Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:37:07.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Arts Council Touring Franchise and English Political Theatre after 1986

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2009

Ian Brown ,
Robert Brannen  and
Douglas Brown
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The pressures of Thatcherism on theatre funding in the 'eighties were severe, but the early harshness was tempered by several factors. One was the positive influence of the Cork Report, particularly on touring and experimental theatre. Another, the authors believe, was a careful strategy of reallocation of funding to support creativity in English theatre, notably through the touring franchise scheme. Here, they analyze in detail the ways in which the English Arts Council operated the scheme in an attempt to revitalize aspects of English theatre from 1986 onwards, trace the change in the values of ‘political’ theatre over that period, and critically examine some received ideas in the light of the available evidence. Ian Brown is Dean of Arts and Professor of Theatre at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, Rob Brannen is a Senior Lecturer in Drama at De Montfort University, Bedford. Douglas Brown is Assistant Director, Scottish Centre for Cultural Management and Policy, at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Theatre Quarterly , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , November 2000 , pp. 379 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes and References

1. Theatre Is for All, The Report of the Inquiry into Professional Theatre in England under the Chairman-ship of Sir Kenneth Cork (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1986), para. 2.

2. For a detailed discussion of this, see Brown, Ian and Brannen, Rob, ‘When Theatre was for All: the Cork Report after Ten Years’, New Theatre Quarterly, XII, No. 48 (11 1996), p. 367–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Boyden, Peter, Roles and Functions of the English Regional Producing Theatres: Final Report to the Arts Council of England, May 2000 (Bristol: Peter Boyden Associates, 2000)Google Scholar.

4. Ibid., p. 375.

5. Ibid.

6. Brown, private conversation with Luke Rittner, then Secretary-General, Arts Council of Great Britain, December 1986.

7. Reported by A.C.G.B. Drama company officer.

8. All such figures in this paper are derived from the relevant Arts Council of Great Britain/England Annual Report for the first year of the company's franchise funding.

9. These words were used annually thereafter, for example in ‘Triennial Review of Non-Building-Based Companies’, circular letter from Kathleen Hamilton, Acting Drama Director, Arts Council of England, 29 January 1996.

10. A more complex version of this table is to be found in Brown and Brannen, op. cit, p. 377.

11. Besides those already listed for 1992–97, Out of Joint and Forced Entertainment were adopted and Gay Sweatshop cut, as is discussed later.

12. Brown and Brannen, op. cit.

13. Sierz, Aleks, ‘British Theatre in the 1990s: a Brief Political Economy’, Media, Culture and Society, XIX, No. 3 (07 1997), p. 466Google Scholar.

14. Bull, John, Stage Right (London: Macmillan, 1994), p. 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Ibid.