Last week we began an analysis of the state of theatre in Guyana, with particular reference to how it relates to theatre elsewhere in the Caribbean. We concluded that although there are many ways in which the Guyanese stage was no different in quality than Caribbean theatre in general, and in some respects the accomplishments were even more favourable, in many specific areas, the stage was seriously deficient, especially in comparison with some Caricom neighbours.
Attention was paid to the state of technical areas of theatre and their attendant technological advancements which are woefully inadequate in Guyana. It was noted that the National Cultural Centre (NCC) as a theatre house and technical plant is in a serious state of disrepair and consistent deficiency in terms of the provision of proper lighting, sound and working technology to serve the needs of modern stage management. A similar state of inadequacy was also identified at the Theatre Guild Playhouse.
It was our conclusion that these needed substantial inputs of capital in order to repair or, what is more advisable, replace the equipment with a higher quality of technology. It is to be appreciated that this requires considerable expenditure of funds, but the government needs to be prepared to invest in theatre if it is to catch up with the more advanced territories in Caricom, or indeed the world.
It is necessary to make a correction, since the quality of makeup in Guyana was mentioned as one of the technical deficiencies. That impression needs to be adjusted before we move on to the analysis of another factor of theatre in Guyana. It is not fair to place makeup wholesale among the weaknesses, and we repent that summation. Qualification is needed. There are certain times when there is really very minimal use of makeup by Guyanese directors. Attention to makeup, as a necessary aid to stagecraft, tends to be neglected and under-used in plays on the Guyanese stage. Too many directors dispense with it altogether. Furthermore, it is rarely used and applied professionally, as most productions lack the funds to buy professional makeup material and application.
However, although this is evident really in the minority of local productions, effective, artistic and expert makeup design and application do exist on the local stage. They are very few in number, but there are those at work with commendable accomplishment. At least two of them are tutors at the National School of Theatre Arts and Drama (NSTAD), where there is a module devoted to this art in the Introductory Stagecraft course, and another course in which students may opt to go a bit more in-depth into makeup. Additionally, Guyana has one of the most expert practitioners of body art in the Caribbean, who has been outstanding at Carifesta in recent years.
As a reminder, there are areas in which Guyana has advanced favourably in the Caribbean. One of these is in the existence of a theatre with a good rate in the number and frequency of productions on stage. Only Jamaica has been decisively ahead of Guyana in this respect. The Jamaican theatre is by far the liveliest and most prolific in Caricom. But there are more productions on stage in Guyana each year than in any of the other West Indian territories including the Bahamas, Suriname, Belize and French Guiana. While Guyana cannot match Trinidad and Tobago or Barbados in modern and professional technical proficiency, more plays and dance productions are offered in Guyana.
Yet, there is a reverse side to that. Over the past five years, the rate of production has declined. There are fewer plays and dance theatre productions now being offered in Guyana. Five years might be enough to suggest that there is a trend, (something must happen continuously or increasingly over a period of years before one can call it a trend). But even if we go back three years, we will find that the numbers have dropped. One of the causes of this is the cessation of the annual National Drama Festival (NDF) that since 2011 had functioned to increase the number of plays on the public stage. The last NDF was in 2017, and the period since then has been the leanest in recent times. The NDF has been a stimulus, but its absence alone did not cause this decline.
A greater force contributing to the retardation of production frequency is an economic one. Production costs have been slowly overtaking receipts from the box office. To make things worse, there has been a general fall off in the size of the audiences. Fewer patrons are buying tickets than in those years when some plays could attract sold-out crowds, and this has happened even to the funny popular comedies and farces. Cultural change has played a role here because the technological age has introduced competition in alternative means of entertainment. Then again, the corporate sector continues to exhibit a feeble appetite for drama. Private sector sponsorship is not forthcoming; companies are more likely to attach their donations and their names to large popular events with huge crowds and show little interest in the arts.
The result is that producers are finding it harder to earn an income. But this is made even worse by the fact that the cost of production has escalated. One reason for this rise is, ironically, a positive one – viz the continued advance of professional theatre. This has meant the gradual dissipation of amateurism, and all participants in a production, from the performing cast, to designers to back-stage crew and stagehands expect to be paid. The era has passed when art was considered to be its own reward. The artist now rightfully insists that he is worthy of his hire. In essence, this is a good thing because creative personnel now have opportunities to earn an income. But the downturn is that it drives up the costs of production. Fewer plays make it to the public stage because it is a financial risk for the producers.
Enter the government. It needs to be repeated here that the government needs to have a policy for the arts which advises it of the necessity to invest in the theatre in Guyana. But, contrarily, the reverse happens. The government is one of the contributors to the rising and prohibitive costs of production. So that, instead of aiding and facilitating dramatic production in the country, it is helping to retard it.
Of the two most convenient, viable theatre houses in the country, one of them, the Theatre Guild Playhouse, is private. To perform at the Guild, producers pay a nightly rental that is higher than what is charged at the NCC. But the Playhouse only seats 300, and even if one manages to fill the house, 300 tickets is hardly likely to give you the healthy profit that you will need to make your production pay. And that is only the flat rental. It costs more to use the lights, the sound, among a number of other charges. So even if one goes to the smaller Playhouse, one faces a financial risk. The Guild is a private institution and does not properly have the responsibility as a government has of subsidizing theatre to make it work for the people. Yet, even here there is a role for the state, since it gives the Theatre Guild an annual subvention – a step in the right direction. But, alas, the continuing complaint is that this is too small to make a difference against the monstrous electricity bills the Playhouse must pay each month.
So, what is the alternative place to stage a play? The NCC. Here, one recalls the cliché about fleeing from the frying pan and jumping into the fire. The complex compendium of bureaucracy with its frightening list of charges and taxes puts a production at the NCC close to prohibitive. The nightly rental is lower than the Theatre Guild Playhouse, and the NCC seats 2,000, but the total payment package is a discouraging turn-off. Further to that, the NCC is the national theatre, a public entity owned by the state, and here, there is a definite and direct responsibility to facilitate, aid and encourage theatre production. Yet, you would never guess that when you confront the charges.
These payments include the flat rental for the theatre plus payment for the ushers who work during performances; added to that is a retainer calculated at 20% on the sale of tickets – that is you pay one fifth of every ticket you sell. There is an additional cost to pay for the printing of tickets, and then 14% VAT is charged on everything. After all that you still have to pay an extra sum for technical or dress rehearsal. All these charges cut drastically into whatever you collect from the sale of tickets, and you still have your real production costs which include set, costumes, props, advertising and publicity in addition to the payment of fees for all your cast and production team. Since you will most likely have no sponsorship, every cent of that will have to come from each ticket you sell. The devil take you if you don’t get a full house.
The real prospect on a loss on your investment is a disincentive and can deter all but the brave and foolish. There should be no surprise then, that the number of commercial productions have dwindled. It is not an encouraging outlook for theatre in Guyana. There are a few things, however, that remain shocking. There is no understanding shown that it is theatre, it is art, and therefore a performance must have a technical rehearsal. It is therefore baffling why a producer has to pay extra for a dress rehearsal, which ought to be already included in the rental.
Nothing is spared, not even the taxes, and there is no consideration given to the encouragement or any incentive for the arts. And this is coming from a government institution run by the Department of Culture. In a situation such as Guyana’s there has to be a developmental approach taken to dramatic production, and the NCC cannot be run like a business expecting to earn a profit. On the contrary the Department of Culture should be subsidizing the arts rather than exacting commercial payment rates as if a play performed is going to haul in a profit.
The government then, is doing nothing for theatre, except, perhaps, killing it off. Such charges should not be imposed at a public institution. It could even be argued that even a private theatre like the Theatre Guild Playhouse ought to receive a substantial subvention so that they can charge lower fees and pass on the spinoff benefits to dramatic production.
If Guyana was operating under a developmental policy for the arts, theatre would be the better. But instead drama is under pressure from a threat of attrition, and national theatre might be about to lose one of the advantages it has over many other parts of the region. Guyana cannot be compared to some other countries with much larger populations that can support a thriving professional theatre, and where a national cultural centre can run at a profit. And even one of the world’s most developed theatre communities, London, still has an Arts Council that gives support and subsidies to theatre. Guyanese theatre needs a little help from its government.
