Worrying news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6393215.stm


Strikes me that this just the sort of thing that's going to happen when you fire one lot of inept management and replace them with another (without the tedious of bother of a recruitment process or anything silly like that).


regards, Tam

I think the connection with the Olympics is all too credible.

This government, above all others, with its bread and circuses mentality, hates opera with a passionate vehemence.  I'm sure Blair would be delighted if part of his legacy was the permanent closure of ENO, in order to fund the chaos that will ensue in 2012, when London's hopelessly inadequate transport system breaks down under the strain of Olympic commuters.

Britain under Blair/Brown is a third-rate country, run by imbeciles for the benefit of other imbeciles.

The present Government - although not the present Minister, but largely because she doesn't even know where the Coliseum is - have previously presented a serious proposal for merging ENO with the ROH.  This was fought-off by Paul Daniel - it wasn't his job to do so, but the ENO Management of the time were extraordinarily supine about the whole thing and it fell to PD to try to prevent it.  This really illustrates that SwanKnight's theory that the Govt couldn't care tuppence for ENO is very correct.  I don't think this stems from any antipathy towards ENO as an organisation.  The reality is that this Govt doesn't care for the Arts at all.  It realises that having the ROH is a prestige matter etc, but views ENO as unnecessary duplication. There is also a prevailing bias against the "high" Arts - they appear to be too "elitist".  The pendulum has swung full circle, and instead of the "Arts For All!" tagline promoted by Labour in the 1980s,  "Arts For Nobody!" has turned out to be worth more votes - and to cost considerably less, too.   But if the situation is poor in London, it's infinitely worse away from the capital.

However, in all of this, ENO has not helped itself a great deal. We talk of bail-outs - but hang on, ENO only just had a huge bail-out which was supposed to set it on its feet properly and give the new team a chance?  Mr Micawber's prescription of "19/6d = happiness, 20/6d = misery" applies to all organisations, whether they are corner-shops, plc's or opera-houses, and ENO must show itself capable of meeting its budget.  If they said they could produce their season on a budget of "x", then they have to do so - to remain credible as grant-aid recipients for the future.

Fair point, Opilec!  Even so, despite a personal partiality for ENO as my sometime employers, some kind of budgetary responsibility is really required?   For example, Nick Hytner (a former ENO employee, I might add) runs the National Theatre without these permanent lurches into the red, and doesn't expect to be bailed-out on a regular basis.  He's also established money-making shows that transfer to the West End and supplement his pot of funds...  veritably the servant that invested the talents his master lent him   And really there's no reason why "On The Town", "The Gondoliers" etc couldn't play for commercial runs too?   It shouldn't have been beyond ENO's wit to produce a commercial production of "Porgy & Bess" - but they didn't.  Instead, Trevor Nunn did one independently, now playing at the Savoy Theatre (and it's woefully poor, I'm sorry to say).  But all of this more bullish approach to the theatre requires experienced and talented management - which ENO sadly lacks.   I haven't noticed anyone accusing Hytner of "dumbing down" the NT by taking "The History Boys" into the West End?  

It comes down to a rather precious attitude to their own work which has always pervaded the Coliseum.  They somehow believe they have some divine right to do things exactly as they wish, and if it loses money then someone else will pay?  I applaud anyone who produces new work, and operas about Gaddafi etc, this is exactly what ENO ought to be doing - buuuut it has to be paid for by leveraging the shows that make money (and this is not just, ehem, slinging-on 15 performances of Boheme in a run).

"That's show business".   And anyone who believes opera is not show-business is bitterly deceiving themselves.

As I've said before on this topic - the right person to head ENO now should have been Richard Mantle (currently the MD at Opera North, who are on a roll as a result).  RM worked at the Coliseum in the 1980s, and he knows the organisation well - and how to get the most out of it.

PS the difference between ENO and the Olympics, of course, is that the Olympics are a one-off and would be funded anyhow...  ENO's funding is reassessed yearly, and they have to appear credible and solvent to remain eligible for it

This is indeed true, George...  but in my view that merely highlights the theory that the Arts Council is no longer an "arms-length" quango, but a wing of Governmental administration...  the Ministry Of Culture by another name?  The insulation it was supposed to provide to Arts organisations from partiality or mercurial whimsicality has turned-out to be most effective in the opposite direction too - shielding the Government from the fallout of unpopular decision-making.

I'm sorry you didn't go to Warholfeo last night, Opilec, as I would have appreciated your reactions?  I've only seen the crits in the newspapers, and they wouldn't make pleasant reading if one were Christopher Alden.  I really wonder how many people in Leeds or Harrogate can identify with the minutiae of Warhol's circle in the 1960s?  I certainly can't - long before my time, and considerably outside my range of interests to know who shot-up acid in whose bathroom in the Bowery in 1967 (when I was still watching "Hector's House" and "The Clangers").  Although no doubt someone will soon be doing a LA BOHEME set in Tracey Emin's studio in 1989?  Go on, give us your "Producer Opera" thoughts, let it all erupt forth in its miasmic glory... you know you'll feel better for it if you do

Opilec - I completely agree about the double standard. If you're going to force organisations to budget properly it should apply to everything. Probably best not to get me started on the money being squandered on the Olympics (I really wish we hadn't run it).


regards, Tam

Thoroughly agreed, Soundwave!

I'd be interested to see the basis on which the ENO Business Model is predicated?  "Bums on seats" is marvellous, and if you can achieve 95% capacity - or even sellout - without having to discount, then obviously this is an ideal situation.  However, the impression I got from the ENO Statement about redundancies is that they've discovered they can't balance their books even if they sell at capacity?  Which obviously leaves them in a very sticky place. 

They have certainly done a lot of things right of late - they have super shows that the public is dying to see, and no scandals with people going to the bog live on-stage (an isolated example which characterised the shows produced under the previous management). They also have a swathe of new productions in the repertoire - which are great box office of course, but have a lot of attendant costs.  (However, it must be said that little of what was produced under the Martin Smith regime would be worth reviving anyhow).

10% seems slightly contrived to me - almost as though it was "just enough to be a problem, little enough to be solved by a quick cash input"...  I wonder how that figure was reached?

Thanks for the input from the "armpit end", George :-)

But there's the problem, Lord B

As a live entertainment at the London Coliseum, ENO are first-rate.  But put them on the small screen and suddenly they have to compete against productions (and casts) from the world's international opera-houses.  My own personal belief is that some of their productions can compete. However, you will not convinced the chattering patrons of Artsworld on this,  who will tell you confidently (without having seen either) that the Met production of [name any opera, even if the Met have never staged it] is vastly superior to all other stagings, because...  because...  well because they're the bloody Met, that's why! 

Unless you have a luxury-name cast,  or you've got Quentin Tarantino to direct, you cannot flog opera to tv companies.  Respectable decent BOHEMEs are a dime-a-dozen.  Every opera house in Eastern Europe has a BOHEME it hopes to flog to TV, and sadly most of them are bloody good productions, too. 

Being good enough is no longer good enough.  It's part of what lies behind the current vogue for "gonzo" productions, like the Chris Alden ORFEO which has just opened at Opera North ("set in Andy Warhol's apartment in 1963").  Producers are ready to try anything - yes, anything at all - to get their work in front of a world audience.   The worst thing I've seen recently was an AIDA set in Chechnya, in which Amneris was removed from the last scene (!), and the producer has Radames and Aida escape from the dungeon and get away to a beach resort on the Black Sea,  where they sing the last number under a beach umbrella in the pouring rain.  Sadly, the drive to "trump" what's been done in previous productions is pushing this trend, and a heap of garbage is being produced as a result