RAT talking about less shows and more pay

["Bottom's Dream" <bottomsdream@linkline.com>]

Joanna Weston
Chief Executive
Arts Council of Wales
26th January 2000
Dear Joanna Weston
At the meeting with ACW which Sion Eirian and myself attended as
representatives of the Writers Guild Welsh Committee you asked us to
provide you with figures regarding new writing provision from Arts
Council of England and Scottish Arts Council. In spite of the fact that
this information would have been easier for you - as Chief Executive of
a sister organisation - to obtain, I have expended a considerable amount
of my time and energy (not to mention phone bill!) in researching the
situation and what I have discovered makes for pretty depressing reading
for the theatre community in Wales and writers in particular.
The figures for Scotland are more accurate because of the way their
budget is broken down and presented and by virtue of the fact that they
specifically ring-fence money for new writing. In England it is more
difficult to be exact (for example I don't have a figure for how much of
RNT's £11 million funding goes towards the National Theatre Studio for
new writing) but I think I am pretty close to the mark.
In the financial year 1998-99
Scottish Arts Council spent 30% of their total drama budget on new
writing companies and commissions to writers amounting to a total of
£1,502,365. Out of 15 revenue funded companies, 7 are new writing
theatre companies. The number of companies which commissioned new work
from writers was 15 (a mixture of revenue and non-revenue funded
companies).
Arts Council of England spent over 15% of their total drama budget on
new writing companies and commissions to writers amounting to £4,012,424
(as I say, this doesn't include the proportion from RNT's £11 million or
RSC's £8.5 million). Out of 35 revenue funded companies, 17 are solely
or principally new writing theatre companies. The number of companies
which commissioned new work from writers was 62.
In 1998-99 10% of Arts Council of Wales total drama budget was spent on
new writing companies and commissions to writers amounting to £332,488.
This is made up of £257,250 to Made In Wales and Dalier Sylw and £75,238
before tax to writers in the form of commissions from other theatre
companies. Out of 17 companies on revenue funding, only 2 are new
writing theatre companies. The number of companies which commissioned
new work from writers was 7.
Scotland and England also have Regional Arts Boards which provide
funding to new writing whereas Wales does not.
As you see, we fared badly in comparison with England and Scotland even
before the Drama Strategy reared its ugly head. In the coming year we
are even worse off, despite ACW's assertion that new writing is an
important area (is this a new definition of the word 'important'?).
Scotland has prioritised new writing for the year 2000-2001. The
Scottish Office has increased the budget by half a million specifically
for theatre and emphasising new writing, taking the total drama budget
up to £5.7 million. They obviously see the link between a strong nation
and a strong new writing culture. They have ring-fenced £160,255 for new
writing in the form of commissions, bursaries and playwrights in
residence. The new writing companies will receive £1,615,000 in total.
That represents 31% of their total drama budget.
Arts Council of Wales on the other hand is cutting money to the new
writing companies by getting rid of one of them (and we only have two to
start with!) and NO other money from the drama budget is specifically
allocated to new writing. Funding agreements with companies do not
ring-fence money for new writing either and there appears to be no
obligation on them to commission new work. The new writing company will
receive £170,000 under current plans, which represents just over a
measly 4% of the total drama budget (calculating that to be £3.5
million, a figure given to me by Anna Holmes) for 2000-2001. Even
assuming that companies such as Hijinx (who you wanted to cut) and
Theatr Powys (who you wanted to cut) and Theatr Gwent (who you wanted to
cut), Bara Caws, Sherman and Spectacle continue to commission new work,
this is a reduction of 50% on your previous allocation. Commissions from
these companies will not bump up the figure by much because of the low
rate: £5309 per commission. (Scottish writers get £1000 more than that).
It is not known what the situation will be in England yet because they
are devolving to the Regional Arts Boards. But England did get a 15%
increase to the arts by comparison with our 2.8% and the RABs are
working with the Writers Guild to establish the funding provision. Here,
ACW seems keen to ignore expert opinion and intent on working against
bodies such as Writers Guild, WAPA and Equity.
It is notable that in England and Scotland half of the revenue funded
companies are new writing theatre companies. After April you plan that
Wales should only have one! Clwyd Theatr Cymru gets 30% of the total
drama budget and yet does next to no new work (we don't count
adaptations or translations). Is this fair? Is it right? As an actor I
applaud Clwyd Theatr Cymru's policy of employing a very high percentage
of Welsh actors. As a writer I am totally depressed by their record so
far. Is ACW saying that Welsh writers aren't good enough to have their
work produced? Given that a commission is only £5309 before tax do you
realise that if the new bi-lingual new writing company is only able to
produce 4 plays a year (and let us assume parity with 2 Welsh and 2 Engl
ish) then we are looking at a situation where English language writers
(and they make up the majority of playwrights in Wales) have two
commissions to pitch for a year (a jackpot of £10,618 before tax for two
winners!) and possibly less if one of the plays is a revival. Oh lucky
us!
You asked us if it matters where the work comes from as long as we still
get 18 commissions a year as we did in 1998-99. Well yes, it does matter
and this is not to denigrate the excellent work of the TIE or YPT
companies, whose commissions make up a very important part of new
writing in Wales. But we have to look at what kind of Welsh theatre
culture we want in the 21st century. I would say - and I am sure I speak
for other writers in WGGB here - that we should be aiming to create the
Welsh equivalent of the Royal Court, The Traverse and The Abbey. In that
respect, it matters very much where the new plays come from and what
sort of space and audience they are written for. By their very nature,
most TIE and YPT plays are not going to transfer to the Royal Court or
Broadway or be adapted into successful film scripts (as was the case
with Trainspotting, My Beautiful Launderette, Buddha of Suburbia,
Educating Rita and East is East for example). How do we project a
confident, vibrant Welsh voice onto the world stage when our own Arts
Council is cutting funding by 50% and reducing the amount of
opportunities to Welsh playwrights and consequently actors and
directors? You've got your priorities wrong, you should be investing
more money percentage-wise into new writing, not less. Have you
researched existing models of new writing theatre companies to see how
they were established, how they operate and whether that model would
work well for us? Have you investigated bi-lingual new writing theatre
companies to see if there are inherent difficulties? Have you in fact,
done any work at all on whether this cut-price forced-upon-us new
writing theatre company is the best option for Welsh culture? I suspect
not.
Like Dic Edwards I too despair when I hear Sybil Crouch saying that the
reversal over TIE shows you are a listening council. We have given
advice, pleaded, protested, cajoled, shouted ourselves hoarse and all
but gone down on bended knees to beg you to stop what you are doing. You
only listen when a gun is put to your head. And in the next breath Sybil
dismissed the opinion of 99% of the theatre profession in Wales by
saying that the council can't change its policy every time a few
individuals complain, as if we are just some luvvies having a tantrum.
Writers Guild, Equity, WAPA, WLGA, GALW, the TIE companies, the new
writing theatre companies - all opposed. Are these a 'few individuals'?
This isn't even about just saving Made In Wales or Dalier Sylw, the
issue is much bigger than that. You have no vision, there is no sense of
where you are leading us other than to the Job Centre. In comparison
with England our situation is dismal, in comparison with Scotland it is
tragic. Maybe I should rediscover my Scottish ancestry, because it
appears there will be next to no work in Welsh theatre for me or my
colleagues in the immediate future.
Yours despairingly,


Tracy Spottiswoode
At 09:29 PM 2/11/00 -0500, ActorsGng1@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 2/11/00 2:15:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>bottomsdream@linkline.com writes:
>
><<  believe we need to unite, and discuss compensation issues for each other.
>  There may be some ideas that could be shared. The 99 seat plan must be
>  talked about. If we are talking about expanding the theatrical landscape in
>  LA toward a more professional environment,an environment which affords
>  theatre artists to earn decent pay, then we really need to look at the AEA
>  plan. No actor will earn a living in LA theatre as long as that plan exists
>  as is. If you say, Then I won't be able to produce, I say why not? Have we
>  REALLY thought that through. I will forward a letter from Australia that
>  Kelly Stuart sent me and it could be useful as a starting point for
>  discussion. This isn't only our problem. It's an LA problem, it's a
>  California problem, and we are going to get their help with compensation
>  grants. we have to make a stand. status quo sucks.My two cents.
>  Mitchell
>
>
>   >>
>  My two cents is...aside from being less than the market value of anything
>you can buy on the market...if people want to look at the AEA 99-seat plan,
>they have my blessing, I just don't want our own (as theatre artists)
>examination of the plan and exploration of changes used as an excuse by
>Equity to condemn it. ("Hey look, even the producers think it sucks!")
>Personally, I'm against trying to make L.A. fit in the model of any other
>city (because it can't be) and I am of the belief that there is no way
>(without large government or corporate subsidies) for most people doing
>theater in L.A. to make a living doing it. (How many poets, painters,
>sculptors and novelists are there in L.A. and how many make a living at their
>art?)  And I vehemently despise anyone who thinks that being professional at
>what you do is equated with whether or not (or how much) you paid to do it.
>Some of the most unprofessional people I know in L.A. are people who get paid
>a lot of money to do what they consider their profession. And some of the
>most professional people I know don't get paid squat.
>If they used that argument in Paris in the 20's, a lot of great painters
>would have been considered "unprofessional".
>
>Mark Seldis