For almost two years now, I have been researching the phenomenon of state theatres in Romania, where I live. The presence of this institutional form has remained very strong here, even after the 1989 political changes—similar to several other post-communist countries like Hungary and Poland. Put simply, being a state, public, or national theatre means having a mostly steady, yearly subsidy—either directly from the Ministry of Culture and National Identity or from their city or regional councils—and that their modus operandi is determined and approved by the administrative body they belong to.
When I look at the system, I mostly see a struggling structure that is not mutually beneficial, not at all transparent, and fairly undemocratic.
There are over fifty theatres subsidized this way in the country, and the millions of dollars of their annual support comes in the form of taxpayers’ money. Today, seven of these theatres are funded directly by the Ministry of Culture and National Identity and, in 2019, the total amount of their state subsidy was $32,032,856 USD—the smallest received being $2,600,000 USD and the largest being $11,180,000 USD. Between 75 percent and 91 percent of these sums go towards the maintenance of buildings, infrastructure, and payroll—which includes a company of twenty-five to thirty actors and a couple of in-house directors and dramaturgs—usually leaving very small amounts for production, program and audience development, and experimental projects.
This uneven distribution of money alone shows the urgent need for rethinking the organizational and financial management of these public theatres and, certainly, for the redesign of the entire theatre funding system in Romania.
I was curious about how the Romanian State defines the role of theatre, how it defines its operations, and what it actually thinks about public benefit, for which it hands out these sums. Because for me, a democratic public theatre means horizontal and collaborative work between managers, artists, and people from the fields of social sciences and art theory, together with the actually included audience and proactive local community, who assume mutual responsibility and roles in supporting their institution. However, the wording of the current legislation leaves out the public, local communities, and the people whose money is actually redistributed towards these institutions, mentioning them only circumstantially and in a superficial manner.
I believe that what a public cultural institution means should be redefined from the perspective of the people around it: its artists, employees, and, most importantly, its audiences. Thus, as an exercise, I want us to collectively rewrite parts of the Minister’s Orders towards one of its seven theatres regarding their rules of organizing and functioning by imagining a future public theatre, organized by and around its community, that could become reality.
This uneven distribution of money alone shows the urgent need for rethinking the organizational and financial management of these public theatres and, certainly, for the redesign of the entire theatre funding system in Romania.
The public theatre (PT) that I imagine for this scenario is a collectively organized public cultural institution that response to its local community and is funded through:
- its local administrations budget,
- private donations, and
- its own income.
The organization and functioning of the PT is based on this community-written document, which is publicly reviewed and edited once every year.
The review is executed by all gathered members of the community who want to actively take part in the process. Upon the reading of the document, suggestions can be presented and will be debated during a forum. If consensus is reached, the suggested edit will occur.
The PT organizes its activities based on the needs of locals, including not only its public, but also all non-theatregoers, its building’s immediate neighbors, local artistic communities, and marginalized groups.
In order to have knowledge about these needs, the PT organizes yearly public meetings, where the current collaborators of the institution listen to their gathered public. The goal of these meetings is to offer an open space where locals can:
- talk about what interests or bothers them on a daily basis,
- share their personal experience regarding the PT’s functioning and programing,
- give feedback about the PT’s presented works and activities, and
- express their desires regarding the PT’s curation and programming.
Comments
The article is just the start of the conversation—we want to know what you think about this subject, too! HowlRound is a space for knowledge-sharing, and we welcome spirited, thoughtful, and on-topic dialogue. Find our full comments policy here
For all its known disadvantages and shortcomings, some listed above, the paid-by-the-state theatre system has also a number of important advantages that any theatre practitioner shouldn't discard in the name of 'community' or 'education'. Theatre is NOT a substitute for 'community' or 'education'. If these 2 have been decimated in the West by means of neo-liberal policies and destructive capitalism it is not the primary job of the theatre to become a substitute for them. Also, your approach seem to favour the 'Wester cultural manager' as central to a model for theatre making that is largely an American model. This model in the past 20 years has produced nothing of true relevance if we are to look at the state the world is in, that is something the theatre could have least debated if not directly changed. Regarding the state-funded theatre model, it allows theatres in Eastern Europe to have and build a repertory they want, and to perfect that repertory over time (to rehears a play for 1 year is still common). The ticket price was always low and it still is, so that everybody and I mean everybody can attend performances over a long period of time (2 years for a play is quite common). State-funded theatres are repertory theatres and ensemble driven theatres where creativity leads and actors have the security to perform on stage since they are salaried employees of the theatre that have rights. This aspect appears at least neglected if not discarded by your article. As an independent theatre company in the West you are tied to a 5-week process from page to stage that is seldom enough to develop the work the actors and the director plus creative team want but it seem that cultural managers, marketings honchos and greedy producers are very happy with to bask about as a 'good model'. And then, the show has at best a 12-week run which is a short to very passable run where the price of a ticket is very relevant to generate profit and recoup costs. The ultimate issue in my opinion refers to having access to a creative space... practically you need space to do be in a position to make theatre and build an audience. Bearing in mind space is a commodity in the West that is where the issue is creeping in the East too. Most theatre practitioners struggle to the point of giving up, to find spaces to do their work, to plough their trade. In this area it is true that state theatres could do more to share the space and comprehensive stage resources they have and it is also true they avoid to share these as much as possible in the East and invoke too often the prerogative of their special status. Then again if the 'state' or 'mayor' would make available more spaces - that are still plentiful in the East - where artists could do their work the interest to perform in what are generally old proscenium theatres would very likely dissolve and a new theatres would emerge elsewhere and in my opinion thieir reperotory wouldn't have to answer to the demands of the market or capitalism or avoid to upset the Western corrupt consensus (for fear of not getting funding).