Imagine a world where the next Tom Hiddleston never graces our screens. Scary, right? A leading television producer is sounding the alarm, arguing that streaming giants and traditional broadcasters aren't doing nearly enough to support the lifeblood of screen talent: the theatre. Stephen Garrett, the creative force behind the acclaimed BBC thriller The Night Manager, is making a powerful case: the future of our favorite shows and movies depends on a thriving theatre scene.
Garrett, speaking to The Times, emphasizes that the screen industry heavily relies on theatre as a crucial training ground where actors, directors, and writers hone their skills. He argues that robust funding for the live arts sector, from both government and private sources, is essential for its very survival. "If theatre dies – and starving it of funding will guarantee its slow death – where will the actors and directors of the future have the space to learn their craft?" he asks. Think of the countless performers who sharpened their abilities on stage before captivating us on screen. Without that foundational experience, Garrett suggests, the entertainment landscape would be significantly poorer.
But here's where it gets controversial... Garrett doesn't just point fingers at government funding cuts. He levels criticism at successive administrations, regardless of their political affiliation, accusing them of a lack of care and even a "fear of culture because they feel that it’s the voice of dissent." He argues that this perceived fear leads to attempts to weaken the arts, a move he believes is ultimately self-defeating. "It’s one of the things we’re still rightly regarded as being brilliant at. We punch above our weight as a country in storytelling and to sabotage that is depressing, sad and blinkered – and it doesn’t cost a lot of money to make these things vibrant," he states.
And this is the part most people miss... Garrett expands his critique to include major players like the BBC and streaming services such as Netflix. He contends that these platforms, which directly benefit from the talent nurtured in theatre, should be doing far more to support the industry. He specifically mentioned Jack Thorne (His Dark Materials, National Treasure), whose career began in theatre, as an example of someone whose work has enriched streaming platforms.
Garrett proposes that increased support from streamers wouldn't just be charitable; it could be a strategic "win-win." By investing in theatre, these platforms could establish direct relationships with emerging talent, ensuring a steady stream of creative individuals for their future productions. He describes this as a form of "arts-washing," but in a positive light, where financial support for the arts enhances the platforms' image while simultaneously benefiting the creative ecosystem. The relatively small investment would be a drop in the ocean compared to their global profits, but the impact on the arts and the future of screen entertainment could be enormous.
This raises a crucial question: should streaming services be obligated to contribute a portion of their profits to support the theatre? Or is government funding the primary responsibility? Is Garrett’s accusation of a "fear of culture" accurate, or are there other factors at play in government funding decisions? What innovative funding models could ensure the long-term health of the theatre and its vital role in developing screen talent? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
