifteen categories, based on the voting by the association’s members, in connection of which it has been more and more emphasized that they are judged by an independent corporate body—which is interesting, especially in light of state awards and the often cautious, balancing POSzT-awards. However, the above mentioned crisis in the critic’s profession is also reflected in the awards: according to the rules, only those critics may vote who have seen at least ninety Hungarian-language performances in a given season, which less and less young critics can afford to do (working at other jobs, hence, very busy), so there are more and more older people among the voting members. As a consequence—or at least according to the critics of the critics’ award—the views about the awards are somewhat conservative and rather predictable.
Without the critics’ award, theater critics do not have much prestige; rarely do theater critics decide the fate of a performance.
There are a few (non-professional) theater blogs with comparatively wider readership and numerous critique and cultural portals with a strong theatrical review column (e.g. Revizoronline.com). There are three trade magazines: Színház [Theater], Ellenfény [Backlight] and Criticai Lapok [Critique Pages] (which, for a small country, is no small feat), although even the most popular, the Theater, only prints 1,500 copies, of which a vast number is unsold.
The bulk of the revenue from theater magazines is state sponsored, with considerably smaller proceeds from sold copies and advertisements. Thus, when in 2016, due to the reorganization of the NKA [National Cultural Fund] and the funding system, state subsidizing suddenly decreased substantially, the magazines found themselves in big trouble and could not publish for months. (What will happen in 2017, to this date, is impossible to know). The MTT also has a magazine called Magyar Teátrum [Hungarian Teatrum], but its professionalism is questioned since it is partially subsidized by theaters, and the chief editor was, until recently, the director of a countryside theater. Theatre makers within the MTT often express their dissatisfaction with the Hungarian critics, who are, in their opinion, biased, while they also voice their desire for the need to train a new generation of critics. The success of this effort is yet to be seen.
As a whole, this dialogue between the critics, the creators and the spectators, cannot be considered too lively, nevertheless, more and more attempts are happening toward the animation of this dialogue.

 

Published on 2 May 2017 (Article originally written in Hungarian)

THEATRE OF DIVERSITY

THEATRE OF DIVERSITY

When it comes to continuous activity, the Czech theatre represents one of the relatively young members of the vast and diverse European theatre structure. Beside a long-lasting tradition of puppet and folk theatre, its beginnings extend to the second half of the 19th century, a period when the first thoughts on constituting the independent Czech State were formed. Since then, professional theatre has gone through major progress depending on geopolitical changes. First, there was the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, followed by the era of Nazi occupation throughout World War II. Then the socialist political turnover, lasting more than four decades, replaced by the long awaited process of democratization and the opening to global multicultural trends. These are significant factors that have influenced and shaped Czech culture into a blend between western and eastern ways of staging and artistic approaches. Now, current alternative theatre freely follows post-dramatic principles, whereas numerous theaters of public service continue to benefit from the classical repertory.

“Manon Lescaut”, National Theatre Prague, directed by Daniel Špinar © Patrik Borecký

Once we leave out qualitative evaluation, the National Theatre in Prague is one of the most frequently discussed theaters in cultural and social areas. This is due to several mutually connected factors: the national-constructive function, which was fulfilled mostly at the begging of the Czech National Revival in 19th century; its complicated history throughout the first half of the 20th century, facing the changes of economic and ideological character; and last but not least, the artistic work of various figures (directors, actors, playwrights, set designers).
Nowadays, the National Theatre is defined in this multifunctional way even by law. It is classified as a symbol of national identity, a holder of national cultural heritage and a space for free artistic
work. Its focus is not just theatrical, but also on exhibitions and educational activities, with a need to succeed in a Czech and a European context alike. Regarding its connections abroad, the National Theatre became part of the Union des Théâtres de l’Europe — the international theatre organization that initiates work partnership among mostly European theatre creators, an exchange of and reflection on contemporary methods of staging, as well as a long-term intercultural dialogue with emphasis on young creators.

From the public’s perspective, the role of the National Theatre is a bit more problematic. It stands for an idea, where many spectators (or even citizens with little theatre experience) can project their frequently distorted visions of the National Theatre’s role. This issue is related to the mythical origin of the theatre in the era of the Czech National Revival. The infamously fixed idea, in which the newly formed Czech nation financed the rebuild of the national symbol (the first building burned out shortly after its opening) contrasts not just with historical facts (the contribution of the common people was merely symbolic, according to one from the emperor or a dominant German nobility), but also with the theatre’s official status itself. In fact, the National Theatre was a private capital company lead by wealthy members of the association who were deciding the repertoire.

Today, the National Theatre is the only Czech theatre financed by the state. It is often mistaken for a traditional platform that is supposed to stage only the classics (that suit the majority).
Looking at this issue of how to perceive and evaluate domestic theatre work, it is crucial to describe Czech theatre structures of the 20th century in general.

“Pride and Prejudice”, National Theatre Prague, directed by Daniel Špinar © Patrik Borecký

Throughout the era of socialism (1948-1989), all theaters were founded, controlled and shut down by the state. Art was censored by two institutions — the Ministry of Culture and Enlightenment and local authorities —, and officially stood for spreading the propaganda and strengthening the socialistic conviction. Fortunately, these restrictions were not manifested consistently in real life, but mostly during certain politically escalated times, especially in the mid-50s, when the socialistic idea was strictly established, and throughout the years of normalization during the 70s that lead back to tightened censorship and reinforced totalitarian regime. The Warsaw Pact Invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 demonstrated violent suppression of the creative expansion in all fields of art during the 60s, as well as paralyzing the multicultural development for another two decades.
1989 brought the long-desired democratization of society, the possibility of private enterprise and of course the logical consequence of restructuring of the Czech theatre system. Most of the existing theaters, aside from the National Theatre, fell under the administration of municipal authorities. Next to these nonprofit theaters with a general cultural and educational mission, entrepreneurial theatre productions and theatre associations (incorrectly labeled as “independent”) started to evolve. They considerably enriched the cultural supply, even though they partly destabilized previous dramaturgical methods and lead to a general audience crisis. The 90s opened up space for experimenting with new forms (that were, at that time, already mainstream in the Western part of Europe; such as site-specific, immersive theatre, performance art, forms combining several genres and narrative methods), brought a commercialized type of theatre production (such as huge musical houses or stand up comedies), and general freedom of creative (self)expression. On the other hand, it also questioned previous methods of staging in the area of drama theatre, based on shared knowledge of togetherness between creators and spectators against the totalitarian regime, common understanding of performance, which was perceived primarily as an interpretation of the theme contained within the play. It was due to this destabilization of current staging principals that the new wave of directors and playwrights (Petr Lébl, Vladimír Morávek, J.A.Pitínský, Jan Nebeský) was enabled to profile themselves. Thanks to these creators, whose work was based on postmodern narrating principles, the ‘new’ vision of theatre started to be acknowledged by the public. Repertory theaters adopted — to a certain degree — alternative methods of staging that were previously typical of theatre studios and experimental stages, where these creators mostly debuted.

During the 90s, a festival network started to establish along with individuals, such as for instance, the Tanec Praha (since 1989), the International Theatre Festival Pilsen (since 1993), the Theatre European Regions (since 1994) or the ‘Prager Theaterfestival deutscher Sprache’(since 2000), with the aim of presenting performances from domestic and foreign creators on an international level. Festivals such as Skupa’s Pilsen or One Flew Over the Puppeteer’s Nest, organized by UNIMA (Union Internationale de la Marionnette), reflect an area of the puppet theatre. There are also shows (Přehlídka ke Světovému dni divadla pro děti a mládež) that are strictly concentrated on a children or adolescent audience of different age, which have been regularly organized since 2001.

“Phrasing the Pain” by 420PEOPLE, choreographed by Ann Van den Broek © Pavel Hejný

Theatre censorship—typical of the years of socialism—ceased to exist once the new democratic government was established. Despite this welcomed turnabout, theatre struggled and still struggles with several limitations, however they no longer have a form of ideological restrictions. For example Ovčáček Čtveráček, an incorrect political satire presented in the city-run theatre Zlín, stands for an example of quite free self-expression on stage. Its creators were explicitly mocking spokesmen of the Czech president by assembling his own statements into a compact scenic form; other real-life political figures and cases were not left out either. Despite its regional background, this particular piece of theatre successfully gained national reputation, thanks to its aim to target contemporary phenomena. The success was so huge (also due to its uncritical support of the media) that the last performance was broadcasted live in selected cinemas.
Today’s creators are facing a different kind of restriction, an economic and financial one.

The transformation of the Czech state from a socialist to democratic one, on the one hand, lead to decentralization of the theatre monopoly and the strengthening of an autonomy of the troupes across cities (Ostrava, Brno, Hradec Králové, Plzeň). On the other hand it also contributed to poor financing conditions and the already problematic maintaining of theaters in low cost regions that were no longer predominantly supported by state budget.
The increasing demands on high-quality art projects—one of the crucial, yet very subjective criteria to grant particular theatre activity from regional or state funds—accentuated the lack of resources through the following years. Nowadays, there is no real law that would clearly define ways of supporting production from public funds.
Nonprofit organizations providing public service (museums, galleries etc.) have to apply for grants in various intervals, mostly every few years. Such processes come with certain difficulties, as long as managing public funding depends on non-objective reviews of committees which consist of experts of various specializations. This wide range of professions guarantees that not only aesthetic criteria are taken into account but also economic ones when it comes to subsidizing the cultural field; however it doesn’t necessarily apply to the impartiality of particular individuals and their personal interests. Only recently, in February 2017, did we see such an example, when the City of Prague decided not to provide a four-year grant to DOX, the Centre for Contemporary Art, one of the most progressive nonprofit institutions outside the historical centre, without providing any reasonable argument.

Nonprofit theaters of public service as well as independent theatre groups are similarly subsidized (systematically/on one-time basis) with public municipal funds, by higher regional units or even European Union institutions. Sponsors also play a significant role in the process of funding since they support public theaters as well as private and independent theaters. In addition, “independent” theatre groups derive their sources from a richly structured grant system. In general, multi sourcing is the most common method of funding, guaranteeing regular theatre activity and all kinds of productions.

“Events Horizon”, Scenic reading in Divadlo Letí, directed by Martina Schlegelová © Alexander Hudeček

Basic framework of the theatre system:
• Theatres established and run by state or self-governing institutions.
• Theatres of public service (mainly former regional theaters consisting of several departments like drama, opera, light opera and ballet: a model adopted from the German speaking area).
• Private theatres.
• Theatre groups (mostly amateurs, although current legislation doesn’t legally differentiate amateur theatre from professional theatre, since both types benefit from nonprofit support. What really distinguishes them is their functions).

The Czech theatre structure is dominated by drama theatre with a permanent casts. Most ensembles consist of permanent employees of various ages, assigned equally in a sense of collectivity. It also provides a chance to regularly or once host visiting creators with no permanent engagement. This kind of freelancing relates mostly to young directors, dramaturgs or actors, who are mostly invited to regional theaters based on their previous school and extracurricular work. These occasional projects enliven the rather traditional repertory of public theaters, oftentimes made of classical pieces with little space to experiment.
Young creators frequently enrich the conservative programme of contemporary drama with unusual interpretation of classics or their own works. The repertory frequently includes plays of team members, mostly by dramaturgs and directors.
The phenomenon of ‘author’ projects, i.e. the staging of texts that are written in the process, is mostly concentrated in Prague where the strong theatre alternative started to evolve throughout the 90s and is still going on. Nevertheless, the term alternative has more than one meaning: the non-profit type of theatre that provides public service and is run by cultural interests; it also relates to innovative, nontraditional theatre methods that go beyond the standard.

Such a structure naturally correlates with a diverse audience taste and therefore different aesthetic demands. In this regard, the Prague theatre network represents an example of great theatre diversity, thanks to its high concentration of productions in one place. Each stage has its own established base of audience that either increases or decreases, depending on specific dramaturgical choices, creators or economical factors.
Stages like Studio Hrdinů, which occupies the vast underground space of The National Gallery, and Divadlo Letí, located in interiors of the Štvanice Vila, are the very inspiring examples of marginally defined dramaturgy, which attracts the attention of a wide audience thanks to their location. The aesthetics of these spaces as such fundamentally influence the final scenic form.
The creative collective of Studio Hrdinů, mainly constituted of directors and set designers Jan Horák, Michal Pěchouček and Kamila Polívková, focuses on the synthesis of drama with visual arts and multimedia devices. Through what are mostly ‘author’ projects, they are trying to disrupt common and standardized theatre forms, as well as the borders between theatre and art installation.
Together with the Divadlo Letí—despite their diametrically different aesthetics—they are examples of the contemporary theatre that plays an integral part in the social-cultural progress.
The repertory of the Divadlo Letí, which is lead by director Martina Schlegelová and dramaturg Marie Špalová, primarily consists of contemporary plays that have not yet been staged (for instance, Letí introduced the work of Mattias Brunn, Martin Crimp, Anna Saavedra or Lenka Lagronová). The programme is complemented by dramatic readings that are mostly focused on dramatic text, their structure and regular interpretation.

“Small Town Boy”, Divadlo Letí, directed by Marián Amsler © Dorota Velek

Even the National Theatre, which has been mentioned so many times, belongs to contemporary theatre, striving to deliver a theatrical experience that goes beyond the standard. Its artistic management has gone through fundamental changes in the past few years, and has successfully attracted vast media attention. It has been mainly after Daniel Špinar—a longtime freelance director who has worked for various regional stages—became artistic director of drama, that the attention of critics and a wide audience has been attracted. The new artistic department of drama with its programme ‘New Blood’ has brought a series of modifications, such as opening up the backstage area, accompanied with scenic action, and a radical opening of the ensemble to young actors and actresses, as well as a strictly formulated dramaturgy of each stage (the National Theatre consists of 4 ensembles; drama, opera, ballet and Laterna magika, occupying 4 different stages).
The dramaturgical selection for the historical building targets the conventional spectator, for whom it tries to provide modern art and a complex theatre experience (the one that is not associated with any famous star or any prestigious feeling). The repertoire of the main stage consists of classical pieces and adaptations of popular titles (e.g. Manon Lescaut by Vítěszlav Nezval or Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen).
The Estates Theatre features a high standard technical background, suitable for much more inde-pendent and courageous dramaturgy, which does not necessarily rely on a long-term viewers’ success.
The New Stage focuses strictly on a younger audience, attempting to attract them through the concept of the ‘alive building’: in addition to the stage, there are numerous venues like a café, gallery and a store, that promise potential attractiveness to those who associate the National Theatre only with the historical building and its history. The space is therefore full of projects of experimental character (The Mouse Experiment by the collective of authors, The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) with a stress on contemporary drama.

“Lessons of Touch”, Teatro NoD, choreographed by Miřenka Čechová and Jiří Bartovanec © Vojtěch Brtnický

Czech contemporary theatre is also made up of strong representatives outside the dramatic area, who try to explore the edges of (live) artistic expression. The experimental studios such as Farm in the Cave, based on the synthesis of the physical, dance and music theatre, or the dance company 420PEOPLE; they have both achieved considerable international acclaim and audience affection, mainly due to their systematic attempts to surpass theatre borders and their precise work on body language.
On the other hand, artists like Radim Vizváry (the performer responsible for the renaissance of mime arts) and Miřenka Čechová represent the leading figures in the field of physical theatre. Together, they established Tantehorse (the theatre company known for its strong physical articulation); they work either together or separately.
The Forman Brothers theatre, the nomadic fellowship with irregular ensemble, and Cirk La Putyka lead by Rostislav Novák, represent two aesthetically different forms of Czech contemporary circus.
The art group Handa Gote Research & Development holds a unique position when it comes to alternative methods, since it systematically explores the concept of post-dramatic and post-spectacular theatre, using all kinds of materials, both old and modern technology, the visual arts, as well as contemporary dance and music.

All examples mentioned in this article aim to outline the diversity of the performing arts in the Czech Theatre, combining traditional forms with more progressive, mainly Western European narrative methods.

 

NEKOLNÝ, Bohumil a kolektiv. Divadelní systémy a kulturní politika. Praha: Divadelní ústav, 2006.
DVOŘÁK, Jan. Kapitoly k tématu realizace divadla. Praha: Akademie múzických umění, 2005.

 

 

Published on 3 April 2017 (Article originally written in Czech)

(A)LIVE

(A)LIVE

An Introduction to issues facing the performing arts in France.

It would be a difficult task to cover the entire range of issues facing the performing arts in France in just one article. If we were to pretend, one thousand pages might not even suffice. This article does not attempt to be exhaustive, but rather would like to offer a first look into the material and serve as an introduction to issues facing the performing arts in France today.

First of all, we will look at how the state, at the end of WWII, designated theatre as the heart of its cultural public service. We will conjure up the origins as well as the functional principles of a model of cultural policy which was founded with the objective of decentralisation and the ideal of a cultural democracy.

We will then look at how current cultural policies are responding to the challenges of today, taking into consideration a gloomy economic climate, the rise of populism, aggravated tensions within communities, and the triumph of commercial discourse in the artistic sector.

Finally, we will mention some of the artists and companies whose works are considered among the most remarkable today. Again, our goal is not to create an exhaustive list of “the most talented” current French artists, but rather to convey – by evoking certain names and practices – a certain image of the French artistic landscape, caught in its youthfulness and inventiveness.

I. Theatre, the heart of French cultural public service

After the liberation of Europe, the topic of “culture for all” imposed itself as a way of fostering reconciliation on a national level. Theatre, considered to be the art form most apt at celebrating the intelligence and the civic spirit of the people, saw itself therefore assigned with a mission of “public service”. Spearhead of this new government policy were the first “Centres Dramatiques Nationaux”, which were created in 1946 for the purpose of ending Paris’s monopoly over culture and to permeate the entire French territory with a quality artistic offering. “Make the greatest works of humanity available to the most people,” is what André Malraux proposed in his speech before taking over his duties as Minister of Cultural Affairs on July 24, 1959.
We are of course talking about “public theatre” in the sense of “popular theatre”, a theatre “in service of the people” where the ideal of celebration, ceremony, and social communion resounds. Breaking the codes of a bourgeois theatre accused of elitism, this new theatre intends to conquer a popular public through experimentation with new techniques and research into new aesthetics. At the Théâtre National Populaire, run by Jean Vilar, balls, apéro-concert, and student matinees are organised. In order to attract an audience of labourers and low-wage employees, some changes are made: lowering prices, removing gratuity, programme and cloakroom free of cost, canvassing the employee representative committees, and changes in timetables which allow suburbanites to return on public transit. Brecht’s theatre is on a roll, defended by such emblematic figures as Bernard Dort. This theatre which speaks of the people and to the people and depicts them through monumental representations. The scene opens to the outside and the amateur actors join professional players, like in the Théâtre du Peuple in Bussang, where Maurice Pottecher intended to offer “a theatre within reach of all audiences, amusement made to bring men closer together and erase social and cultural divides.”

Identified as a pivotal moment in the history of French theatre, this era also created the basis of the current model of production and distribution for the performing arts in France. This model, which intends to reconcile artistic quality and cultural democratisation, developed over the years through a complex mesh of diverse competence structures spread out over the entire territory of France. In 2015, this network consists of the following: 15 state operators, which include the five national theatres (establishments whose public funding comes exclusively from the ministry of culture), which come with a dense network of structures for creation and distribution financed in partnership with the regional communities (35 Centres Dramatiques Nationaux, 70 National Stages, 19 Centres Chorégraphiques Nationaux, 12 Pôles Nationaux des Art du Cirque, 13 Centres Nationaux des Art de la Rue…)
These “accredited” establishments have distinct missions and competencies: some are dedicated exclusively to just one discipline, genre, or aesthetic, while others present a multi-disciplinary programme; some are directed by artists, others by programmers; some are producing and distributing at the same time, while others are only authorised to distribute performances that have already been created. Different from the model of repertory theatre, the prevailing model in France is the theatre “en suite”: the productions do not change over the course of the season, but are instead presented continuously one after the other over a period which can sometimes encompass several months (although the current trend is a reduction in the duration). Theatres are therefore associated with companies, whose works they produce, co-produce and/or distribute. Less numerous are theatres that function in a different way. A rare example is the Comédie-Française, which hosts a permanent troupe and possesses a repertoire of all the plays played by the theatre’s actors on the main stage. The shows are nonetheless rarely repeated after one season. Other examples include: Humain trop humain (CDN de Montpellier) directed by Rodrigo Garcia, which is equipped with a permanent troupe consisting of four actors. In regards to the Comédie de Reims directed by Ludovic Lagarde, its programme includes the works of “an artistic permanence”, including an associate author, actors, and three young creative directors in residence.

In this system, which is based on an association between performance venues and companies, the latter consists of key decision makers. Numerous funding programmes exist thus with the purpose of allowing for the economic viability of these privately held organisations. But on the difficult road to economic and symbolic recognition the success of a company is measured above all by its ability to invade the most famous venues in the profession (in particular the accredited establishments), all while securing production capacities thanks to long-term public financing (most importantly multi-year subsidies). The centralisation of the French system, which wants Paris to remain the inevitable stop for any artist who wants to become well known on the national stage (and eventually internationally), seems to be a proving ground for those who want to succeed. In this context, only a handful of artists today are able to take advantage of comfortable work conditions, since the large majority of such artists work in a state that is much more precarious, marked by increasing competition, fragmentation of work contracts, and a decline in the unit price of performances.

II. Cultural policies faced with crisis

In spite of the famous “cultural exception” which designates in France the principle with which culture may be excused from the ordinary logic of the economic market, the economic crisis in France did not make any exceptions in reaching the cultural sector. In fact, if the state’s culture budget had been augmented in such a way between 2006 and 2015, this change did not keep pace with inflation. Thus, apart from “regional operas”, the means allocated to all the different accredited establishments have diminished at constant exchange rates. Yet, this policy has benefited to a larger fairness in regards to regions and disciplines. For example, the creation of three new accredited establishments in 2010 allowed for better visibility and recognition for contemporary circus and street arts. Nevertheless, from the side of the regional governments, affected by the reduction of their donation from the state, the mobilisation of financial means necessary for the ambitions of their cultural policies is proving itself more and more challenging. Many organisations have therefore announced a significant reduction in their public subsidies: the Ferme de Buisson and the Théâtre Sénart in Seine-et-Marne, the TJP/CDN of Alsace in the Bas-Rhin region, the Théâtre du Nord in Tourcoing …

If the alleged justifications for a reduction in funding are often economic, they are sometimes political, like at Blanc-Mesnil is the Paris region, where the municipal council voted in November 2014 for the closure of the Forum du Blanc-Mesnil, renouncing at the same time funding coming from the department, region, and Department for Culture. This closing, decided by the justification that “the people of Blanc-Mesnil do not recognise themselves in the programme [of the theatre],” conveys the rising power of a populist discourse whose main target is a supposed elitism of an artistic sphere considered distant from the populace because of its arrogance and decadence. What’s more, as the extreme political right grows in France the tensions between elected officials of the extreme right and cultural venues, festivals, or artists are multiplying. For example, in Orange, where the general director of the Chorégies d’Orange Raymond Duffaut resigned in March 2016 after an assistant to a mayor of the extreme right took a position as a festival chairman, his aim being to take control of the programme of the festival. The situation, regarded as a “power grab”, led to an intervention by the Minister for Culture and the president of the PACA region with the threat to withdraw their funding from the festival. How many more times will French political representatives rise up to condemn such political meddling and defend artistic freedom, considering that the norm of “economic benefits of culture” is the supreme principle of cultural policies?

Symbolic of the many tensions between the artistic world and the public powers, the debate over the statue of intermittency conveys the crisis of a cultural policy model that France prides itself on, but judges nevertheless to be too costly. Intermittency is a system of financial compensation which was created with the intent of bringing financial stability to artists and technicians of the performing arts, cinema, and audio-visual sectors. In effect, intermittent employment reflects the rhythm of artistic jobs, characterised by a collection of short contracts (maybe even just a day) and a rotation of busy periods of time offset by times without much income. In order to be eligible for unemployment insurance, the intermittent worker must declare a minimum number of hours within a certain time period (507 hours over 12 months, according to the last agreement from the 28th of April 2016). A difficult requirement, which only 38% of intermittent workers are able to fulfil, and the remaining 62% will not be compensated due to an insufficient number of hours. Crucially, this system of compensation is described by its critics as a privilege which benefits only a handful of individuals and greatly contributes to the global unemployment insurance deficit. In fact, up to 75% of this deficit is said to be attributable to the 3% of subsidized intermittent workers. However, this advanced number is pretty much contested, insofar as this method of calculating disregards the principle of interprofessional solidarity which is the basis for the system of unemployment insurance. In a purely budgetary context, this special calculation serves no purpose but to overwhelm a profession alongside public opinion and allow the passage of a reform known for economising “on the backs of intermittent workers.”
The question of reform for intermittent employment regulation is often brought to the table, with familiar consequences: strikes, cancellations of performances, cancellations of festivals, and more recently, as part of the “Nuit Debout” rallies, occupations of theatres. The violence of these movements expresses the anger and restlessness of intermittent workers whose working conditions are deteriorating, while it proliferates a discourse of disdain towards performing arts professionals, often accused of being “privileged”, and “deadbeats.” Behind the bitterness of these debates over the regulation of intermittent work is the breakdown of an ideal and the end to a certain idea about the mission of the state and the role of thinkers and artists within society.

III. Panorama

Without assuming to be an exhaustive piece, we will attempt to develop here — by mentioning certain names and describing certain practices — an image, subjective of course, of the artistic landscape in France, caught in its youthfulness and creativity.

At the origin of some of the most singular works of the last few years, the “collectives” have signalled their return with the success of young collectives like the “Chiens de Navarre”, the “Collectif La Vie Brève”, the “Collectif L’Avantage du doute”, the “Collectif In Vitro”, and the collective for documentary theatre “Berlin”. Representative of a certain return to the politics at the very heart of creative work, the collectives are critical of the production system, they refuse traditional hierarchies, they advocate a more democratic relationship to creation and they develop new scene writing. The collectives devise models of production based on mutual funds and the sharing of skills. They emancipate themselves from directors and celebrate the triumph of actors/authors. They play with the codes of performance and do not hesitate to bring real life onto the stage. Thanks to their freedom of acting, their scenic inventiveness, and a certain informal tone radically contrasting with the solemnity of traditional theatrical works, they brought a breath of fresh air into the French scenes, contributing to a lasting change in the relationship between actors and spectators. Among the most notable collectives, the “Chiens de Navarre”, founded in 2005 by the director Jean-Christophe Meurisse, has quickly become the most ferocious and wacky collective of their generation in France. With a dark irony, the performances of the “Chiens de Navarre” paint a portrait of a humanity torn between a dumbing social conformity and irrepressible savage impulses. Disaster is never far, hidden somewhere in the restlessness of “writing in real time” which favours improvisation. With huge visual power, their performances and shows — including Une raclette (2008), Nous avon les machines (2012), Quand je pense qu’on va vieillir ensemble (2013) and Les Armoires normandes (2014) — are presented on the most important stages in France.

The director — although his power has been a bit stripped by the success of collectives and the development of theories around “postdramatic theatre” — is still a vital figure of the theatrical landscape in France. The last few years have been witness to the emergence of a new generation of thirty-something directors whose shows are rapidly making a name for themselves due to their audacity and uniqueness. Most notably the young and newsworthy Vincent Macaigne, director of all of the racket and outbursts; or Sylvain Creuzevault and his deconstructive political theatre; or Julien Gosselin and his dizzying adaptation of novels; or even Jean Bellorini, author of musical performances and current director of the Théatre Gérard Philipe in Saint-Denis at just 35 years old… Younger, but no less interesting, Jean-François Sivadier and his extravagant baroque pieces (accompanied by his favourite actor, the explosive Nicolas Bouchaud); Philippe Quesne who directs the Théâtre Nanterre-Amandiers; but also Arthur Nauzyciel, who directs the Théâtre National de Bretagne; Stanislas Nordey, director of the Théâtre National de Strasbourg; Olivier Py, the director of the Festival d’Avignon; Joël Pommerat… The heart of the revival of French theatre in the 1950s and 60s, the Festival d’Avignon is today a vital event in French theatrical life: a place of recognition for experienced artists as well as the perfect start for young directors hoping to see their careers take off. It is the place where the success of many works is decided, before their premiere outside of the festival.

Although instrumental in the programmes of accredited establishments, this theatre of directors and actors does not cover all that is offered in French theatre. Another scene shines in its vitality and creativity, a hybrid theatre combining circus arts, street arts, storytelling, dance, and music in their different forms, sometimes close to performance art. We should mention Joris Lacoste, his work with orality and his limited experiences with hypnosis theatre; Sébastian Barrier and his staggering onslaught of language; the storyteller Yannik Jaulin and his intrepid explorations of language; Phia Ménard and her object theatre with a rare visual power; Johann Le Guillerm, the alchemist, but also equilibrist, visual artist, and inventor; or the magician Yann Frisch and his amusing depressed clown character… These forms follow parallel distribution channels: they invade museums, abandoned spaces, the famous “workshops of artistic factories”, for which the Department for Culture announced the creation of unprecedented budgetary support in 2016, or even certain street art festivals more open to diversity in artistic expression. Yet, these singular forms can also find themselves on the stages of theatres with more traditional programmes, this is the case for the artists listed above, whose performances tour in the circuits of accredited establishments.

Finally, contemporary circus and street arts attract today the attention of many, not only because this sector gives birth to some of the most interesting experiences in the world of performing arts, but also because of a recent announcement made by the Department for Culture that these disciplines will receive increased support. We should mention two street art festivals: the “Festival international de théâtre de rue” in Aurillac and “Chalon dans la rue”. Guests can discover, among many others, “Generik Vapeur” from Marseille and “Royal de Luxe” from Nantes, as well as “Groupe Zur”, “Compagnie Carabosse”, “Kumulus”, and the zany “Trois points de suspension”. The world of contemporary French circus arts, which meets each year in Auch at the CIRCA festival, owes its dynamism to the presence in France of the two most important European schools for circus arts: the CNAC and the Lido. Johann Le Guillerm, Mathurin Bolze, Aurélien Bory, the company “Cirque inextermiste” and the collective “La Scabreuse” (among others) are all, in one way or another, products of these institutions.

 

Published 6 October 2016 (Article originally written in French)

Theatre structures in Europe. Arts between economy and identity

Theatre structures in Europe.
Arts between economy and identity

In the context of the Conflict Zones Network programme of the UTE, the Piccolo Teatro in Milan, Italy hosted a conference on theatre structures in Europe and the Mediterranean on Friday, the 20th of May.

Six speakers gathered in a room of the theatre school dedicated to the late great stage director Luca Ronconi: Francisca Carneiro Fernandes (National Theatre São João, Porto, Portugal) Sergio Escobar (Piccolo Teatro di Milano, Italy), Enikő Eszenyi (Vígszinház Theatre, Budapest, Hungary), Michal Dočekal (National Theatre of Prague, Czech Republic), Fadhel Jaibi (National Theatre of Tunisia), Armin Petras and Jan Hein (Schauspiel Stuttgart, Germany) and Ilan Ronen (Habima Theatre, Tel Aviv, Israel). Various funding and management models, organizational systems, production structures, and theatre regulation systems were analysed and compared, with a view to better understand how the general principles guiding national and cultural policies can impact the way theatres are structured.
Whilst awaiting a more detailed report, here we try to collect the main topics and points of differences that came out of the presentations, proposing an overall comment.

A financial overview

It goes without saying that the general budget represents the biggest difference between the theatres. Nevertheless, as any member of the artistic world knows, money is not the only issue, and an insight into the lines of work of the single structures can compose a mosaic of many other details, revealing certain important cultural peculiarities.
The Staatstheater Stuttgart can count on a 100-million-Euro-state budget dedicated to the performing arts. And yet, with 94% of it bankrolling opera and ballet, according to Armin Petras “the drama season is financed with only six million.”
In the strategy adopted by the Piccolo Teatro in Milan, private sponsors play an important role: since only 17% of the general budget (around 20 million) comes from the Ministry of Culture and the Chamber of Commerce, the rest is provided by the municipality, private institutions and, according to Escobar, “50% of self-financing from ticket sales.”
Despite the presence of a Central State Funding (FUS), the management models of Italian theatres change radically depending on the regions, each one being characterized by a different level of private participation.
The Czech landscape, on the other hand, appears much more centralized and, in Michal Dočekal’s words, is subjected to “an out-of-date administration system that is fifty years-old.” Those theatres that are supported by the municipalities don’t receive money from the Ministry of Culture, but they are paradoxically more efficient than the national theatres, which are experiencing profound difficulties in programming the seasons due to a longer bureaucratic process that causes severe delays in the distribution of the funds.
As well as in the Czech regulation, the Portuguese system (with a budget of only 175 million for all cultural institutions) cannot count on a collaboration between national and municipal theatres either, with the latter working independently. This blocks the three Portuguese national theatres (one in Porto and two in Lisbon, including the opera house) and the smaller but active theatres.
A very delicate political situation in Hungary is responsible for the tough struggle of the Vígszinház Theatre in Budapest. Only 37% of the general budget comes from the state, and it’s necessary to raise a lot of money from sponsorships and ticket sales. According to the tax credit law, certain economic companies can deduct their support to culture from their own taxes, but only in December do they know if in the past year they were profitable or not, so liquidity is a huge question.

Independent companies and schools

Among the seven countries invited to present their theatre structures at the conference, Tunisia shows a strong presence of independent theatre companies (around 600). The National Theatre in Tunis is currently trying to find a way to invite some of them for collaborations and co-productions: Fadhel Jaibi’s artistic direction is hiring as many young people as possible and, at the same time, is fostering the establishment of a valuable training institution. According to Jaibi, founding a theatre school for actors, playwrights and stage directors represents the fundamental access to creation, as long as it has not a purely academic approach, but rather a very practical one, led by professional practitioners.
A theatre school seen as a nest for future talents is also the guideline of the Piccolo, where the school—founded by Giorgio Strehler and now named in memory of Luca Ronconi—is one of the best in Italy, a hotbed for the next generations of actors, directors and playwrights.
The interaction between professionals and theatre students is a core topic also for the Schauspiel Stuttgart that collaborates with two acting schools, with more than 40 students enrolled. As Armin Petras explains, “the aim is to promote a form of cooperate productions, thus the teachers also work as talent scouts. Exchanges between schools are very important and much easier than the one between theatres.”

Networking and international communities

When an event for networking such as this conference casts a light on all these differences in structures and funding possibilities, one can wonder about the opportunities for various countries to work together in co-productions and exchanges.
For Jaibi, this “could help establish new synergies and put the younger generations in touch with international opportunities, considering their profound difficulties in traveling.”
Indeed, an international exchange policy—along with an attentive activity in hosting foreign performances—might be useful so balance and refresh the repertoires of the national theatres that differ from one another also by the presence or absence of a resident ensemble.
Italian state subsidized theatres have no such stable companies, and the same goes for the national theatres in Porto or in Tunis, while Prague employs 50 people only for the drama ensemble alone, and the Habima—even without a permanent repertoire—does have a stable company as well.
As much as the general economic situation and access to public funds, these different sets of resident artists and technicians sometimes influence artistic views, because they dependent on severe regulations in terms of contracts and employment arrangements.
The Schauspiel Stuttgart is challenged to safeguard “a sort of equilibrium between avant-garde and tradition: to satisfy the audience it takes a conservative repertoire, but in order to keep the actors in the city, a clear vocation to the experimental languages is needed. Some Schauspiel Stuttgart productions are well known and appreciated abroad, able to gather much more audience than in Stuttgart itself.”
In Ilan Ronen’s words, “one of the most important steps for me as an artistic director was to understand how crucial it is for a national theatre to work with international communities, which improves the level; and to work with young people.” For the Habima, collaborations between theatres and international co-productions have become frequent.”

National identity and political intervention

Another interesting difference lies in the history of these theatres; that sometimes defines their identity and influences their line of work.
While the Piccolo Teatro in Milan, with its almost 70 year-long history, is the oldest and the first public theatre in the country (before 1947 there were no public theatres in Italy), the Vígszinház Theatre in Budapest is a 120 year old theatre founded and funded by private people, where the director is not nominated by the government but designated by the previous director.
As for the Habima National Theatre of Israel, that derives from the work of an independent group of twenty young students in Moscow during the Communist Revolution in 1917, founding an avant-garde Hebrew speaking theatre in Israel was a primary aim that still stays at the top of the list of intentions since it guarantees a national identity.

Speaking of identity, for every state subsidized institution, that thus must rely on governmental support, there is the crucial issue of freedom of speech, once again related to the history of the single theatres and their relative countries. As mentioned above, the situation of strong privatization lived in Hungary forced the public theatre to be dependent on private companies; the Habima, instead, depends on government loans, which threatens their independence. Recently, the newly appointed Minister of Culture in Israel made some dangerous public declarations about the political issues that must or must not be addressed by theatres. With special reference to the long-lasting Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “any discourse that even loosely put the integrity of Israeli government under critique”, reports Ronen “is to be banned or discouraged. So the Ministry announced a form of supervising process over every arts institution.”

Dočekal denounces a different form of political intervention: “Some traces of the nationalistic thought that was characterizing Europe at that time seems to be kept alive nowadays and inspires our politicians. The national theatre is not censored or obstructed by political orientations, but the system of hiring and dismissing general directors is not properly regulated.” In Dočekal’s opinion, this doesn’t put the artistic direction in the position of programming a coherent season.
The political situation in Tunisia is also critical, albeit in an entirely different way. As Jaibi puts it, “the theatre that we inherited from the revolution was almost completely lacking an identity”. The Arab Spring (between 2010 and 2011) complicated many things someway, since it had conveyed no artistic or cultural projects. Even though the newly gained freedom of speech has had an effect on media and theatre, the means to foster such a freedom appear very poor. As Jaibi explains, worse than the state censorship is the one that comes from the audience: it’s a sort of ideological, moral and religious censorship.

 

Published on 24 June 2016 (Article originally written in Italian)

Contemporary Theatre(s) in Italy – Introduction

CONTEMPORARY THEATRE(S) IN ITALY

INTRODUCTION

Motus Caliban Cannibal. Photo by courtesy of Motus
Motus. From ‘Caliban Cannibal’. Photo by courtesy of Motus

The present section of the website aims at drawing an overview of the contemporary performing arts system in Italy. A short note is necessary to introduce the reader to the functioning of the section – which tries to exploit the web potentiality at its best – but, most of all, to explain how and why a hyper-textual structure is more than ever cut out for the Italian present environment. Even though the nature of this issue (to which an agile and highly readable language is requested) cannot confide in creating a thorough and executive summary of the whole spectrum, the author’s point of view is that a dynamic and compound collection of small focuses has the chance to mirror the Italian system more faithfully than a single long essay. Such belief stems from an eight-year journalistic/critical experience that revealed the Italian stage arts landscape as a very fragmented organism in which the territorial diversity, mostly characterized by sensible economical differences, creates a plurality of production/circulation opportunities that goes hand in hand with the local environment.

As can be seen in the map of the section, one focus is sometimes generated by another and the focus itself originates a further one in a complex net of relations and interdependence, a lively system that is currently facing an evident shift and, yes, shows a fundamental ability to preserve its creative attitude. Cultural Policy and Theatre Practice, for example, are tightly connected; one necessarily determines the other, and the latter gives birth to peculiar Aesthetics, with related trends and a specific appeal on the audience, which in fact can influence (or at least interacts with) the Cultural Policy.

A final point must be brought up. The situation described in the present section was written in February and March 2015. In those months the whole state support system was undergoing a deep change (a short account is offered in the Theatres Structure paragraph) which still needs to be tested and processed by the system actors. In other words, at the present time the global organization of public money for the Italian performing arts scene is reshaping in a new order which is going to affect the balance between the public and private structure in the most unpredictable way.

This is why we chose to add an “S” at the end of the word “Theatre”.

Continue with article #1 Cultural Policies 
To overview of the hypertexts go to Map of the Section

Thumbnail image of this article by courtesy of CollecitvO CineticO. © Valentina Bianchi

 

Published on 10 June 2015 (Article originally written in Italian)

Theatre – an immune system of society

THEATRE –
AN IMMUNE SYSTEM OF SOCIETY

Iva Sveshtarova, Willy Prager
‘Our last pas de deux’ by Iva Sveshtarova and Willy Prager. Photo © Denitsa Ruseva

Five years after its teenage period, comfortably described as “transition”, Bulgaria has started to realize what taking responsibility means and has stopped hiding under the pretty large overcoat of adopted democracy. Even though recent reformations in theatre are not in favour of the new trends and the sustainable development of its structures, certain personal achievements have proven that it is not the majority but an individual that reverses the momentum.

Getting over its immature period of bad aesthetics Bulgarian theatre is starting to realise its important position in the modern information-oriented society. Theatre is again perceived as a phenomenon that inspires and is able to change the standard of living.

Oppressed by the status quo and poor conditions of the state and municipal theatres many artists have created their own separate studios and workshops, or have started a freelance career. That trend has had a huge impact on the politics of repertory theatres. A symbiotic relationship has also recently been observed between independent and funded theatres. This positive outcome is not only a product of the artists’ needs, but it also reflects the wants of the public. The spectators cannot be deceived by cheap products anymore. Delegated budget (annual funding dependent on the ticket sales) is no longer a fear factor for the theatre managers. Not long ago it seemed they only aimed at high ticket sales, therefore only putting on stage cheap comedies and well-known common storylines with the excuse of “the spectator’s need” for easy comprehensible formats. Even in Sofia’s salons people were close to actually being persuaded that what they see is the ultimate form of theatre.

Fortunately, there will always be people who oppose corruption and manage to preserve the values of theatre. Directors such as Aleksandar Morfov (principal of the National Theatre “Ivan Vazov”), Margarita Mladenova (co-founder and leader of Theatre Laboratory “Sfumato”) and Yavor Gardev have never changed their true vision of theatre and have continued covering new grounds with their production, resisting common disrespect and intellectual genocide. In each production, Morfov strives to unveil disadvantages of both the individual and society. With Balkan manners he defines reality in his characters without turning them into grotesque figures. Productions such as “Hashove”, “Don Juan” and “Life is Beautiful” are like a breath of fresh air replacing the monochrome daily life with another version of it – still grey yet exciting. That same mirror reflects the shocking weaknesses of human beings. This existentiality is a trade mark of Margarita Mladenova and the Theater Laboratory “Sfumato” – characters embodied in journeys and dwellings of the human cosmos embraced by trembling love towards the traveler.

Popular theatre is a vital part of the wellbeing of cultural life. The whole ecosystem, though, is only possible through rich diversity. Some five years ago a whole new theatre species emerged—independent theatre. Two years went by before it became clear that independent theatre is not an exotic new trend that has come to replace repertory theatre. The handful of young gifted artists with contemporary vision and ability to communicate with the audience are in the vanguard of the new movement. The new generation of theatre makers such as Mladen Aleksiev, Veselin Dimov, Gergana Dimitrova, Ida Daniel, Valerii Parlikov, Marii Rosen, Yavor Kostov, Vasilena Radeva, Villi Prager, Iva Sveshtarova, Miroslav Jordanov are among the core of independent theatre activists. Thanks to their efforts (and those of many others) a festival dedicated to independent theatre has been created in Bulgaria, which has taken place four years in a row already. It’s organized by the Association for Intependen Theatre “ACT”, which is not only a measure for theatric aesthetics but a push start for the contemporary scenic arts in Bulgaria. Each edition of the festival underlines a different aspect of the problems independent theatre encounters and the needs it has. The festival’s main themes are rehearsal and performance spaces, audience, new forms of theatre, and funding. Its zenith so far was reached at the last edition with special guests from “IETM”— the largest independent artists network.

IETM in Sofia “Space for Changes” Oct. 2014. Photo by Michael Novakov. © Goethe Institut
IETM in Sofia ‘Space for Changes’ Oct. 2014. Photo by Michael Novakov. © Goethe Institut

During the last few years several new spaces have emerged which unfortunately don’t have the capacity for the fast-growing scene. Another major problem is that only a small part of them are adapted to the needs of contemporary dance and performance in terms of technical equipment, which hinders the artists even more. These difficulties and sacrifices have become part of the everyday life of Bulgarian independent artists.

Another example of the struggle for the existence of the independent theatre scene is the contemporary dance and performance festival “ANTISTATIC” which has been taking place for seven years, thanks to Iva Sveshtarova and Willy Prager. They demonstrate incredible will power and ego as they annually adapt to the constantly decreasing budget. Despite the obstacles the festival presents the audience with world-class scenic artists, such as Elisabete Finger, Dani Brown, Gi E Lim, Ivo Dimchev and many more.

 

The difficulties that theatre encounters are much more a sign of progress and leaving the past behind than a crisis or hibernation. The clash of compromise, disagreement and accepting reality is clearly established in the politics of private theatres and those who are opening after a devastating crash for one reason or another. The Plovdiv-based private theatre “HAND” is a particularly interesting case. Founders Mariana Angelova and Ivomir Ignatov—Keni (probably the sharpest clown I’ve ever met)—have managed to renew their repertory for five years already. Be it an original text or a well known traditional ones, “Keni and friends” entertain the audience with quality production based on the dynamics of clownery and gestures of the human hand. Another interesting example for a heroic theatre resisting the misfortunes of Bulgaria’s cultural environment is the Rhodope Drama Theatre “Nicolai Hajtov”—a theatre showing great confidence in building its own spectacle program with high aesthetics.

Speaking of bravery in the dramaturgic scene, no doubt I should mention Replika Theatre. Created four years ago by the freshly graduated actors Ovanes Thorosian, Blagoy Boychev, Milko Yovchev, Ivaylo Dragiev. During the last few years the ensemble started working mostly in a way of radical theatre. From the first production on it was clear that this is the long-awaited direct theatre that substitutes the categorical expression of the radical theatre for indirection and lack of sincerity. It now takes responsibility for what the problems are. The appearance of Georg Genoux plays a major role in the development of “Replica” (co-founder of Theatre.doc/Russia)  in the direction of the radical theatre. He was persuaded by Vasilka Bumbarova (festival selection manager) in 2013 that Bulgaria is the right place for him to work in. For the moment Georg Genoux is leading another one platform for radical, social theatre in partnership with the actress Irina Andreeva- “The institute of rubbish”.

The theatre I write about is the theatre which, as Julia Ognyanova* says, will convert mental problems into aesthetic ones.

*key figure in Bulgarian theatre from the 60’s till today.

 

Published on 30 May 2015 (Article originally written in Bulgarian)

2000 – 2014

2000 – 2014, a time capsule of Portuguese theatre

Photo by courtesy of João Tuna & Teatro Nacional São João Porto
Photo by courtesy of João Tuna & Teatro Nacional São João Porto

The transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000 represented the mythical turn of the century and millennium that for many generations seemed like the foreseeable end of life on Earth—with the corresponding bug, the now very distant and very vintage Y2K. However, in the case of Portugal, it also looked like the beginning of a new paradigm in the relationship between the state and the creation, production and circulation functions in the field of the performing arts in general, and theatre in particular.

Leaning, then and now, on a model that juxtaposed the public sector (embodied by the two national theatres—Teatro Nacional D. Maria II in Lisbon and Teatro Nacional São João in Porto, the only Portuguese member of the Union of Theatres of Europe—benefiting from a specific institutional and financial support) and a non-public sector (i.e. ‘independent’ yet state-subsidized), that relationship was substantially challenged with the coming into force of Legislative Order 23/200. Suddenly, the special treatment given to the selected so-called “appointed companies and structures” (operating on a regular and systematic basis for a minimum of 15 years) was extinct, and the call for proposals application procedure became the norm for the whole community of theatre agents as far as the access to long-term (either quadrennial, biannual or annual) and specific project-oriented grants was concerned.

Regardless of the several legislative and operational changes that continued redefining the regulations for the call for proposals, sometimes overtly against the theatre community’s sensibility, this paradigm has remained in force until today. This is why we believe it is adequate to consider the period between 2000 and 2014 as a time capsule of Portuguese theatre. Such a transformation was, in fact, the political translation of an empirical observation: 25 years having gone by after the revolution of 25 April 1974—and the absolutely unique yet collective adventures towards the creation of an intervention theatre, both popular and politically engaged—the landscape had changed. The new companies operating in the country diversified the possible paths within the Portuguese theatre world, forcing the system into a reconfiguration. These new companies outnumber their predecessors, and are far younger and far more heavily exposed both to the influence of the outside world and to the influence of an advanced art education (in Lisbon, at the Escola Superior de Teatro e Cinema; in Oporto at the Escola Superior de Música e Artes do Espectáculo).

2000, the year that marks the start of this journey, is therefore a big bang, in a way: From then on, all the state-subsidized companies, even those who had so far been chosen and financed by appointment, had to start applying to the available funds in a call for proposals. By then, this had already been the only way for the majority of the subsidized companies, even if 40% of the available funds had until then directly been awarded either to those ‘selected’ long-standing companies or to specific one-off projects.

Ever since, the call for proposals application system has remained the rule—but everything else has fluctuated. Governing bodies, amounts, procedures, evaluation criteria, decision methods, jury composition, i.e. the overall framework has had its ups and downs in the course of these moderately turbulent past 15 years. Still, despite the chronic (and sometimes disastrous) delays in every call for proposals and final results announcement—and indeed in the actual material awarding of the grants to each of the approved applicants—the system has worked without major interruptions. That’s quite an achievement considering the fact that in 2011 the Ministry of Culture was downgraded to a Secretariat of State, and that the body in charge of managing the grants went through several metamorphosis: at first, the Instituto Português das Artes e do Espectáculo between 1998 and 2003, followed by the Instituto das Artes from 2003 up to 2007, and finally the Direcção-Geral das Artes ever since 2007.

So far, we’ve been looking at the bright side of things. But we can look at the dark side, too, if we contemplate the effects of time on the dimension of available funds for theatre support and the number of subsidized companies: slightly over 9 million euros for 117 structures in 2000, around 6.3 million euros for 92 structures in 2014. (By the way, the maximum amount awarded to a company decreased, too: from the 424,000 euros awarded to both the appointed Teatro da Cornucópia and Teatro Aberto in 2000, to the 400,000 euros awarded to the Companhia de Teatro de Almada in 2014). Within this period, 2004 stands out as the year that saw the largest number of companies being awarded a state grant (131), and 2009 stands out as the year that saw the most generous global amount available for theatre subsidizing (reaching nearly 12 million euros).

From 2011 on, though, the contraction of the state supporting action as far as the arts and theatre in particular are concerned has become harsher. That year, of course, Portugal had formally demanded international assistance to overcome the financial crisis, and subscribed to the Technical Memorandum of Understanding proposed by the ruling troika (European Commission, Central European Bank and International Monetary Fund). Whereas so far the overall amount awarded to the theatrical “independent” system had fluctuated between a minimum of 9.06 million euros (2000) and a maximum of 11.94 million euros (2009), it continuously went downhill almost all the way after that year, reaching figures never seen before in this century (and millennium): 6.8 million euros in 2012, 6.1 million euros in 2013, and 6.3 million in 2014. The following figures for 2015 are necessarily incomplete because some calls for proposals haven’t yet reached their final stage (namely for the awarding of the specific one-off projects and the Apoios Tripartidos, a new system created in 2007 that has been operating since 2013, and allows joint-venture applications through an agreement with local governments): So far, 53 theatre companies have been awarded state support, in a total amount of over 3.1 million euros. But even after all the grants will have been awarded there will be a decrease in the global public funds available to the Portuguese theatre community in 2015—a scenario the government has already admitted to.

It’s the theatre of a crisis-ridden economy, stupid—a theatre that the existing statistics partly confirm and partly deny. There were more theatregoers in 2013 than in 2000, both absolutely (1.5 million vs. 614,000) and relatively (148,500 per thousand inhabitants vs. 59,700 per thousand inhabitants). But the best year, 2008, is already very far away (1.8 million theatregoers in total; 175,300 theatregoers per thousand inhabitants). Ticket offices were also doing worse in 2000 (2.5 million euros) than in 2013 (8.6 million euros)—but they had also been doing far better before, for instance in 2005 (11.2 million euros). At this point today, a recovery to previous proud performances doesn’t look very likely.

Not even the two national theatres have been able to avoid the decrease in ticket office revenues: between 2010 and 2012, the Teatro Nacional São João’s dropped from 286,000 to 212,000 euros, in a context where its total budget also dropped from 4.9 million euros to 4.6 million euros (it’s important to emphasize that it had reached 7 million euros just before). And, last but not the least, the institution lost its sponsor. Indeed, national theatres have suffered a lot of institutional instability, too, with significant statutory changes and, among others, a very obvious consequence: the loss of financial independence.

Despite all this, the last 15 years have also witnessed a major reconfiguration of the theatre and cultural centers circuit—with the opening of a series of brand venues, most of them promoted by local governments. These have independent programming and considerable means to coproduce along with the independent companies and structures (a vital function that both national theatres in fact also more or less engagingly commit themselves to, together with the mandatory investment in their own productions). A map of the Portuguese theatre in the last decade and a half will have to include, besides D. Maria II and São João, such cultural centers (some of them privately owned) as Lisbon-based Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Centro Cultural de Belém, Culturgest and ZDB, Oporto-based Fundação de Serralves, and Guimarães-based Centro Cultural Vila Flor; and such ‘local’ venues as Teatro Municipal de Bragança (in Bragança), Teatro Académico de Gil Vicente (in Coimbra), Teatro Viriato (in Viseu), Teatro Municipal da Guarda, Teatro Municipal Rivoli and Teatro Municipal do Campo Alegre (both in Oporto), Teatro Maria Matos and São Luiz Teatro Municipal (both in Lisbon). And it will also feature at least the following festivals, with very dissimilar degrees of consolidation and internationalization: Festival de Almada, Alkantara Festival, FITEI–Festival Internacional de Teatro de Expressão Ibérica, Próximo Futuro, Festivais Gil Vicente and Citemor–Festival de Montemor-o-Velho.

It is symptomatic that the Citemor–Festival de Montemor-o-Velho has gone from the place where Portuguese audiences met stage directors such as Angelica Liddell or Rodrigo García—the most performed contemporary non-French playwright in France, and recipient of the Europe Theatre Prize in 2009—to the non-state-subsidized festival where artists present their works almost free of charge, when they don’t actually pay to be there. Then again, this is the surreal country that for the past 15 years has been daydreaming of the mythical future where the government will finally spend 1% of the national budget on culture—and it’s also the real and not at all mythical country where that amount doesn’t even reach 0.1%.

 

Sources: Direcção-Geral das Artes; PORDATA; Instituto Nacional de Estatística

 

Published on 20 May 2015 (Article originally written in Portuguese)

Interviews from Russia

Interviews from Russia

Part 1: Alexey Bartoshevich

“It’s an old Russian tradition:
The worse the things are,
the more people go to the theatre.”
Alexey Bartoshevich

What does the relationship between a person and a state mean in Russian theatre?
Does contemporary Russian theatre speak the same language as its audience?
Is it possible to define a general direction of where theatre is going in a state like Russia?

In the spring of 2015, a young journalist Nina Mochalova from Moscow interviewed several figures of Russian theatre and cultural journalism on the current situation of theatre in Russia.

 Interviews from Russia #1

The first part of the series shows an interview with the Russian theatre historian and Shakespeare scholar Alexey Bartoshevich in Moscow. The interview explores whether Russian theatre has changed in the course of the last few decades, and in what ways its audience has developed. His lifelong experience in theatre allows Bartoshevich to draw a manifold picture of the formation of Russian theatre and its latest history.


To watch this video with English subtitles, please click on the [cc] button and choose: “English subtitles”


To watch this video with English subtitles, please click on the [cc] button and choose: “English subtitles”

Biographical notes on Alexey Bartoshevich:
Alexey Bartoshevich is the head of the Department of History of Foreign Theatre at the Russian University of Theatre Arts “GITIS” in Moscow, where he gives lectures on the history of foreign theatre with a special focus on Shakespeare. Since 1996, he has been a member of the International Shakespeare Association. He is the author of numerous books and articles dedicated to theatre.

 

Published on 1 May 2015