Part Three

Growing Pains: The persistence of emerging theatres.

By Peter Wallace*  

“Theatres cannot adjust to economic changes when the goal is to influence the way people think.”

ACT on the financial longevity of community theatres, 1976

Amateur theatres represent something of a Sisyphean dilemma. Their existence is often short lived, the pay is inconsistent,  and they compete against professional theatres whom themselves are often forced to close. Theatre Guild New Zealand was a Tāmaki Makaurau based venture established in 1955 by a group of professional theatre circuit veterans, among them Sydney Musgrove,  which ceased operation in 1965.  The University of Auckland’s Summer Shakespeare finding a niche is an exception unrepresentative of the struggles most amateur theatres faced. This article will explore the admirable lengths amateur theatres went through to keep the lights on between 1975 – 78 and shed light on their relationship their relationship with the government during this time.

It should come as no surprise that performers are ambitious people, given their willingness to forgo the comforts and security of a traditional career in pursuit of contributing to the arts. From an early age, Raymond Hawthorne boasted considerable accomplishments within the performing arts. From humble beginnings clinching victory in a primary school singing competition and performing with the Hawkes Bay community opera in his adolescence, to eventually attaining membership with two of New Zealand’s major professional theatre companies,  Hawthorne going on to bigger things was only to be expected. Eager to break the monopoly that the Mercury Theatre held over Auckland’s live performances, Hawthorne founded Theatre Corporate in Auckland, 1973.  This was so much more than another accomplishment for Hawthorne to check off. It represented a huge financial risk to gather actors, playwrights and technical personnel who shared his vision of “…expressing creative talents, free from commercial pressure.”   

Membership to Theatre Corporate was an exclusive privilege under Hawthorne’s leadership, making an initial offering of positions at the year’s start and refusing to invite any new talent until the year’s end.  Exceptions to this rule were only made in the event of a member’s departure, which Hawthorne specifically clarifies to encompass expulsion, resignation, or death. This resulted in the culture at Theatre Corporate better resembling a family than a troupe.   

Although macabre, the inclusion is hardly uncharacteristic for artists best known for their dramatics. Furthermore, the notion reflects Hawthorne’s philosophy of creating a community of tight-knit individuals.  

At this time, Theatre Corporate was running medium-scale productions on thin margins, charging only $2 for children, $3 for students and $4 for adults.  Theatre Corporate tended to produce shows from local and internal playwrights with broad appeal to take advantage of their pricing model, which proved an especially viable strategy given Auckland’s large population. In addition to this income, Theatre Corporate received an annual grant from the Arts Council to subsidise their operational costs and generally improve margins. Yet despite this, Theatre Corporate operated at a loss, albeit a manageable one, for their first two years of production. Theatre Corporate would initiate the first of many exchanges with the government, requesting additional funding to correct their financial trajectory. In 1975, Hawthorne wrote to the Department of Education (DoE), requesting approval as recipients of the “Performers in School” grant in the amount of NZD$13,870 (approximately NZD$172K today). Although the application was declined for being too vague, the DoE were supportive of Hawthorne and encouraged him to reapply in the future.   

Unswayed by this rejection, Theatre Corporate would acquire a new rehearsal space in 1976, agreeing to a rent of NZD$6,000 p.a., subject to increase after the first two years on an eight-year lease.  Contrary to Theatre Corporate’s uncertain financial future, members were excited by the expansion, perhaps optimistic that with this acquisition, Theatre Corporate’s image would develop from a group of amateurs into a legitimate and professional operation.   

And so, the monkey paw curled. Theatre Corporate’s financial difficulties reflected a broader national trend. Compounded by murmurings that 1977 would be a bleak year for arts funding,  theatres across the country would suffer greatly unless some power were to intervene. In early 1976, the Association of Community Theatres (ACT) formed as an effort to unite a concerned body of individuals seeking an audience with a government representative.  Alongside several large regional theatres, Hawthorne was invited to join ACT on behalf of Theatre Corporate, provided he would support their statements concerning the grim financial future of theatres nationwide. In February 1976, the ACT executive met with Minister of the Arts Alan Highet to discuss the unanimous need for additional funding to the Arts Council lest those theatres in more dire straits risk closure. Highest was sympathetic to the ACT’s plight, reassuring that he would directly protect funds reserved for practising artists being poached by the government budget to cover logistical expenses.  

Highet also affirmed that for all his advocacy, the government would not increase the Arts Council’s funding in 1977.  This hesitation was due to the economic fallout of the global oil crises which had forced New Zealand into a recession by 1976.  The subsequent decline massively slowed economic growth and incentivised the government to fund sectors that were surefire to promote economic activity, of which the arts was not. To worsen matters, emergency funds available to the Arts Council were extremely limited.  This information caused a considerable stir within the ACT and it was evident that a new strategy would be required if they hoped to survive. Members made audacious proposals to the Arts Council, among them that gifts to theatres be tax deductible and that funding for the Sports and Recreation Fund be redirected to the Arts Council.  Despite their increasingly apparent desperation, Highet politely dismissed the plausibility of these schemes due to the government’s strict controls on budgeting.   

This was a disappointing revelation for members of the ACT, many of whom had hoped that the struggle of 1976 would be remembered as the dark before the dawn. Consequently, significant expansions planned for 1977 needed to be scaled back.  In addition to their new rehearsal space, Theatre Corporate had planned to increase their annual expenditure by NZD$39,520 despite operating a deficit of NZD$13,890 while drawing budgets.  In their financial forecast for 1976, Theatre Corporate reported an expected expenditure of NZD$225,590. Based on Theatre Corporate’s income projections which assumed a 60% average show capacity, they would still require a NZD$82,250 grant from the Art’s Council just to break even.  To Hawthorne, a funding cut from the Arts Council represented a compromise in his vision of “…expressing creative talents free from commercial pressure…” a compromise he could not tolerate. Yet Hawthorne had few financial options, and he could only watch as bureaucratic factors beyond his control sundered the community he had forged.

In May 1976, the ACT received a final letter from Highet stating that they should prepare to weather out the oncoming economic storm, stressing that although the situation seemed grave, other cultural organisations were suffering far worse financial losses.  In response, the ACT finally complied. Once rich with brainstorming and rallying, meetings were reduced to complacent cost-cutting analysis. Besides the ACT firing a petty shot at the Arts Council by refusing to acknowledge their continued support and assistance, the remainder of 1976 came and went. By February 1977, the ACT had acclimated to their reality that, while no longer immediately threatening, was certainly depressing for the ambitious artists.  Members of the ACT began channelling their depression into a quickly growing disdain for the Arts Council, whom they had come to blame. In March of 1977, the organisation’s monthly minutes recorded the statement that “[The ACT] is not really confident the Arts Council has the staff to make decisions”.  

While discontent for the Arts Council was at an all-time high, Theatre Corporate found themselves in an enviable position. On February 11, Theatre Corporate had sent a plea to the Arts Council outlining their bleak financial situation, followed by an explicit admission that Theatre Corporate was on the verge of closure on February 14.  In response, the Arts Council would not only approve Theatre Corporate’s earlier “Performers in School” grant up to the amount of NZD$9,825 – but had effectively emptied their emergency funds to scrape together NZD$57,000 so Theatre Corporate could stabilise their finances.  Highet had been a personal advocate for Theatre Corporate during this decision, mainly because Highet admired Hawthorne’s prideful philosophy, which stood out amongst a catalogue of theatres who wanted help but would not help themselves.  Besides their 1995 “Performers in School” grant request, which was denied, Theatre Corporate had never requested a government kickback or handout until they were facing termination, help was undoubtedly overdue. While Theatre Corporate breathed a sigh of relief, their comrades in the ACT remained hungry for recompense and expected Theatre Corporate to join them in the battle against penny-pinching parliamentarians. Ultimately, Theatre Corporate would not hesitate to bite the hand that had fed them. 

Photograph of letter informing Theatre Corporate of the Arts Council’s funding. NZMS 886 Archive Box 2 Series 14. Correspondence with QEII Arts Council 76-77. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

 ACT’s negotiations with the Arts Council resumed, although on much less cordial terms. ACT member Mr Brown drafted an aggressive press statement designed to expose the Art Council’s inaction, a copy of which would be addressed to every member of parliament. Unconvinced that one singular copy each would garner a level of response ACT deemed appropriate, each member would send their own copy to every MP.  The result was an exigent bombardment befitting the work of theatre representatives. The telegram was sent on March 11, and responses began steadily filing in on March 18. Although many of the replies had been carefully tailored to maintain a united front of MP’s, the Labour Party Caucus Cultural Committee had come out in public support of ACT and lent their cause sympathy.  This prompted ACT to contact Highet once again, confident that an increased profile could pressure a compromise. Highet’s response is somewhat agitated, particularly because the ACT had implied that the Arts Council did not desire to assist the arts.  The ACT quickly walked back this implication in their reply but remained firm, leveraging their favour with the Labour Party Caucus Cultural Committee to arrange a future meeting.  

Photograph of Highet’s response. NZMS 886 Archive Box 2 Series 14. Funding 1976. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

Photograph of the ACT’s response to Highet. NZMS 886 Archive Box 2 Series 14. Funding 1976. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

The repercussions of Brown’s telegram are hard to measure. Going into the 1978 financial year, Theatre Corporate requested NZD$94,200 and received NZD$65,000. Comparatively, ACT member Mercury Theatre, the largest commercial theatre in New Zealand, requested NZD$220,000 and received NZD$200,000.  It is evident that the ACT was unsatisfied with how the Arts Council had ended negotiations, as the ACT’s 1978 financial plan revolved around a scheme to lobby the Arts Council for additional funding while simultaneously blaming their miserliness for the decline of educational and indigenous theatre.  In any case, the hatchet went unburied. 

Summer Shakespeare enjoyed its niche until their 1995 season which drastically altered their priorities and consequently acquainted them with familiar struggle of amateur theatres. Despite Summer Shakespeare having the option to reprise their pre-1995 style of small-scale student centric performances, they would continue to chase their ambitions until closure in 2016. Without context on the attitudes of amateur theatres this decision is easy to disregard as wildly illogical, but the actions of Theatre Corporate provide new insight. They financed a new rehearsal space in 1976 despite lacking a financial safety net following their grant request being rejected in 1975. They rejected financial aid until being on the brink of closure. They fought a multi-year battle against the Arts Council all while doing three performances daily with a troupe they could not afford to compensate fairly. Camus remarked that Sisyphus’ struggle toward the heights is enough to fill the man’s heart,  even knowing the boulder will inevitably roll back down. Similarly, an amateur theatre sees the inhospitable scape around them and acknowledges the inevitable, choosing to prioritising self-fulfilment over financial-fulfilment. To a man like Raymond Hawthorne that meant “…expressing creative talents, free from commercial pressure.”, an adage most amateur theatres adopt, if only subconsciously. This explains actions an outsider might dismiss as unusual or foolish. Money will come and go, but the legacies of performances will long outlive the fleeting instalments of amateur theatre.

Bibliography

ACT 1978. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

Association of Community Theatres 1976. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

Association of Community Theatres 1977. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

Camus, Albert. 2000. The Myth of Sisyphus. Translated by Justin O’Brien. Penguin Modern Classics. London, England: Penguin Classics.

Cartwright, Linda. “Women in Auckland Who Worked In The Acting Profession Talk About Their Lives Project” by Jean Hyland. (June 16, 2005). Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

Christian Dionne. “Stage master” The New Zealand Herald. October 12, 2015. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/stage-master/QCZEJN7PQDNS5MUU7ALWGGWY3M/

Correspondence with QEII Arts Council 76-77. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

Funding 1976. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

Lease of premises 1976. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

Miscellaneous documents dated 1975. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.

New Zealand History. “The 1970s: 1973 – key events.” Accessed February 22, 2024. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/the-1970s/1973#:~:text=This%20first%20oil%20shock%20(a,condensate%20for%20use%20as%20fuel

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet or The Tragical History of Hamlet Prince of Denmark. Performed by Theatre Guild (NZ) Ltd., 1955 – 1955. Auckland Special Collections, Auckland. 

Shakespeare, William. Measure For Measure. Performed by Auckland University Drama Society in collaboration with Grafton Theatre Company. Auckland Special Collections, Auckland.

Theatre Corporate Rules and regulations 1974. Auckland Council Libraries Heritage Collections. Auckland.