At this year's Theatre Forum in Cork, grievances were aired, grudges were nursed and gossip was eagerly exchanged. But everyone agreed that Irish theatre is still worth talking about, writes Sara Keating.
'IS IT worth it?" was the question posed by this year's Theatre Forum conference, the annual industry gathering for the performing arts. It was a big question to ask and on paper it seemed to encompass an almost impossibly endless arena of interrogation, from an abstract philosophical analysis of the value of art to society to a more concrete economic enquiry into the crucial question of whether art merits state support.
Over the course of two days a series of panel discussions, keynote speeches and lectures sought to address the various strands of evaluation. Dancer Colin Dunne and the conference curator Ronan Smith interrogated the value of failure when making art, asking what failure means to the creative process. Actor Stephen Brennan and Paul Johnson of Dance Ireland questioned the economic conditions for performing artists, asking whether the hardship is worth the sacrifice. The heads of the Helix Theatre and the Project Arts Centre, Una Carmody and Willie White, cross-examined concepts of art and market value, asking how ticket prices might be matched against access policies while ensuring standards of artistic excellence. Composer John Browne and Ray Yeates of Axis Ballymun probed the public value of community-based art, asking whether its social agenda made it more vital or less "excellent" than purist art pursuits. Other panels addressed contemporary funding possibilities, the role of the Arts Council, and the perennial difficulty of selling tickets.
"Is it worth it?" each of the panels asked, when the rewards are so fragile and so few. And while there was a tacit acceptance that the arts never were, and are never likely to be, a profitable capitalist enterprise, there was far less emotional engagement with the reasons why theatre continues to thrive despite such difficulties. Without trivialising the very real economic pressures on theatre practitioners, at times it seemed as if the apex of artistic aspirations these days was the achievement of regular public subsidy; as if corporate sponsorship was more important than creative plans; as if theatre is really just an industry.
In light of the focus on such practical issues, the keynote speech by Romanian actor/director Ion Caramitru seemed a particularly dispassionate disappointment. Caramitru's experience of creating theatre under the most adverse circumstances during the Romanian revolution represents how artistic idealism can make a concrete contribution to the social and political fabric. However, translation issues conspired with a general sense of confusion about the objectives of his address, providing little stimulation for the idealists in attendance. The other central event at the conference - a panel discussion themed "Worth What Exactly?" chaired by UCD psychology professor, Ciarán Benson - proved even more unsatisfactory, also failing to provide any creative inspiration to excite the social or artistic conscience .
From the outset, the panel seemed a curious collective, three out of the four having no practical experience in the performing arts. Perhaps the "outsider's eye" was designed to prompt reflection on how contemporary theatre is valued from a distance, one delegate suggested generously. However, the bizarre 90-minute showdown between panellists and theatre practitioners left a bad taste in the mouths of many. Prof Joe Cleary of NUI Maynooth began the debate, but his speech was weighed down by history and theory, and disconnected from contemporary performance. He went on criticise Irish theatre today for its failure to ask fundamental questions of society and to effect change.
In the question-and-answer session that followed, Declan Gorman of Upstate Theatre Company responded directly to what he called Cleary's "patronising" attitude, challenging his academic view of theatre practice. As Gorman listed the work of recent public art projects performed by theatre companies, many of which actively engaged with political change as well as particular communities, Gorman's question reinforced the sense of missed opportunity about the panel's address. Upstate Theatre Company - which has worked extensively on the peace and reconciliation process on both sides of the border - have recently had their Arts Council funding cut, reinforcing the necessity for debate about the value of socially active art when measured against artistic excellence.
THE PRESCIENCE OF Gorman's point, however, was swallowed up by the audience reaction to Mary Raferty's speech, which closed the panel debate and marked the beginning of an evening in which the real issues at stake for practitioners continued to be sidelined, this time for the pleasures of spicy gossip. While Raftery introduced herself as a documentary maker who trades in fact, her entire 20-minute speech addressed the recent Abbey/Druid schism in what came across as a one-sided argument. Pitching her tent very squarely in the Druid camp, Raferty berated the theatre community for the lack of outrage at the Abbey's purchase of rights to the O'Casey canon.
That Fiach MacConghail, director of the Abbey Theatre, sat in an aisle seat directly in her line of vision, made Raftery's address seem particularly pointed. When the floor was finally opened up to the audience, MacConghail gave a dignified response without resorting to the argy-bargy tone brewing among the audience and, at this stage, the panel. Instead, he tersely explained the Abbey's position: that he believes that the opportunity to reinvent the O'Casey should be given to younger practitioners, rather than directors of his own generation.
Project artistic director Willie White, meanwhile, argued that the reason there was no outrage was that nobody really cared. The business of rights, he said, is indeed a business, a negotiation for every play produced throughout the world, and not just the sacred cows of the canon. He said that the theatre community was more interested in producing work that spoke to the future rather than the past, expressing his frustration that, once again, the real issues - the question of artistic value and community collaboration - were again being sidelined.
The Abbey/Druid drama continued to dominate during the evening's entertainment, the initial hilarity at the resurgence of the topic during the table quiz being somewhat tempered by the fact that it was a Druid company member bringing the whole issue up again. With Garry Hynes herself due to arrive the next morning for a public conversation with Prof Ciarán Benson, the potential for high theatrics seemed endless, although in the dawn hangover there was to be no pantomime. Instead Hynes's fascinating account of her career finally provided a glimpse of how "worth it" the pursuit of theatrical excellence can be. The Abbey is "naturally a national news story", she replied briefly when asked about the current state of play, "and of course I'm disappointed , but you have to move on."
AS DELEGATES BROKE away for the parallel sessions, however, the business of theatre took precedence again, with a variety of conversations about the ongoing funding crisis for the arts. In one such session, Johnny Hanrahan of Meridian Theatre Company, and incoming chair of Theatre Forum, expressed his concern at the dispirited and defeatist tone of much of the dialogue, ending with a rallying call for the theatre community to remember why they got involved in theatre in the first place. Mark O'Rowe's eloquent and understated contribution from the previous day, about the pressures and pleasures of being a writer - "there's a real purity in the fact that you could never be accused of doing it for the money," he joked - echoed throughout Hanrahan's speech. Creative passion, he reminded delegates, should be at the core of any successful lobby for continued public support.
The status of actors in contemporary Irish theatre was at the forefront of many discussions at this year's Theatre Forum. Michael Colgan's soapbox address, "It's time to tell the truth", expressed serious concern about the future of actors in Ireland. A culture of equality has stifled the capacity for excellence, he said, leaving no room for "stars" in Ireland, even when it is such stars that will sell the tickets. His comments complemented the call for more transparent peer review during one parallel session, which called for theatre artists to take a hard look at their practice and honestly evaluate their contribution to Irish theatre, as well as Irish society, before appealing to the public coffers.
Annie Ryan of Corn Exchange chaired a panel addressing the need for increased mobilisation among the acting community. With widespread agreement about the failures of Actor's Equity to support actors' rights and needs, the actors in attendance began to seriously discuss the option of establishing an actor-led organisation to fill in the gap.
The high number of actors in attendance, unusual at Theatre Forum events, was seen as a positive indicator, although Louis Lovett, at the conference closing session, expressed a view that even within Theatre Forum structures actors were being discriminated against. As individual members, rather than institutional members, they are unable to vote, and that's surely something to be considered before next year's annual meeting.
