A tall story too Farr

Published Monday 18 June 2007 at 18:05

When Simon Reade and David Farr took over the Bristol Old Vic in 2003, their spin was that during Andy Hay’s 10-year tenure it had all been dross, but they had entered a brave new world. Neither of those propositions can be stood up, but the press bought it. An egregious example is a woman who reported in The Observer that things under Hay had come to such a pass financially that a collection bucket was habitually passed around the audience in the Theatre Royal. This story can only have been spun to her by the new regime. A serious reporter would have found out it was nonsense. But then she would not have had the story - London stars come to the rescue of the dullard provinces - that she wanted to write.

She would also have found out what she should already have known from cuttings, that Hay’s regime, which had a number of dud shows, also produced its share of good to excellent ones. A short list would include a striking and brave Marat/Sade, a nationally admired Streetcar, with Tara Fitzgerald, Berkoff’s Decadence, a truly haunting Christmas Carol (of all things), an Irish-cast Playboy of the Western World, visits from Kneehigh, at least one memorable Shakespeare (AMND), world premieres of plays by Jim Cartwright (Stone Free and Little Voice), Catherine Johnson (Too Much Too Young), Kwame Kwei-Armah (Blues Brother Soul Sisters), and my own play about Bristol docks, Up The Feeder, Down the Mouth. All those were produced on Arts Council funding which was roughly half that granted to the brave new world. Hay worked tirelessly to invite all of Bristol to enter his theatre, even if only for a lunchtime sandwich.

In 2003 the walls of the theatre were stripped of all mention - photos, posters, whatever - that anything worth remembering had happened there since 1766. It was like airbrushing Trotsky. The very names of the theatres were changed. So were the staff. Within a few months every production-department head (some of them outstanding at their job) had been sacked or had resigned in disgust, and sometimes their replacements quit within months. Reade is not strong on personnel relations. He did not say goodbye to his doomed staff.

With very rare minor exceptions, local talent - actors, directors, writers, designers - was contemptuously ignored.

Anything worth having must come down the M4. A month-long Mayfest in the studio did annually showcase local companies, but only on a box-office split. Most damaging for any producing theatre, not one new play was initiated by the BOV on the stage of the Theatre Royal. That was policy, affirmed to me by Reade in his first month. Sure, there were endless book adaptations, almost all of them adapted by Reade or Farr. It was more like going to the Library Royal. Even in the studio I can remember only two new plays for grown-ups, and at least one of them was done only with something close to £20k upfront from the playwright. From, not to. Was the Arts Council content with that as a policy for new writing in a major subsidised company? It is a scandal. No one will be to blame.

For four years the spin was industrial strength, as shameless as Blair’s. Probably, like Blair, they really believed it themselves, and always will. In Bristol it was derided, but Bristol never mattered to Reade and Farr.

It was national reputation they were after, above all in London. I’ve heard them pay lip service to the legacy they came into at the BOV, but the fact is that they squandered it, and cheesed off a major segment of the audiences they inherited, hence the colossal deficits. The Rivals did 34%. I doubt if any show in the Andy Hay period went that low. I have sat in houses nearer empty than full and later seen the show described as a “sell-out run”. The theatregoing audience in Bristol is not so easily fooled. It will pack out Shakespeare at the Tobacco Factory for two months. The revival of my docks play, On The Waterfront, Andy Hay’s last initiative, was sold out before it opened, in all selling 20,000 seats.

Early on, the Board realised things were not looking good and there was a proposal that the new directors be asked to leave, while they were still in their probationary period. The Arts Council rep said, if you do that we will have to consider withdrawing our grant funding. At that, three members of the Board resigned in protest.

Which means that the Arts Council have to answer for what has happened now. So do the current Board.

Did they really think that everything was just fine until they saw the latest balance sheets? And, finally, the press might (they won’t) recall that they are our critical defence against mendacity.

ACH Smith

Email address supplied