Theatre Worlds Clashing at the UTE Conference of Theatre Structures in Belgrade

Editor’s Note:

This is a follow-up on an article by our Portuguese journalist that also covered the UTE Conference on Theatre Structures in Belgrade. This article offers our Greek’s journalist’s perspective

Theatre Worlds Clashing at the UTE Conference of Theatre Structures in Belgrade

“Can we all move to Austria?” This rhetorical question posed by Alexandru Darie, the artistic director of the Bulandra theatre in Bucharest, humorously interrupted a series of speeches full of numbers and information regarding the theatrical structures of seven different countries in Europe. It was a natural and spontaneous reaction, since so many different systems clashed in this conference in order to understand and detect each other’s similarities and differences.

Conference on Theatre Structures at the Yugoslav Drama Theatre in Belgrade, Serbia

Despairingly similar or chaotically different? The difficulties to be dealt with in the theatre by countries such as Bulgaria and Austria or Russia and Luxembourg, may be at the back of our mind, however, when they are put on the same table, they can be impressively revealing.

We had this chance on Sunday, 17 September 2017, thanks to the Union des Théâtres de l’Europe, which unites twenty different—not only—European theatres, from east to west, from north to south. Artistic directors from seven theatre members of the UTE, from Greece, Romania, Austria, Luxembourg, Serbia, Russia and Bulgaria, had fifteen minutes each to enlighten us regarding the way theatre works in their respective countries.

The place where this second meeting took place—the first one having taken place in May 2016 in Milan—was the welcoming though blocked off Yugoslav Drama Theatre (the Belgrade Pride Parade took place at the same time).

“It is quite impossible not to fund theatres in Austria. Our politicians realise how important it is”, said Anna Badora of the Vienna Volkstheater and Andrea Ruis of the Arts & Culture Division of the Federal Chancellery of Austria, describing a system—to be further analysed in conflict-zones.reviews soon—that sounded almost ideal.

Contrary to that, “More freedom in decision-making” is what is needed in Romanian theatre, says Alexandru Darie. “We need to ask permission for everything from the city of Bucharest which we are part of. Even something as small as hiring a person”. He, too, mentioned a terrible law about private funding, according to which 4% can be given to sport and only 2% to art, depending on the choice of politics. He also said that there’s “unfair competition” between public and private theatres. “We can’t pay the actors the same salaries since we are obliged to pay all taxes and rights. Private theatres never do that”, he said

Our biggest problem is that “we make it”, emphasized Stathis Livathinos, the artistic director of the National Theatre of Greece explaining that funding has dropped from 12 to six million per year. “Since you can get by on that amount, next time we’ll give you even less; this is how politicians think”. Some sponsors give financial aid. “They often complain because they want their name to be placed next to the brand name of the National Theatre. But this must not happen”, he said.

Margarita Mladenova of the Sfumato Theatre in Sofia has the same concern. “Over the past eight years we have been under the dictate of the market. Every theatre needs to sell more and more tickets in order to survive. This is why they hire so-called bear actors—famous TV stars”. In Bulgaria, there are fifty-five national theatres, which is quite impressive. “This is a good policy. What is not good is that they all share the same structure, and this does not allow us to be creative. We need more flexibility”, she noted.

Some new conditions, according to Tamara Vukovic Manojlovic from Serbia, are the free market laws which are being imposed on the theatre, the bureaucracy, as well as the constant budget cuts and the change in the audience’s behaviour. The Yugoslav Drama Theatre is funded by the city of Belgrade by 40–80%, and 20% of its budget comes from tickets.

The Theatre in Luxembourg deals with completely different issues, says its artistic director and founder, Frank Hoffman. “One hundred and sixty nationalities are involved in our productions. We certainly are an international theatre!” he proudly stated. “Nevertheless, the issues that arise have to do with identity, and are of an existential nature. Who am I? What’s my mother tongue?”

Boris Yukhananov from the Stanislavky Elektrotheatre in Moscow expressed concerns about the current situation in Russia. “All the changes that have occurred in our country over the past fifty years have also affected the theatre and its future is uncertain”, he said, while referring to the recent scandal of the great Russian director Kirill Serebrennikov’s (Gogol Theatre, Moscow) persecution.

The first and biggest sponsor of 700 theatres in the country is the Ministry of Culture, which funds big theatres, such as the Bolshoi or the Mariinsky, on a yearly basis. The funds go up to 12 billion rubles, which still cannot cover the cost of their existence. He also mentioned the existence of “benefactors” and not just sponsors in the theatre, which still remains non- commercial in Russia.

“There’s definitely more than one conclusion,” the president of the Union des Théâtres de l’Europe, Michal Dočekal from Prague, said, summing up the conference. He pointed out that theatre is undoubtedly part of the European cultural heritage, and that is exactly why the issues discussed here were of far more than of mere academic or practical interest.

Published on 23 October 2017 (Article originally written in Greek)

The Rich and the Poor: Coming Together and Drifting Apart in the European Theatrical Landscape

Money (or the lack of it) was a recurring issue during the second conference on theatre structures promoted by the Union des Théâtres de l’Europe. Between the State and the market, financial gymnastics tends to be the rule — but there are some exceptions.

As the peak of the economic and financial crisis that paralyzed Europe during the last decade — to a greater or lesser extent, according to the strength and the resilience of national budgets — seems finally overcome (or so they say…), money is still the elephant in the room when it comes to analyzing the differing (and often conflicting) paradigms that rule the arts, and theatre in particular, in the European context. Indeed that’s how it felt a year ago in Milan, when the Union des Théâtres de l’Europe (UTE) held the first of its conferences on theatre structures, in an event that finally materialized not only the thousands of kilometers but also the thousands of euros that keep the Teatro Nacional de São João, in Porto, apart from co-members such as the Schauspiel Stuttgart or the Piccolo Teatro de Milano (eventually leaving some room for debate on the uncomfortable transit between theatre and politics in turbulent contexts such as Tunisia or Israel). And again, that’s how it felt a week ago in Belgrade, where the impact of the still ongoing shift from Eastern Europe’s hyper-regulated and hyper-centralized systems to a market economy was in the spotlight, framing the more or less converging experiences of Bulgaria’s Sfumato, Romania’s Teatrul Bulandra, Serbia’s Yugoslav Drama Theatre (JDP), Greece’s National Theatre of Greece in Athens, and Russia’s Stanislavsky Electrotheatre.

The price of adjusting to a new environment which is mostly defined by the state’s retreat and the scarcity of available funds is a common feature to most of the theatres working beyond the former Iron Curtain, despite regional differences. “We all face similar problems, but in the Serbian case they’re aggravated by the fact that the system itself is going through changes. Yes, we do need more funds—but we also need a new model”, said Tamara Vučković Manojlović, JDP’s general manager, right at the opening of the conference. “The laws that have recently been approved do not acknowledge the cultural sector’s specific characteristics, and public funds decrease as the idea that theatre must adapt to the principles of a market economy makes its way”, she added. Today, YDT’s ticket sales revenues make up for 18–22% of its total budget and the emphasis on diversifying the theatre’s sources of income has led to the frequent rental of its rooms, a side-activity which already represents a “substantial” cash flow.

Also in Bulgaria, where the State’s investment in the cultural sector remains at 0.5% of the country’s GDP, the funding mechanisms behind its 35 public theatres also began fluctuating according to the laws of the market. “Starting eight years ago, the budget of each and every theatre depends on the ticket sales—we’re now under the market’s Diktat”, Sfumato’s artistic director Margarita Mladenova argued. This new funding system, she explained, pushes theatres towards a serial production approach, eventually compromising long, experimental artistic processes, such as the ones that historically defined the Sfumato: “We’re strongly advised to rehearse less and sell more. Breeding new actors, new poetics and new aesthetics is currently marginalized.” Meanwhile, whole theatrical seasons gravitating around famous, crowd-pleasing TV stars abound, sacrificing the institutions’ long-established artistic identities: “To make sure they make enough money, directors cast ‘dancing bears’ [A/N popular TV actors] in the leading roles, and the remaining actors are forced to gravitate around them so they can be paid. It’s atrocious.”, Mladenova stated, advocating for a new funding system that may replace the “emphasis on consumerism” by highlighting artistic integrity and further regulating the local administrations’ financial contribution to Bulgaria’s theatrical landscape (the current set of rules favours rather arbitrary funding policies).

In Romania, where municipal budgets are a key-element to the survival of the country’s public theatre network (only national theatres are directly State-financed, and less than 0.8% of the GDP is invested in the cultural sector); the paradigm is changing, too. Bucharest is definitely a world apart—three million people, half of the country’s GDP, a billion-euro municipal budget, 28 cultural institutions, 14 city-funded theatres—, but outside the capital city survival is especially hard, Teatrul Bulandra’s Alexandru Darie pointed out. Both the market and the rules defining how to access the municipal funds (about 70–80% of the total budget, in Bulandra’s case) pave the way for an industrial, mass-production model: new productions tend to multiply (seven to ten per year being the current average) as the shows’ careers are downsized (a maximum of 10 to 15 sessions per show).

Meanwhile, on yet another front, the “extraordinary boom” of private theatres which proliferate in alternative venues is reshaping Romania’s theatrical landscape—“for better and for worse”, according to Alexandru Darie. “Private theaters are more likely to forgo legislation or evade their fiscal responsibilities and have lighter structures that tend to be more flexible and free from administrative constraints. So, it’s an unfair competition for public theatres, which only this year were again granted permission to hire new actors and technicians [in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, this was strictly ruled out]. An actor we recently hired for a new production of Ivanov told us that while we were paying him about 100 euros a night for burning himself out and weighing two kilos less after each performance, a private theatre would pay him twice as much just to sit in a chair and tell jokes”, Bulandra’s artistic director reported. Then again, it’s also true, he admitted, that the freedom of action of the private arena has allowed for the appearance of “emerging talents (actors, directors, etc.) that are now finally permeating the public theatres”, eventually updating their repertoires and their theatrical languages”.

“At the moment, it is a war, but I hope that in the end the clash between these two worlds will benefit the public theatres”, Alexandru Darie summed up, endorsing a new framework in which these institutions “heavily controlled by the State and local administrations” (“We must demand permission for everything!”) can have higher flexibility and autonomy levels.

Just like in Bulgaria, a structural change also seems inevitable in Romania: “Maybe we must follow the examples set by Italy or Germany and redefine the status of our theatres, a move some of my colleagues are afraid of because they suspect change will mean less funding.” Anyway, the current legal framework has also proven insufficient as far as benefactors’ and sponsors’ incentives are concerned: “The system favours investing in festivals, which is where all the rich and nicely dressed people show up; nobody will care for the theatres’ daily activities unless the law is reformed.”

Transitioning

Meanwhile, in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where State control assumes spookier nuances (as it has recently been underlined by the painful Kyril Serebrennikov’s case), the systemic shock caused by the collapse of the USSR seems far from digested. Part of the “enormous structure” set up by the communist regime in every corner of the country is still on—about 700 theatres are supported either by the State or the local administrations—, but in many cases (including the historical ballet and opera theatres of Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the Bolshoi and the Mariinsky) their dotation doesn’t even cover these institutions’ heavy operating costs (needless to say, fixed ensembles tend to be a sacred rule). In fact, and given the lack of resources, theatres are tangled in complex financial gymnastics, juxtaposing highly volatile public and private funds, said Boris Yukhananov, Stanislavsky Electrotheatre’s artistic director. “Government is very much for the establishment of benefactor councils for every theatre, and that’s how many companies survive. As for the municipal funds, they too tend to fluctuate according to the mayor’s preferences… But Voronezh is a fine example—and there are others—of the renaissance of a contemporary culture”, he mentioned. In this “gradual transitioning context from centralization to decentralization”, theatre is still overwhelmingly non-commercial: “Some commercial theatres try to be self-sufficient, but normally they don’t succeed.”

The Stanislavsky Electrotheatre is one of those examples of cross-pollination between public and private dotation. Established more than a century ago, in 1915, it was one of the first grand cinemas in Moscow before eventually becoming Konstantin Stanislavsky’s studio; since 2013 it’s Boris Yukhananov’s new home, a multidisciplinary venture where theatre, opera and music converge. “In early 2013, the theatre was in a very delicate situation and the city of Moscow ran a public competition for the post of artistic director; I applied and got appointed. In theory, the city would provide all the funding, but I would never choose that kind of slavery to the authorities, if only for the fact that our artistic visions don’t match. Presently, the city feeds our budget with one million euros while the remaining five or six million euros come from benefactors”, the director went into detail. Total investment in the reconstruction of the theatre is in the vicinity of one billion rubles, he added. “If we manage to prove we double as an opera theatre, we may double the current dotation”, Boris Yukhananov said, highlighting “the important work” that the Stanislavsky Electrotheatre has developed with contemporary composers.

The eye of the crisis

Although in the Eastern countries the cumulative effect of the ongoing paradigm shift and the economic crisis has aggravated the inevitable growing pains, no European country has been more deeply affected by the financial decay than Greece. Stathis Livanthinos, National Theatre of Greece’s artistic director, came to Belgrade to tell us about survival in the eye of the crisis, with less than half of the good old days’ budget to manage (the institution’s dotation declined from 12 to six million euros), and no chance of easing the burden of its expensive staff structure (250 workers and a permanent ensemble of one hundred actors), whose salaries currently consume all the available funds—ticket sales are the only source of funding for theatre production itself. “It’s a feature of the National Theatre of Greece Basic Law, which has been approved in the 90s. I tried to change that rule, because, as you can imagine, it’s extremely difficult to survive given these conditions, but the idea is that in times of crisis there should be at least a place where Greek actors can work and get paid”, he explained.

The budget’s drastic downsizing threatens the National Theatre of Greece’s main mission, since its ability to reach beyond the city of Athens and to penetrate the whole country is now weakened: “The National Theatre of Greece is in danger of becoming just the National Theatre of Athens; the current financial situation makes it very hard to be present on a national level.” Besides, the crisis has also undermined the State’s ability to support theatrical activity: “The Ministry of Culture used to subsidize theatres across the country. It’s over now. Only the National Theatre of Greece and the National Theatre of Northern Greece [A/N also a member of the UTE] are State-financed. In fact, the percentage of the national budget that is available for culture is so low that I’m ashamed to quantify it.”

Relying on ticket revenues to finance new productions, and at the same time seriously constrained by the audience’s declining purchasing power (which eventually forced the institution to implement a new reduced price policy, so the common Greek could still afford going to the theatre), the National Theatre of Greece can no longer guarantee its quality standards. And that’s also due to the fact that the legal framework does not suit the attraction of new, alternative sources of income: “A few years ago I started looking for sponsors and benefactors, but we need more adequate legislation. Some companies did give us money because they like what we do, but all that we can give them back is some publicity in our programmes… and so the National Theatre of Greece risks seeing its name being swallowed up by private companies and losing its public character”, Stathis Livanthinos argued.

Not everything is tragic in the country where tragedy was invented, though: the crisis years were also, paradoxically, years of theatrical abundance, with an average of a thousand new shows per year just to mention Athens (even if in many cases the artists did not get paid) and finally, “for the first time in too many years”, the Ministry of Culture could hand out about 100 million euros to independent theatre companies.

Over the rainbow

But there is a parallel universe in this story—and it belongs in Europe, too. A parallel universe where talking about theatre doesn’t necessarily mean “talking about money” (“which, besides being unpleasant, is incorrect”, as Stathis Livanthinos pointed out). Luxembourg, for instance, whose young national theatre was established in 1996 after the overwhelming success of the European Capital of Culture of the preceding year. Frank Hoffmann, director (and founder!) of Théâtre National du Luxembourg, did not come to Belgrade to speak about funding but to discuss issues of mission and identity in a small country of 500 thousand inhabitants where almost half of the population is of foreign origin and speaks another language.

Vienna’s Volkstheater is also a world apart—as is the entire theatrical landscape of Austria, a topic that another article of this online magazine will further develop. So apart from that, somewhere over the rainbow, many million euros away, as Theatre and Dance Unit Chief at the Arts and Culture Department of the Federal Chancellery, Andrea Ruis, and Volkstheater’s artistic director, Anna Badora, described “the best system in the world” (Badora’s words) the remaining speakers finally found the good news they were so desperate to bring back home.

Published on 29 September 2017 (Article originally written in Portuguese)

Russian Theatres – Searching for Balance

In the last 20 years theatre has kept pace with changes in civil society in Russia. Society has changed a lot, and the total number of theatres has grown substantially since the 1990s. The reason for this renaissance of theatre is the rising economy and, as the result, the increase in the median income. After the want for tangible status objects has been satisfied, people crave experience: theatre is in vogue now, and, on top of that, going to the theatre is considered to be sophisticated.

Theatre in general—and especially in Russia—is much more than an entertainment facility. It is the keeper of the national cultural and linguistic heritage, the source of inspiration and creativity, and the carrier of social values. One of the primary goals of the government is to provide all Russian citizens with access to these works of art. Prominent members of the cultural community such as Alexander Kolyagin, chairman of the Russian Theatre Union and director of the ‘Et cetera’ theatre, have declared theatre a public good which organizes the social environment and that it is not a service measured by profitability. Theatre’s contribution to social capital is invaluable, which is why government support for theatre ought to be considered investment rather than spending.

Some facts and figures

According to the national statistics, the number of state and municipal theatres reached 651 in 2016. That same year, 87,553 people were employed as actors, stage crew and administrative staff. The theatre companies used 1394 buildings, 20% of which were listed as cultural heritage. However, almost 25% of buildings were in unsatisfactory condition and in dire need of serious reconstruction. This issue is critical for regional theatres which cannot afford reconstruction and renovation of their facilities or some theatres actually fear that the buildings and premises where they are based might be taken from them by investors. The total capacity of the venues amounted to 234,028 seats. Only 2% of the seats were fit to be used by physically disabled people.

In 2016, almost 3,000 plays were played in the Russian state theatres. It amounted to 175,452 performances, including guest (17%) and tour performances in Russia and abroad (3%). Most productions were of plays by classic foreign authors of the 19 and 20^th century and by authors of the Soviet era. The plays written by the modern Russian authors make only 17% of new drama productions. 1.7 billion rubles (25.8 million dollars) were spent on new productions.

For the 2015/2016 season total attendance of theatres was 31.5 million. It is a depressingly small figure if we consider the Russian population—only 250 out of 1,000 people. One of the reasons of the low attendance is the scarcity of regional theatres. There are only 3.2 theatres for every one million people, and only 18.8% of Russian cities have at least one theatre. Moreover, almost half of the population lives in places where they cannot get to any theatre at all. Surveys show that 47% of respondents visit theatres rarely, while 29% of respondents have never attended a theatre in their life.

Legal status and government funding

As to their legal status, Russian theatres can be divided into two categories: state and municipal theatres, and private theatres. State and municipal theatres are again divided into non-commercial organizations, budget-based organizations and state-owned or autonomous organizations; the latter being relatively new. Since 2007, some non-commercial and budget-based theatres in regions all over Russia were changed into autonomous organizations. State theatres can be also classified according to the authority they are dependent on: federal theatres, local theatres, theatres of the Ministry of Culture and theatres of other agencies. Private theatres can be both commercial and non-commercial organizations of various legal forms. In Russia the role of personality in history is of critical importance. As a result, not only economic, but cultural well-being of the region largely depends on the good will and resources of the governor.

State funding is the primary source of income for the majority of state and municipal theatres. According to the reports of the Ministry of Culture, their total 2016 budget was 81 billion rubles (1.3 billion dollars). Only 29% came from the own revenue of theatres while the major share of annual income proceeded from the federal (66%) and regional or municipal budgets (3%). For some theatres the share of government funding exceeded 75% of the annual budget. Donations of sponsors accounted for slightly more than 2% of the theatres’ annual budget.

The unfortunate reality is that all state theatres are commercially unprofitable, and there is no exception to that rule. Even well-known repertory theatres running a significant number of performances in a season cannot make it to zero profit to cover expenses. If we rank state theatres according to the total income they get from all sources the chart-toppers will be the high-class theatres of Moscow and St. Petersburg: the Bolshoy theatre (Moscow), the Mariinsky Theatre (St. Petersburg), the Mikhailovsky Theatre, the Vachtangov theatre (Moscow), the Moscow Art Theatre (Moscow), the Variety Theatre (Moscow), etc. Some experts see the root of the problem in the lack of competition between state theatres. Trying harder to attract consumers would encourage them to improve the product, the same as with any other market.

An autonomous theatre receives funding via a government procurement contract, a so-called municipal task for a specific financial period (three years). Curiously, this form of support sets the theatre on the same level with other social services for residents. The list of services and the standards of their quality are defined by the federal agency in charge of the particular sphere area. In our case it is the Ministry of Culture and the municipal Department of Culture. The theatre is obliged to produce a specified number of shows in total, mount a specified number of new productions, attract no less than a specified number of visitors and sell no less than a specified number of tickets. The list also includes the number of tours and guest performances, of participation in festivals, and of having provided services to disabled people. Quality of services is also measured by the percentage of the house capacity filled, the growth rate of audience attendance compared to last year, percentage of audience satisfied with the provided service and other indicators. The agency calculates the costs for the planned work in advance and allocates a fixed amount of funding to get the work done. By the end of each year the theatre reports the figures by filling the special form that covers all the parameters. The report is publicly available on the theatre’s web page. If the task is not accomplished 100%, funding may be reconsidered for the next period.

Other funding methods include subsidies and fellowships that are annually allocated to theatres in all regions of the Russian Federation. 600 state theatres are allocated regular subventions on an annual basis. Leading theatres receive grants from the President of Russia which are mostly spent on the salaries of actors and staff. Prominent artists receive personal grants to establish workshops and produce new plays. The Theatre Union of the Russian Federation conducts professional laboratories and schools to foster innovations and improve creative and management skills of staff members. Young people employed in the field of art get a monthly raise of 20,000 rubles (~283 euro) from the Russian government. 147 municipal theatres will be given 670 million rubles (9,477,000 euro) for the period of 2017–2020 to renovate their infrastructure, and to bear other expenses.

From time to time one government official or another will point out that approaches to the funding of state and municipal theatres ought to be changed from a fixed to fellowship-based system so that more efficient theatres would get more money. It is not a trivial task since the criteria of efficiency for theatres have been the subject of hot debates. The whole optimization talk may be an attempt to further reduce the gradually decreasing amount of support for culture (which hardly reaches 0.5% GDP).

Some theatres already know that their future funding will be cut down and go through the trouble of providing some safety nets for themselves. The Mariinsky Theatre, for instance, uses its main stage all year round and closes it for reconstruction only for ten days during the summer. When the theatre is on holiday or on a tour, the stage is used by invited companies. The Fyodor Volkov Drama theatre (Yaroslavl) is ready to reconsider its staff schedule and to prioritize its renovation works. The number of performances and hosted international festivals will stay on the same level at any rate, though. Perm Youth theatre and Khabarovsk Youth theatre will have to turn down tours and postpone the planned increase in salaries. However, they are optimistic and are ready to contest for external grants and projects and use internal resources more efficiently in the production of new plays.

Festivals and tours

Theatre festivals are a bright and distinguishing feature of the Russian cultural scene. According to the Russian Union of Theatre Actors, 256 festivals of various art forms are held annually in almost 100 cities. The most well known are the Golden Mask, the Chekhov theatre as well as other festivals that take place in Moscow. Regional Russian theatres regularly host versatile festivals from Europe.

Theatres from central cities and regions frequently give guest performances in other regions during the summer. Touring shows add considerably to local repertoires, increasing and diversifying them, providing a wider choice for the audience as the usual repertoire of a regional theatre is 10–15 shows running year in year out. Travel expenses for tours abroad are compensated either by the Russian Ministry of Culture or by the host country. In 2014, a programme called “Big Tours” (Bolshie gastroli) was established. It promotes tours of federal theatres and theatres of the Ministry of Culture to regions. Plays for a young audience are especially welcome because commercial tours consider them as unprofitable and do not usually include them in their programme. The goal of the programme is to make theatre shows available in the regions which don’t have enough funds to invite theatres on their own. In 2017, the tours are to cover 45 regions of the Russian Federation, 70 cities in total. The federal government compensates the theatre and covers its travel expenses, while the regions are in charge of the accommodation costs and the technical rider. Ticket pricing policy is also left to the regions.

Youth theatre

Youth theatre for children and teenagers is a highly regarded art form in Russia. Theatre is one of the crucial channels of socialization, and cultivation of artistic and creative taste. The effect that first positive impressions have on the forming of the future appetite for arts are invaluable. It is important for a youth theatre to talk about important topics, such as tolerance, loneliness, and suicide. In 2016, 11% of state and municipal theatres were youth theatres while almost 70% of guest performances in other regions were productions of plays from the youth theatre repertoire. 57% of performances given by state and municipal theatres were targeted at a young audience. At 39 festivals, the total number of youth festivals in Russia is quite substantial. In 2017 and later, youth theatres will get approx. 4.2 million euro annually from the state. Approximately 3 million will be divided between regional and municipal youth theatres. The funding will be primarily aimed at new productions to diversify the repertory.

There are lots of theatres for younger children, including puppet theatres; at the same time, there is still a lack of theatres for teenagers or 12+ audiences. Despite the fact that lots of repertory theatres have performances based on literature from the school curriculum in literature, there are still problems that are important for teenagers but are not featured in plays. Teenagers have definitely grown out of fairy-tales with saccharine heroes fashioned to fit the Soviet didactical “Tuyz” (Theatre for the young audience) manner. However, adult issues in dramas may seem too complicated. Long-windedness and a patronizing manner should be avoided under any circumstances.

Recently youth theatre has been infused with new blood—some young directors who are not shy of experimenting, have joined the field. In 2016, the eminent festival “Golden Mask” established a separate section for youth theatres, the Kids’ Weekend, that showcases productions for every age: from toddlers to teenagers. Sixteen shows from various regions of Russia included in the programme yielded a high attendance rate.

Private youth theatres are usually small-scale and mobile. They often play at schools, kindergartens and other education centres because they cannot afford renting a proper venue with a stage, and their scenery is usually easily transportable. Some of them have regular tours in Europe. When a small youth theatre and a large drama theatre work together, it may be very fruitful and blend fresh ideas with funds. Theatres have opened up the laboratory of youth theatre where young directors have a chance to put on new plays of contemporary playwrights. The Meyerhold centre established a program “The Meyerhold Centre for Children”, where actors put a young audience in touch with the art of telling literary texts.

Private theatres: spectacle or laboratory

Private theatres get support through project financing, and they may also contest for state financing. In 2016, 43 private theatres from St. Petersburg got 496,000 euro funding from the City Department of Culture. Non-financial support, such as providing additional venues, is also a great help, as the rent accounts for the lion share of fixed costs. It also includes preferential loans, insurance, social waivers, etc. However, such support creates a tricky interdependence between the theatre and the government. Some government officials use the threat to cut support, or to demand a much more detailed report on used funds, as leverage and as a means to control the repertory of an independent theatre. This is the case of the Theatre.doc, and theatre studio under the guidance of Kirill Serebrennikov.

Apart from the stage activity, theatres raise money from event management, film production, participations in concerts, etc. Some theatres attract sponsors who give money on new theatre productions in exchange for advertisement, or request discounts from energetic companies in exchange for tickets. Other theatres receive regular donations from entrepreneurs, like the Sergey Zchenovach Theatre.

Small-scale theatres spark with innovative and contradictory productions and imaginative ideas, but are short of capital. On the contrary, non-repertory companies are profitable and successfully compete with the repertory theatre. Some non-repertory companies, like the Anthon Chekhov theatre, the Independent theatre project, the Art-Partner XXI, the Quartet ‘I’ and others have been on the theatre market for more than ten years. Their reasons for success are obvious. Theatres cater to the tastes of a mass audience. There are usually one or two hits in the season, comedies, romance and detectives with star actors in leading roles. Half of the performances are played in another region. Theatres economize on the number of employed actors (not more than seven/eight per performance), on the rehearsal period, on scenery (no complex pivotal element), on rental costs (going from one rental venue to another), and maximize the revenue from box sales (the stage hall not smaller than 700–1000 chairs). The engagement process is much simpler since actors are contract workers.

Amateur theatres

Amateur theatres are financed by their participants, volunteers and through crowd funding. They may seem insignificant and hardly worth to be mentioned when we speak about professional theatres, but these tiny art groups are the basis of any theatrical activity. Amateur theatres sometimes conceive new initiatives and practices and, like caterpillars transforming into butterflies, evolve into professional, albeit small, units, and establish their own culture niches. Stanislavsky himself and his troupe started putting on amateur performances on the home stage of their mansion.

Amateur theatres often engage semi-professional actors, such as students of theatre schools, who will participate just for the fun of it, and to practice. Sometimes they get a place free of rent for rehearsals and performances in exchange for teaching children and participating in municipal cultural events. In some aspects amateur theatres may well exceed expectations and adhere enthusiastically to professional ethics and best practices. For instance, the Fellowship Art Group in Moscow successfully purchased official licenses for the production of German and American musicals (Rebecca, Tick, Tick,…Boom!, I love you, You’re Perfect, Now Change). As a half-professional theatre they got a discount on rights by declaring a limited number of shows. In artistic aspects, however, no discounts were made: the scripts were translated into Russian; shows involved actors with decent vocal and artistic skills that had auditioned for the play; and there was live music and a modest but stylish scenery.

Conclusion

Traditional or repertory theatre has been known in Russia for two centuries now. Having a permanent ensemble is the cradle of innovative art and improves traditional art. Distinguished artists pass their skills to younger actors in the course of the intensive work interaction. It will be long until the theatre depends less on the government funding. Without support, traditional theatre would have merely an entertaining role and would have a limited repertory. People in small cities would be even farther away from having a touring theatre in their vicinity, since they don’t have any buildings spacious enough to serve as venues where a commercial company would care to perform.

Live art is in eternal motion and in a constant search for balance. Formalistic and matter-of-fact practices are not what theatre needs. Vladimir Vysotsky, iconic Russian bard and, by the way, the actor of the Taganka theatre, sang about the rope-walker: “Look! He’s facing a fall—on the cord he’s again! Not protected at all, is he sane or insane? Just the tiniest swerve—and around he’ll be thrust. But there must be a reason why he needs to pass the full four quarters of the path!” Theatre is taking the long and winding road to the future. We are lucky to witness its transformation to something even more awe inspiring.

This article was co-written by Oxana Bondarenko and Emiliia Dementsova.

Oxana Bondarenko is an experienced researcher in applied economics. She gained deep understanding in such fields as trade and regulatory policy, corruption, agriculture, budget reform, culture policy. Bondarenko has analyzed the effect of films on trust and altruism, and has investigated price strategies of theatres and demand on theatre tickets for the Russian Ministry of Culture, reviewed articles on economics of theatre for two academic journals. Bondarenko’s academic interests lie in the field of economic psychology. She is a PhD student at the Higher School of Economics and conducts laboratory experiments to study economic models of rationality of the human behavior. She also acts in the amateur musical theatre.

Emiliia Dementsova is a theatre critic, lecturer and the script editor-in-chief at the cinema company Sputnik. She is a PhD candidate at the Lomonosov Moscow State University and is also a member of the International Association of Theatre Critics, and the Russian Union of Journalists. Dementsova has acted as a cultural columnist for «Critical Stages», «European Stages», The Hollywood Reporter, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Theatron, Theatre World, among others. She is a scholar of the Oxford Russia Fund. She received the International Press Club award called Challenge – XXI century for a series of theatre reviews she authored and Russian national literary award “Golden Feather”.

Published on 12 September 2017 (Article originally written in Russian)

Theatre in Serbia today: the resilience of the socially engaged artists

Theatre has always been, more than any other art, influenced by social circumstances due to the complexity of its production and to its presence and immediacy of experience which are created through a direct communication with its audience, in real time and space reflected on stage. In that respect, a set of particularly adverse economic circumstances, which have been ruling Serbian society for the last six or seven years, and which had been caused by the global economic crisis, have led to a dramatic decrease in theatre production. Still, one should also bear in mind that economic circumstances in Serbia are generally way below the European level, and that in times preceding the financial crisis, when the conditions were somewhat more favourable, the production in Serbia was still significantly below European standards.

The System

Institutional theatres in Serbia receive basic funding by the Ministry of Culture and by the regional and municipal governments for their ensembles maintenance, while the finances for new productions have been noticeably reduced. Each theatre has two to three premieres per season, which is at least two times less than they used to have until six or seven years ago. The situation applies to the country as a whole but in particularly to the theatres south of Belgrade. All the major Serbian cities have their own theatres which enjoy the status of national institutions, and are mostly financed by their local governments. In terms of production, the most favourable situation is in Belgrade, after which comes Vojvodina, namely Novi Sad, Subotica, and Sombor.

In Belgrade, there are eleven institutional theatres – the National Theatre, Yugoslav Drama Theatre, Atelier 212, Belgrade Drama Theatre, Terazije Theatre, Zvezdara Theatre, Little Theatre Duško Radović, Boško Buha Theatre, Puppet Theatre Pinocchio, and Theatre Puž (the latter four are theatres for children and young people). Most of the theatres have their own ensembles.

There are currently four privately-owned theatres in Serbia – Slavija, Madlenianum, Carte Blanche, and Le Studio, whose repertories are predominantly commercial, made of comedies, which are well-accepted by the general audience. One exception is Le Studio which offers a more varied programme with more distinct artistic aspirations. In addition to those, there are several multifunctional stages in Belgrade, i.e. cultural institutions which organize theatre, film, music, and fine arts programmes – Cultural Centre Vuk Karadžić, Akademija 28, Cultural Centre Palilula, among which the first one has had the most significant theatre productions over the last several years.

Outside Belgrade, most major towns have national theatres that are financed by local municipal governments, while still remaining eligible for applying for the Ministry of Culture’s individual projects calls. South of Belgrade, towns which have one professional theatre each are Šabac, Zaječar, Kragujevac, Kraljevo, Kruševac, Niš, Leskovac, Pirot, and Vranje. North of Belgrade, there is the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina which, generally speaking, prides itself in a more developed and worthier theatre life and cultural tradition altogether that the south of Serbia. The capital of Vojvodina, Novi Sad, has three institutional theatres—the Serbian National Theatre, the Hungarian Theatre of Novi Sad, and the Youth Theatre. In Subotica, there are also three theatres—the National Theatre with two ensembles, a Serbian and a Hungarian one, Kosztolányi Dezső Hungarian Theatre, and Children’s Theatre. The other towns in Vojvodina which have professional institutional theatres are Sombor, Zrenjanin, Kikinda, Vršac, and Sremska Mitrovica.

The Autonomous Province of Vojvodina is a unique space in Serbia with its inhabitants’ multi-ethnic and multicultural identity, and with many established minority integration projects. According to official records, there are more than twenty-five ethnic groups and six official languages in Vojvodina where, at present, there are professional theatres of the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Slovaks, and the Rusyns. In terms of artistic value, Hungarian theatres in Vojvodina are very significant among Serbian theatres— they could easily be put on the top of the Serbian theatre art. It primarily applies to Kosztolányi Dezső Theatre from Subotica, then also Újvidéki Színház from Novi Sad, and Hungarian drama of the National Theatre in Subotica.

Slovak theatre of Vojvodina, based in Bački Petrovac, has been created as the leading cultural institution of the Slovaks from Vojvodina, with an idea to develop theatre culture on a professional level. That theatre does not have its own ensemble but relies on professional actors from Slovakia. The theatre is obliged to perform in the areas inhabited by Slovaks in Vojvodina, so it often visits small Slovak places. Romanians also represent an important ethnic group in Vojvodina, with a significant number of cultural institutions in Novi Sad, Zrenjanin and Vršac. The Romanian National Theatre acts as an independent theatre within the Sterija Theatre in Vršac.

Repertories

In terms of repertories, the last couple of years have led to the loss of distinction between institutions. Apart from the Belgrade Terazije Theatre, which has remained true to its repertory of musicals and comedies, almost all the other theatres in Belgrade and in Serbia choose random plays, without any clear distinction in programme or in style. This leads to a mixture of classical and contemporary plays by Serbian and foreign authors. Apart from Terazije Theatre, yet another exception is the Kosztolányi Dezső theatre, which has, since 2006, attracted attention by its experimental, powerful performances that express a venture into a new, authentic, unrestrained theatre expression. Among them is a successful, and already cult performance, Urbi et Orbi (2008) by the director András Urbán, who has also directed Turbo Paradise, The Beach, Dogs and Drugs, Passport Europe, while many other excellent plays have been directed by Borut Šeparović (Bikini Democracy), Zlatko Paković (Capitalism), Selma Spahić (4a.m.). Moreover, this theatre has established an annual international festival Desire, which takes place in November. The festival promotes the authors who explore theatre poetics, and has an immense significance not only in its surrounding but also in Serbia as a whole.

Although small in number, the productions that are artistically most valued are still mostly created in institutions, by authoritative directors, strong ensembles, and sensibly chosen plays (on average, just a few artistically relevant performances are presented per season). In terms of artistic value, contemporary Serbian theatre prides itself on several directors and playwrights.

***

The most significant directors in Serbia today are András Urbán, Kokan Mladenović, Boris Liješević, Miloš Lolić, Igor Vuk Torbica. In the past couple of years, one performance which has reached the highest artistic value was András Urbán’s The Patriots (2015), produced by the National Theatre in Belgrade, and which had a rich theatre life (Bitef, Sterijino Pozorje, Mitem). Taking the play The Patriots, the best work by Jovan Sterija Popović, the classic Serbian comedy playwright, Urbán has staged it as seen from the present viewpoint. In this new reading, the main plot, which condemns false patriotism, is accompanied by contemporary debates on national issues, political and war songs, but also church songs, all critically approached. Last year, Urbán staged another artistically successful performance in the National Theatre in Sombor, Gogoland, based on the novel of the same name written by János Herceg, a Hungarian writer and academy member from Sombor. The new text has an open, developed and fragmentary structure. It was a basis for a forum-like, documentary-music performance which tackles burning social issues head-on—the position of national minorities, debt bondage, political marketing, and social roles of theatre.

Yet another performance which has lately left a significant mark on theatre in Serbia is The Bridge over Drina (produced by the Serbian National Theatre from Novi Sad in 2016), directed by Kokan Mladenović, another successful director in the region. The play is based on the novel of the same name by the Nobel Prize winning author Ivo Andrić, and represents a visual spectacle with the elements of music, drama and epics, the plot of which spans several centuries describing the bloody history of Bosnia in a multilingual fashion—apart from Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian, the protagonists speak Turkish, German and Hungarian, all of which is surtitled. In terms of ideas, Mladenović is consistent in his criticism of incessant evildoing. In that respect, Bosnia is a space which speaks volumes both literally and metaphorically, since it represents an area of antagonism and intense passions, a volcano of multinational conflicts. In Belgrade and in Novi Sad, we have recently seen another successful performance by Mladenović, Jami District, written by Milena Bogavac and co-produced by the Centre for Culture Tivat (Montenegro), the Bitef Theatre (Belgrade), the Think Tank studio from Novi Sad, and the Maszk Festival from Szeged. The story is based on a pseudo-documentary and satirically-absurd situation of discovery of Jamena, a village between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina where, allegedly, the oldest Palaeolithic settlement in the history of mankind has been discovered. The plot tackles the social and political issues between the three countries, but also vigorously confronts the global cynicism of neoliberal capitalism.

Boris Liješević is another regionally acclaimed director who works not only in Serbia but also in Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia, Croatia, and Slovenia. In the past couple of years, he has become famous mostly for his excellent projects that often fall into the realm of documentary theatre. Created through the protagonists’ true stories, they have raised some socially relevant issues—corruption, false morality, privatisation, the effect of political changes on personal lives (Waiting Room, Fertile Days, The Fifth Park). Igor Vuk Torbica, the youngest among these directors, has achieved a tremendous regional success by his staging of Ernst Toller’s Hinkemann, produced by the Zagreb Youth Theatre. Taking Toller’s expressionist, anti-war play (1923) as a starting point, Torbica has developed a post-dramatic piece of art, multi-layered both in structure and in meaning, creating it by means of an amazing confrontation between fragments of drama, cabaret, physical, and epic theatre. The story is set in war-torn Europe tortured by social spectacles which entertain the masses to exhaustion, even when the topic of that entertainment is tragedy. In Serbia, Torbica’s successful performances are The Broken Jug by Heinrich von Kleist (Yugoslav Drama Theatre, 2015), and The Power of Darkness by Tolstoy (the National Theatre in Belgrade, 2017).

***

Some of the most significant playwrights of the younger generation are Olga Dimitrijević, Maja Pelević, Tanja Šljivar, Vuk Bošković, Milena Bogavac. Olga Dimitrijević, who has received the Sterija Award for her play Workers Die Singing, has established herself as a “total” theatre author. She dramatized but also directed the play Red Love (Bitef Theatre, 2016) based on the novel Free Love (1923) written by the Russian revolutionary writer Alexandra Kollontai. In the performance, the love story between Vasilissa and Vladimir represents the basis for a wider exploration of burning issues, the relationship between private and public, love and politics, the problems of social revolutions, and the abandonment of those. The play New Age, by Vuk Bošković, was staged this year in Bitef Theatre and represents a piercing contemporary analysis of the current social and political circumstances. The fragmented structure and the interlacing of two sequences of events brings forth current torments of social transitions. The author raises the question of privatisation and grey economy, the doings of untouchable tycoons, political marketing manipulation, post-war trauma, and the most current problem of immigration and the overall chaos in Europe.

Independent scene

The independent scene in Serbia has recently been artistically weaker than it used to be during the nineties, when it exuded more power both in terms of quality and of quantity. Nowadays, very few performances find their way to the audience and positive critique. Those are usually the productions by Zlatko Paković in the Centre for Cultural Decontamination, or in the Student Cultural Centre in Novi Sad – To Kill Zoran Đinđić, Don Quixote or What Are the Windmills Today and Where the Wind Comes from, Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People as a Brecht’s Didactic-Play. All of those performances are socially engaged, post-dramatic type of lecture-performances which bring forth the clashes between elitism and populism, literary-historical and documentary-modern. The most successful among the aforementioned is Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People as a Brecht’s Teaching-Play (2014), in which Paković problematizes denotational closeness between Ibsen and Brecht in terms of creating a critical, political theatre. By creating links between Brecht’s songs to drama scenes in Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People, but also to scenes based on real political and social life, actors and musicians have made a powerfully engaged theatre. Its purpose is to instruct the audience on how to discover and prove (hidden) truth in society, but also to make us aware of the necessity of fighting for personal freedom, without which we are nothing.

Festivals

Festivals play an important role in the Serbian theatre system. It is often discussed whether we have too many of them in Serbia today. Given the fact that almost every major city in Serbia has its own theatre festival, and some more than one, the discussion is justified, especially since the programmes are often very similar, sometimes even overlapping. All of the festivals are, undeniably, locally relevant since they enliven local communities, which does represent an argument for their survival, but at the state level, they are less important.

The relevance of the two major festivals, Bitef and Sterijino Pozorje, is unquestionable, since they enjoy international acclaim as well. Bitef has been a Serbian cultural brand for decades – it is a festival which has always been presenting the most relevant international theatre authors who rely on the avant-garde. On the other hand, Sterijino Pozorje, annually held in Novi Sad, is the most significant national festival. It has undergone various transformations in the past couple of years, trying to redefine its identity after the breakup of Yugoslavia. Since its inception in 1956, it was the most relevant festival of Yugoslav drama. The breakup of the country reduced the space and gave rise to the necessity of its reinvention. For a few years, Sterijino Pozorje featured as the festival of the best national drama and theatre, but this year, it returned to its original concept of being the festival of national plays. The festival Days of Comedy, held in Jagodina, has an almost five-decade long tradition and the festival is given great local and national importance due to its uniqueness. The programme is highly national given that is only consists of theatres from Serbia. Other festivals worth mentioning are Infant, held in Novi Sad, which is international and focused on experimental works, and the festival Desire in Subotica, mentioned earlier, which also promotes theatre of the avant-garde heritage.

Criticism

Theatre criticism in Serbia is present and influential but not in a favourable position due to the general lack of interest among the media to engage the critics. Another trend is the disappearance of theatre criticism in the media, while it has not fully become present on the Internet, yet. When it comes to daily newspapers, it still exist in Politika, Večernje novosti, Dnevnik and Danas. In weekly magazines, it is still published in NIN and Vreme, while it is also present in the electronic media, at Radio Television of Serbia (the public broadcaster), and at Radio Television of Vojvodina.

Criticism does influence the public opinion in Serbia, although artists and producers often negate its impact, pronouncing it irrelevant or non-existent. As expected, what causes this attitude is the “negative” criticism, which makes the authors relativize the influence. If the criticism were not important, it would not be talked about; if the critics were not important, they would not be insulted and belittled. Therefore, since criticism and critics are often talked about in Serbia, since “the criticism of criticism” is as strong as ever, there is no better proof of its influence and its necessity.

Published 19 July 2017 (Article originally written in Serbian)

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 19^th 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

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 15^th 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?

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)