National theatres: mission (im)possible?

On the occasion of its reopening to the public, after renovation works, the National Theatre S. João (NTSJ) organised a promising international colloquium on the theme “National Theatres: missions, tensions, transformations”. In its own words, this would be “an event of multiple-voiced reflection that is also intended as a self-questioning gesture: an international conference in which we will provide an inter pares diagnosis and prognosis for an institution that, though somewhat ancient, remains very much alive.”

With his opening speech, Pedro Sobrado, Chairman of the Board, reinforced our expectations through an extensive questioning:

Can the repertoire be more than a cliché, or a cramped catalogued of the same plays by the very same authors?

What is the place of the proclaimed “excellence” in National Theatres, a piece of wood where we sometimes cling to like shipwrecked when the vessel has broken up?

How to reconcile the principle of exigency and the imperative of accessibility?

And how to ensure that intellectual accessibility does not slip into condescension, a virus fatal to art?

Is it possible that the stage continues to be a place for taking political positions without converting it into a school of morality and civility, according to the old and coarse romantic formula of the National Theatre?

How to reconcile the commitment to experimentation and artistic risk and the principles of effectiveness and efficiency which a public organisation must necessarily guarantee?

How to reconcile the flexibility that artistic creation requires with rigid legal and administrative procedures, typical of a state organisation?

Is there a way to guarantee that the fixed costs of the structure that involve the internal remuneration policy do not take the breath away from artistic creation?

How to provide exceptional financial, technical and logistical conditions to companies and other structures without implying a smaller number of co-production projects?

Is it possible to establish a real language policy in a National Theatre?

How to maintain the transgressive charm or congenial insubordination of the Theatre, ensuring institutional credibility with patrons and investors?

What is the role of a National Theatre in the international validation of the culture of a country and its artists?

How to capture and form an audience for the theatre, responding to such culturally diverse interests?

How many work fronts can a National Theatre open – educational project and connection to the community, editorial and documental programme, management and promotion of classified heritage, digital programming, connection to universities and research centres, structured partnership with artistic schools, accessibility programme – how many work fronts can a National Theatre open without ceasing to be, first and foremost, a stage, that is, a place that deepens and exceeds its own talent?

(text kindly provided by the author and translated by myself)

Thinking about the colloquium as a whole, unfortunately, it did not come to “favor and expand” this questioning, as expected. In my opinion, there are two main reasons for this:

Firstly, the vast majority of guests spoke, essentially, about what their theatre does, regardless of whether the panel's theme was missions, tensions or transformations. In other words, there was not exactly a questioning, a critical reflection, which would allow us to look at the “what” in terms of the general theme proposed by the session. This is a very common problem in our sector, that is, the inability to go beyond the “what” and think about the “why”.

Then, on two of the three panels, the people who moderated were journalists. Having, undoubtedly and thanks to their profession, the ability to moderate a debate that is intended to be effective and dynamic, they do not necessarily have the specific knowledge needed in order to insist and try to deepen references that remain on the surface or to confront them with the current discussions taking place in the sector, both nationally and internationally. It should also be noted that the second panel was not moderated at all: the second speaker was allowed to speak for about an hour on various topics (I can't say which) and the third, to speak for half an hour about the indifference and ingratitude of young people in his country – my desperation and discomfort made me leave before the panel was concluded, when we were already close to three hours in duration…

Photo: Maria Vlachou

That said, there were two communications that stood out and that determined, for me, my overall positive opinion about the colloquium:

Mark O'Brien, co-director and executive director of Abbey Theater (Ireland), participated in the first panel, which discussed the missions of national theatres. He was joined by two other directors, Cláudio Longhi (Piccolo Teatro di Milano) and Sebastián Blutrach (Teatro Nacional Cervantes, where he works as art and production advisor, as well as artistic director of Teatro Picadero), and also Ricardo Pais, former director of the NTSJ (and, in my opinion, a small casting error on this panel).

As I listened to the speakers, I searched the websites of the institutions that represented for their mission statements. Not surprisingly, the Italian and Argentine theatres do not have a defined and publicly communicated mission. Perhaps that was also why the speakers did not go beyond a description of their functions and why they confused these functions with the mission or the mission with statements such “a theatre for all”. Ricardo Pais reinforced this confusion when he said that the mission/function of the NTSJ is defined by law and that the rest depends on the personality of whoever is directing it… It would be worth thinking about this: the law says the same in relation to TNSJ and the National Theatre D. Maria II, but their activity (what) does not appear to have the same mission (why); will it not be something more than what is described in the law? Should we, at the same time, conclude that the director of Piccolo Teatro goes to work every day without a purpose because Italian law does not define, as he would like, the mission of the theatre he directs?

On the other hand, Mark O'Brien told us that the Abbey Theatre's ambition is to bring upon the stage Ireland's deepest thoughts; to confront its own paradigm; to make people reflect on their relationship with the status quo (“if you don’t think it exists, you´re probably part of it”) and to question normality. With the year of 2021 marking 100 years after the partition of Ireland, Mark further told us that the Abbey Theatre was not born to reflect the State, but to make the State; he criticised the “democratic dictatorships” that some theatres have become; he questioned who is on stage (he also referred to the open letter against the production model adopted by the theatre, signed in 2019 by more than 300 theatre professionals, as the greatest love letter); he highlighted the relevance not only of the past, but of the contemporary, the present and the future (“who writes the future?”); he drew the image of a place where people are invited to build something together (“ban outreach”) and stated that we should try to bring people together based on their values ​​rather than their beliefs. In everything Mark said we see reflected what the Abbey Theater assumes to be its mission.

Jackie Wylie is the artistic and executive director of the National Theatre of Scotland. She participated in the panel on transformations, along with Anna Bergman (director of Badisches Staatstheater Karlshrue) and Michael de Cock (artistic director of KVS, Brussels). Jackie's communication stood out for several reasons. First, because the National Theatre of Scotland is a theater without walls (“a natural step in the process”) and presents its programming in other theatres, pubs, in the mountains, in submarines; it does not create hierarchies between different forms of theatre (professional, community, etc.), it seeks to enable anyone's ambition and does not put excellence first (“defined by the privilege of white cisgender men”). The National Theatre of Scotland believes that there is not a stable national identity and it follows changes in values ​​assumed as “Scottish”, highlighting at this point tolerance, care and well-being (especially, in the face of Brexit, which most Scots opposed). “You don’t get to be national because it’s in your name,” Jackie said. It is a never-finished project in constant development, daily. She questioned how a national theatre reflects the nation today and, above all, what its future will be, and not just past identities. “Let us tr a utopian version of what the future might look like and take responsibility for taking the nation through a debate. Let's look for stories that are untold or undertold.” Again, it is worth confronting this positioning with what the National Theatre of Scotland assumes to be its identity.

What distinguished these two communications was clarity of thought and purpose; a conscious action, anchored in the mission and in specific values; a concrete notion of what constitutes “community” and the service that should be rendered to it. The management of most cultural organisations continues to fail in this regard. Without a defined mission, and often confusing it with specific functions or activities, they lack the guidance and consistency that this instrument brings to an organisation. And they also lack accountability. Perhaps, this is really why we avoid defining it…

Further reading:

Mark Fisher, Stage of the nation: what does it mean to be a national theatre?, in The Guardian, 15.1.2019