Read on Twitter
The problem with theatre is that a desire to be a bastion of democracy and radical social change isn't particularly compatible with quaffing champagne on an invite-only press night.
And by this I mean we spend a lot of our time convincing ourselves of the social benefit of our work and then working in a way that undermines that impact. And I don't think we're very good at acknowledging that on a personal, institutional or sectoral level.
In her recent podcast with Tarana Burke, @BreneBrown talks about how people today really struggle to admit they hold contradictory views. I think that's one of theatre's problems. We say one thing (a lot) but we behave a different way (a lot).
Like saying how welcoming we are, but then closing the bar for a Coutts cultivation event. Or charging £5 for a lemonade. Or making our plays to please critics and gatekeepers. Or Press Nights. Or complaining about the elitism of awards but loving it when we get nominated.
And that's why there hasn't been a huge outpouring of public support for saving theatre, and why the arguments that won the bailout are about soft power, economics and national pride. Theatre has been saved because it feels elite and important, not democratic and useful.
If we're going to democratise theatre then we need to be honest about how some of the things that make us feel like we're successful (press nights, five star reviews, name-dropping, award-ceremonies sponsored by Taittinger) are almost certainly incompatible with achieving it.
