George Gunn’s Personal Vision of a National Theatre

The Commissioning Editor of the Arts Journal invited a number of notable figures on the Highland Theatre scene to respond to two questions about the National Theatre of Scotland . The results of the survey will appear later this month, but GEORGE GUNN, the artistic director of Grey Coast , went above and beyond the call of duty in this characteristically passionate and provocative response.

THE SCOTTISH THEATRE COMMUNITY, as it is currently constituted, absolutely needs a National Theatre of Scotland, but not in the ways imagined by the majority of its artistic directors.

I well remember sitting in conferences in Edinburgh in 1986 and 1992, both of which discussed the wheres and wherefores of a Scottish National Theatre. On both occasions the notion was pooh pooh’d by the theatrical establishment. The reasons were that the existing body of Scottish theatre in its constituent parts, i.e. its companies, represented a “national” theatre; that a National Theatre would drain money away from those companies; and that anyway the whole thing was a nationalistic throwback in an age of “internationalism”.

This latter notion emanated from the so-called left wing of the Scottish theatre culture, from those companies and individuals closely linked with the Labour Party and the Trade Union movement. That their voices articulated the most reactionary arguments was always an irony I found difficult to feel detached from. So here we are in 2004, the National Theatre is to become a reality: what has changed since the late eighties and the early nineties?
 

Well, for a start there is a lot less money in the theatre business, in both relative and real terms. Devolution is a reality and the lumpen Unionist phalange of the Scottish Labour party has been dragged into the de-centralised 21st century. Whether the current commissioning body which the National Theatre will begin as is the perfect model is open for debate, but the fact of its existence cannot be denied, so the artistic directors of all Scottish theatre companies are going to have live with it, whether they like it or not, so it is far better to express your support for the beast and see how it can work for you than to predict that it will fail.

“Sometimes I think that being a theatre maker in theHighlands is a bit like being a character in Calderon’s play Life Is A Dream, as directed by Oor Wullie.”

The model, after all, is an industry creation, emanating from the Federation of Scottish Theatre, which is the body which represents all professional theatre companies in Scotland. So The National Theatre, as it stands, is the expressed desire of the Scottish theatre producers. The benefits to them are obvious: access to more funding and a heightening of profile under the National Theatre banner, an opening up of previously inaccessible audiences, longer rehearsal times and a general increase in resources. These are things any artistic director desires. I have no doubt that once the individual companies put their petty chauvinisms to one side the National Theatre of Scotland will be a success – in the central belt.
 

Like the world’s poor, it is our tragedy that we do not know how many of us there are supposed to be. The arts development establishment claims that there are about twenty of us, that we must be approached with caution, and that some of us are more dangerous and unruly than others. Those of us who have being playing in the street/strath for some time now are amazed and confused to be told of our profusion and wonder why it is, then, that we feel so all alone?

The truth is there are not twenty, or however many it seems appropriate to claim on that particular day, theatre companies in the Highlands and Islands. The very notion is absurd, disingenuous and proclaims that in our numbers is our weakness. To constantly quote quantity over any sense of purpose is to undermine the development of theatre making in the Highlands, which is of and from the place.
 

All such numbers nonsense does is deprive indigenousHighland theatre makers of any sense of direction or of hope that the funders and arts development agencies take the creation of a truly Highland theatrical voice seriously. They patently do not, as the sums on offer through the Highland Producers Fund (administered by HI~Arts and the Scottish Arts Council) prove. A maximum grant of £30k determines what kind of product you can create. It acts as a lid upon the pressure cooker of theatrical creativity.

“Staying still is a form of artistic and cultural death in the Highlands – it is as equally expensive as moving on.”

My contention is that a National Theatre of Scotland could help change that. For a start it would allow us to ditch Oor Wullie as director and perhaps allow us to change our play for one which allows us to see the reality of the situation in which contemporary Highland theatre finds itself. For a start, there are only three major players in the Highlands in production, funding and infrastructure terms.
 

There are other fine groups such as Dogstar and Theatre@Highland who exist from project award to project award, and as vital as their contribution is, their existence is uncertain and problematic. There are other groups such as Arts In Motion and Out of Darkness who are either special needs companies or arts service agencies who may or may not use theatre in their work. Then there are individuals who have either come to live in the Highlands because they like the people and the scenery or feel they have something to offer, and no matter how refreshing or interesting they prove, they, like the weather, will come and go.

In the current financial climate and under the existing funding arrangements all these groups, including Grey Coast, Tosg and Mull, will fail eventually. From twenty we could be left with none and the only person who will be happy is P.C. Murdoch. The Scottish Arts Council will find it increasingly difficult to find the necessary funding to even keep the revenue organisations going, never mind find the increased budgets which are vital if they are to expand and develop. Staying still is a form of artistic and cultural death in the Highlands – it is as equally expensive as moving on. There is not much hope to be found in the portals of Highland Council either, whether cultural or political, and the enterprise companies can only support, proportionally, what is already there.
 

Secondly, the National Theatre could help to make financial and cultural sense out of the pea soup of the Year Of Highland Culture in 2007. If the National Theatre brought all the companies (revenue, project, one man bands, etc) together in order to produce a Festival of Highland Theatre in Inverness, in and around the by then newly re-furbished Eden Court, in association with the Highland Festival, it would mark a seismic shift in how theatre in the Highlands is perceived, of what its actual strengths and weaknesses are.

“Playwrights’ need to be trained as well – they are not immaculately conceived.”

For example, is there a difference – and I think there is – between Highland theatre and theatre in the Highlands? A celebration of theatrical activity in Inverness in 2007 with The National Theatre of Scotland banner upon it would, I feel, develop the art form in the northern half of our country as nothing else would. It would inspire both audiences and practitioners alike, and would go a long way to making sense out of the abstract omelette currently promoted as Highland Theatre.
 

This all theatre artists must support if we are ever to train our own actors, and will permeate down into the schools and the provision of Higher Drama as a curriculum subject. It will also focus on the need for a native dramaturgy and highlight the fact that writing for the stage is not the same as dramatising a novel or staging a poem. Playwrights’ need to be trained as well – they are not immaculately conceived.
 

© George Gunn, 2004