Memorandum submitted by The International
Festival of Musical Theatre in Cardiff
Musical theatre is the most popular live art
form in the world. That is its problem. A small number of musical
theatre productions are commercially successful and a small number
are high profile failures which give the general view that (a)
the art form is not one which has cultural or artistic excellence
and (b) it does not need public subsidy. Both premises are false.
Musical theatre in its widest form encompasses
many art forms, opera, ballet, jazz cabaret, concerts, as well
as mainstream musical theatre. Mainstream musical theatre provides
a considerable annual sum to the Treasury's budget from the VAT
on the theatre tickets from musical theatre productions around
the country, the national insurance and tax paid by artists involved
in this area, actors, directors, choreographers, stage management,
not to mention theatre staff both front of house and back stage,
and corporation tax paid by the producers and theatre owners.
Additionally reports have been done to show the amount of money
which comes into the economy from the spend by theatregoers, both
from the UK and abroad, on hotels, transport, restaurants and
shopping around their visits to the theatre. It is acknowledged
that theatre is one of the main tourist attractions for visitors
from abroad and musical theatre provides the main magnet for theatregoers,
especially those from countries where English is not the first
language. Not one penny of this income comes directly back to
the mainstream musical theatre industry in subsidy. Subsidy is
needed to help this area of the entertainment industry regenerate
in order to continue to provide this level of income.
Last year an initiative took place, which was
unique, and the first of its kind in the world. The first International
Festival of Musical Theatre took place in Cardiff. For three weeks
the whole city was taken over with musical theatre in all its
forms, international artists, writers, composers, directors and
musicians took part in 100 performances over 11 venues. Audiences
from all over the world came to the city. Both the Bridewell Theatre
and the National Youth Music Theatre took part in this initiative
and productions from both institutions formed part of the Festival's
programme. You will see from the enclosed literature the variety
and breadth of the Festival's programme. However, not one penny
of direct arts funding was provided for the Festival. Despite
a deficit after the first Festival, its support funders and corporate
donors have showed their commitment and we are now preparing for
a second Festival which will take place in 2005.
The development of new writing and the participation
in musical theatre events was, and continues to be, at the heart
of the Festival's programme and it is the Festival's intention
to make both of these areas the subject of year round development
programmes, given we can acquire funding for the same. We are
working with the Bridewell and Mercury Musical Developments in
the expansion of our new writing programme. We are also in contact
with a number of organisations in the US, in particular the National
Alliance of Musical Theatre and the new writing programmes in
Chicago and Los Angeles with whom we are also working on this
developmental programme.
In the US the development of new writing is
seen as a necessity rather than a luxury. Most regional theatres
in the US produce at least four or five new musical productions
per annum. In the UK the regional theatres are unable to afford
even one without some direct commercial financial input.
The Global Search for New Musicals, the heart
of the Festival's own new writing programme, received 165 entries
from 16 different countries in 2002—of the nine shows which
were chosen for showcase performances at the Festival six have
had interest shown for future development and three are already
in the process of being developed further, but tellingly, all
by US theatre companies.
The relationship between commercial and subsidised
sector has over the past 20 years expanded in that the commercial
sector has recognised that in the subsidised sector, especially
regionally, it can find a base where new work can be tried out
at a lesser cost and further from the spotlight than immediately
into the West End. A number of new musicals (and indeed plays)
have been tried out in regional venues prior to reaching London.
The advantages are there for both sides. For the regional theatre,
the commercial producer provides extra investment capital so that
a production, which the theatre itself could not afford on its
own annual budget, can be produced. If the show continues to have
a future life after its run at the regional venue, an ongoing
income stream is produced for the regional theatre, and the on-going
presence of the show in the wider arena provides the ability for
that theatre to attract other producers with future projects.
For the commercial producer, the benefits are that they have a
venue in which to try out a production away from the glare of
the West End, and if necessary make changes prior to its opening
before the critics. Additionally the costs to a commercial producer
of starting a show in the subsidised house, are less than those
of starting immediately in the West End, However, with more direct
subsidy to these regional venues specifically for the development
of new musical productions, even more could be produced, providing
more revenue back to the venues and ultimately to the Government.
New musical writing development is, as has already
been shown to you, a risky and expensive area. I do not need to
reiterate all the points that were made at your meeting on 14
October. However I wish to add to this argument by adding that
direct funding needs to be extended not just to the development
of new musical writing but also to support the presentation of
the standard repertoire as well. In order for new writers to learn
their craft they need to see and study those works that have already
stood the test of time. In drama, new writers study Shakespeare,
Ibsen, Shaw, and Arthur Millar, David Hare and other acclaimed
writers of the 20th century. Artists study the work of Turner,
Picasso, Rubens; composers study the work of Mozart, Beethoven,
Puccini, Verdi. In none of these disciplines is it questioned
that the works of these artists should be presented and supported
by public funding or that that their study by artists of today
is necessary. It is exactly the same in Musical Theatre. The composers
of today need to study the work of Gershwin, Porter, Rodgers,
Berlin, and indeed Coward and Novello, and other giants of 20th
century writing in order to learn their craft.
It should not be questioned that our larger
subsidised theatres both in London and the regions should programme
the works of these composers. It is acknowledged that these works
are also programmed to provide an income for the venues, as they
are popular works. However, these works should be balanced by
the ability of our regional theatres to support development of
new writers in, say, their studio theatres and there could possibly
be a relationship established such that funding bodies could equate
a grant for development work balanced against the income from
the production of an established work. Unless we help to provide
the base from which new writing can be developed, and nurtured,
we will not in future years have the luxury of a musical theatre
industry, which is currently the envy of the world.
Participation in theatre, and especially that
of young people, is another area in direct need of subsidy. The
participation of young people in musical theatre is widespread
throughout the UK, an indeed the rest of the world. Again, the
volume of school and young peoples' productions of musical theatre
works adds to their knowledge and to their education in many areas.
There are literally thousands of amateur productions of musicals
produced every year all over the UK providing participation experiences
for many people, young and old. These also provide an audience
for theatre for the future and, incidentally, again considerable
additional income to the Treasury. At the 2002 International Festival
of Musical Theatre over 792 young people participated in Festival
events, including disabled youngsters and those from disadvantaged
areas. The benefits these young people gained from this participation
are immeasurable, especially for those who are not academically
gifted, or who are disabled. For them to find an area in which
they can excel in is without price.
At the moment the Arts Council, the only direct
funding body for the arts, does not have a dedicated musical theatre
officer. They have officers for music, opera, drama. A large part
of the music subsidy goes to opera but any applications for funding
for mainstream musical theatre productions, even if these are
in the areas of new work, or education are not assessed by people
with a direct knowledge of the sector. This is because musical
theatre in this country is not viewed with the esteem in which
it is held, for instance, in the United States. There appears
to be a view that it is a purely commercial art form, and it should
be supported from within its own sector, ie by those producers
who benefit from the art form. It is also viewed as an art form
without artistic merit. Artistic merit and commercial success
are viewed as being mutually exclusive. It is time that this thinking
was eradicated. It is true that there are many musical theatre
productions of great artistic merit which are not commercially
successful, especially those experimental productions which have
been so successfully produced at the Bridewell Theatre. However
the industry should not be penalised because there are a few productions
which are commercially successful.
Musical theatre is at the heart of our cultural
life. In the area of the arts it has been the Cinderella for too
long. It is now time that proper support is given by public subsidy
to support this art form.
November 2003
|
