| A Book to Lower the Spirits |
Arts Council Uncovered |
| Max Stafford-Clark: Journal of the Plague Year , Nick Hern Books , February 20, 2014 |
The keys to this unhappy book are to be found in the preface and the epilogue. The choice of the adjective “unhappy” is a rare one. The author is unhappy; it is an unhappy tale it has to tell and it leaves the reader unhappy. The Arts Council of England is revealed. If this is its normal mode, and standard, of behaviour, it is unsettling. In the preface Out of Joint director Max Stafford-Clark tells of sending the material to editor Nick Hern: “He pointed out that I was attempting to write three books at once and suggested that one would be quite enough.” Hern was right. “Journal of the Plague Year” is a memoir in a small way, a diary in an unedited way, and a depiction of the relationship between England's funding body and a long-standing grant recipient. It is the last that makes the book unique. It is also deficient in analysis, authorial self-awareness and any conclusive summation. In the epilogue Stafford-Clark recounts that his manuscript was sent out a second time. It is sent to his “relationship manager” at Arts Council England. He receives no reply for two weeks and is told “we're still looking at it”. “I responded that I had not submitted the manuscript for vetting and had sent it to him as a friend”. In the end his friend's boss responds: “We're within our rights to refuse consent to publish.” So anonymity is requested. The principal player here is renamed as “Frank Endwright”. His manager becomes “George Darling”, the name taken from “Peter Pan.” The background to Stafford-Clark's plague year is stated in the first line of the book proper. Out of Joint had a two-decade record of production and touring. Productions like “the Permanent Way”, “Testing the Echo” and “the Big Fellah” had set it at a peak of theatre. On 30th March 2011 the company learned that its public funding was to be reduced by £99432, a drop of 20% from the prior £525000. Others had it worse in the funding round. Shared Experience lost all its funding. As co-director Polly Teale protested theirs was “a company run by women that has promoted the work of female writers, directors, designers, producers and, most visibly, actors.” The public subsidy represented 45% of income for Out of Joint whose turnover nudged into seven figures. The ensuing 166 pages tracks the author's responses to the financial blow. The word “friend” used when his manuscript is sent to the Council is revealing. A grant manager may become a friend over time but the connection remains. The bond is a financial one, the relationship is professional. The book unveils a lack of professionalism that is comprehensive . It is played out by both organisations and takes three principal forms. The most obvious is the nature of the documents with which company and funding body communicate. They are not corporate documents. They take the form of personal letters that span the personal and the organisational. The slithery cross-over is a regular. Frank mentions watching a Richard Attenborough documentary on YouTube. The subject is supposed to a Richard Bean script that requires nineteen actors. In the financial climate it is manifestly unfeasible. The personalisation of what is in essence organisational reporting also drifts towards prolixity. On 28th October 2011 a supposed report from Stafford-Clark rambles with erroneous detail and runs to 1300 words. On 31st December 2011 another letter of similar length jumbles its topics in an unordered way. The information flow is dispersed but fulsome. “This is the sixth letter I have written you since our meeting on 13th September” writes Stafford-Clark. By now it is 22nd October. The Arts Council's response is to engage in more letters. “I also had another rather tetchy letter from George Darling. He appeared irritated by the number of feedback letters.” Stafford-Clark does not understand, believing the Council is seeking his feedback. A decision has been made by the Council. That ought to be the end of story. The correspondence dribbles on for several reasons. One, as above, is the notion of friendship. The Council drops suggestions that more money might be available if the touring locations change. The Council has an idea of “cold spots” where audiences are under-served. Stafford-Clark in pursuit of this will-o-the-wisp meets the real Frank uncovered. He reveals little commitment to the company beneath the surface bonhomie. Graham Cowley, Out of Joint's producer, has a daily pell-mell of schedules, contracts, venues to make cohere. When asked about these “cold spots” Frank replies 8th June 2011: “in terms of “cold spots”- we're still developing a strategy around this, including a meaningful definition.” The Council has all the time in the world to ponder definitions that a ten-minute scour of a map would reveal. Four months later, 3rd October 2011, in response to another enquiry the answer is “unfortunately I can't give you an answer at the moment in relation to “cold spots”. The Arts Council is currently defining what is and what isn't a cold spot. We will have guidance about this later in the autumn.” The “we” does not indicate where this guidance is to come from. Towards the book's close Stafford-Clark reaches a conclusion: “a further letter attempted to draw out a clearer picture of what the Arts Council wanted from Out of Joint. This was curiously difficult to define.” The reader reaches the same conclusion. The company had its niche. Its record was exemplary. The Council takes a distant view referring to Out of Joint as a “provider.” The sentence notes the “subsidy per seat other “providers” could provide the same at lower cost.” Frank from his vantage point might offer benchmark comment, as to who these companies are and how they compare. Instead he dishes out: “the business plan needs to be effective- at, amongst other things, marshalling resources, expending them and generating income.” Frank manifestly cannot analyse a client company's cost structure. His language at one point has the odd “I would like to thank you for continuing to engage with us.” A meandering waffle on aesthetics follows. Stafford-Clark maintains a touching confidence in Frank's ability. 5th July 2011 a long letter asks advice on a production “should we ditch it?” But the Council is unable to reveal why it funds the company. The productions speak for themselves. The critics are eloquent and audiences are observable in both numbers and response. The company enters into laborious feedback cards and is then surprised that ACE has no interest in them. But the correspondence returns again and again to a ratio of subsidy-per-seat. The Council is manifestly unaware of Goodhart's Law. The business mission is to tour new drama. That has a development cost. (Richard Bean is the exception. He took his commission, wrote his play and as Stafford-Clark said at a question-and-answer session it needed not an amendment). Out of Joint changes its business mission. “For the first time in 19 years we did not produce a new play” he writes. “Top Girls” is revived. It requires no development and the name and playwright are known entities. So little surprise: the subsidy per seat ratio drops from “£24.56 to £13.77. The Council has no opinion as to whether it approves or disapproves with the company deviation from its distinctive programming, The Council likewise never explains why it has lopped off 20%. Its letters skip from topic to topic. The effect is obvious. The company is not spendthrift. The fixed costs are not easily reduced so the cut has to hit the variable cost. That is the cost of production. Less performance means the subsidy-per-seat rises. So the Council exacerbates the source of its dissatisfaction. The correspondence leads towards complaint at the size of the Council's reserves. Frank goes into a defence of his organisation that should not be. He also does not understand what he is writing about. The reserves are a balance sheet item of £114m. They are not cash as in Out of Joint's accounts. Stafford-Clark believes it to be a pile of hoarded cash. It is just a book entry that balances ACE’s ownership of a substantial art collection. The collection, running to over seven and a half thousand items, has a valuation of £114m. From the waffle of his response Frank too is equally clueless. The public is the beneficiary of great theatre. This book lowers the spirits. Whether the Max-and-Frank relationship is the norm or an exception only insiders will know. Out of Joint does not come over as a model of good governance. The Board whose concern this period should be plays no part. The Arts Council reveals itself as a drippy, uncertain organisation with a questionable discipline and fitness towards the domain over which it presides with great power. * * * * Notes: Goodhart's Law: “Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes. When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Out of Joint Productions reviewed on this site: “The Big Fellah” by Richard Bean reviewed 13th November 2010. “Testing the Echo” by David Edgar reviewed 17 June 2008, headed “Contender for Best Play of the Year.” * * * * 2017 postscript: Things did not go well for Max Stafford-Clark. His entry for Wikipedia documents for posterity his ousting from the company he had founded in 1993. 2020 postscript: Things did not go well for the company. In 2020 Arts Council England ended its public subsidy. |
Reviewed by: Adam Somerset |
This review has been read 1401 times There are 15 other reviews of productions with this title in our database:
|
