Does  the UK’s National Theatre reflect the UK? Divisions over Brexit, elite metropolitans vs countryside; populism/commercial vs artistic; identity wars - gender; state funding vs commercial funding. Leftist vs Rightist. Small state vs large state. [Not so far as to look at State Capacity Liberterians, cf. Dominic Cummings (?) H/T Tyler Cowen]

Helen Lewis takes on these ideas in a review of the National Theatre as an organisation and its conflicts with a dose of the Arts Council (after an interesting take on how the state effectively subsidises the commercial by allowing artists to develop in the state sector first).

Lewis notes the new language at Arts Council of “relevance” instead of “excellence” although with some push back that one can be both excellent and relevant.

Many commentators (theatre practitioners in my feed) on Twitter have critiqued the binary and polarised juxtapositions - which reflect debates on gender, and Brexit; and places David Hare (as a proponent of canon, traditionalists and, supposedly, an elite; remain) opposite Stella Duffy (as community, Leave). 

Comments like: 

NT primarily artistic or social? Can’t it be both?

Excellence or relevance? I write plays to be both.

I think those comments have validity, but I don’t think Lewis was proposing the nuance or spectrum here.

Lewis was asking if the conflicts at the NT reflected conflicts at a nation(s) state level. That the NT itself is a state of the nation play. And in that, Lewis draws some comparisons that do seem to reflect this idea. (Toilets one battle ground). This I think is interesting for non-theatre makers. Or, once you move past the opposing construct, it gives some intriguing insights into the conflicts that an organisation like the NT has.

Do our institutions reflect our society? Often institutions are more ossified and slower moving than where society is, in my observations. So the idea that the NT is of its time (and that some of its debates eg Peter Hall vs the Unions) stretch back in history.

On that idea, if the left did win the battle of culture and the NT is a result of that, but if the right have won the ideas on market economics - a binary that I’m not entirely sure I agree - and are currently re-shaping institutional funding - does the NT survive because it is as cherished as the NHS or as important as science funding; or does it decay attacked by left and right (cf. BBC) for losing of relevance - neither excellent nor popular rather than both excellent and popular?

Given Lewis interviewed some of our major theatre figures like Stella Duffy, David Hare, Rufus Norris, Dan Rebellato - I would have loved longer notes and insights into what they actually thought.

Full article in the Atlantic here.

Lewis’ take on subsidised theatre subsidising commercial.

My £10K microgrants programme here.

Me on what theatre teaches business.

Zadie Smith Q&A here and her writing tips here.

Hear about the chat with legendary agent, Mel Kenyon.

Some notes from listening to the literary manager of the Royal Court, Chris Campbell. (soon to be at Oberon Books)

Be inspired by Artistic Director, Kate Wasserberg’s Dauntless Theatre.