The Business of Theatre FesTivals
Theatre Festivals: A Financial Phenomenon
Emma Keil-Vine
To find an exact and all-encompassing definition of a theatre festival would be a challenging task, due to the sheer complexity and diversity of what a festival can entail. Ranging in size, theme, location, duration, and any number of other factors, festivals are as irregular as they are numerous. However, one common and determinable aspect of theatre festivals is their creation of a meeting place to share art and culture. Beginning in Ancient Greece as “spiritually charged celebrations of life and art uniting the whole community in crucial rites” (Wehle 52), festivals continue to value these goals of unity and celebration with the festival taking on an identity outside of the shows it presents. More than just a holding place of various performances, festivals are a form of performance in themselves due to thematic programming, auxiliary events, and the encouraged dialogue of gathered minds (Hauptfleisch). Above all else, these festivals cite a desire to create cutting-edge works in an atmosphere devoted to innovative theatre expression (Batchelor). This central goal, however, is being overshadowed by an increasing financial mindset, brought about by globalization and urbanization that is reshaping theatre festivals into a form of business rather than a place of art. A desire to have international appeal, fixation on attracting audiences and bolstering local economy through tourism and revitalization, and the reframing of culture as a good to be exported has resulted in a festival industry driven by economics rather than artistic creation. In this way, the view of theatre festivals as a commodity or product, has had a detrimental impact on their original purpose and function of creating innovative art and developing culture.
To understand the change occurring in festivals in the globalized world, we begin by exploring the unaffected festivals of the past. Festivals have existed, in various forms, for centuries, always with a desire to create a time and place for communal cultural celebration (Quinn). Beginning in Ancient Greece where religious festivities were held to honour Dionysus the god of feast, dance, and revelry (Quinn), festivals have continued in various forms to this day. These celebrations of culture often are seen with greater frequency during times concerned with local identity. They gained high popularity in twelfth century (lasting through to the eighteenth) Western Europe when cultural heritage and community identity became the distinguishing characteristics of the time (Quinn). A similar increase can be found after the second world war when countries experienced a resurgence of culture and local spirit in celebration of international stability and freedom. In the aftermath of the devastation of World War II countries sought to rebuild their nations, and with that, their cultures. This desire manifested itself in a resurgence of art and theatre, and a specific rise in festivals as a public and celebratory coming-together of a recovering nation.
The post-war period witnessed an upsurge in the number of festivals being established. In an era where the drive towards reconstruction, political stability and the forging of international linkages through trade (including through a fledgling tourism industry) set the tenor for economic and social advancement, the emergence of such nationally important festivals as at Avignon (France), Edinburgh (Scotland), Amsterdam (the Netherlands), Wexford (Ireland) and Spoleto (Italy) were important contributions to Europe’s cultural infrastructure. (Quinn 929)
These festivals exist to this day, and many more have cropped up since, all with goals of artistic creation and celebration. Although for many years festivals mainly produced popular, ‘high art’ theatre shows (Quinn), the desire for cutting edge theatre in festivals could be seen emerging in 1947 with Jean Vilar’s vision for the Festival d’Avignon. With funding and support at a high in post war France (Wehle), Vilar “hoped to introduce his audiences to more aggressive forms of dramatic literature and art” (Wehle 58). Through this desire he brought in creations from cutting edge artists of the time and fostered an atmosphere of critical discussion about theatre and the works being performed. The Festival d’Avignon was the first of its kind, but by the sixties and seventies a stronger emergence of innovative theatre began (Quinn). International artists were seeking to push boundaries and become more daring in their works all as part of a “wider movement seeking social change in tandem with the widespread economic restructuring being experience throughout the Western world” (Quinn 930) at the time. As feminist, anti-war and environmentalist movements surged, so to did innovative and political theatre throughout the festivals.
Even though their was a desire for art to make a statement and to echo the cultural and political statements of the time, these theatre festivals were still founded through the drive towards international linkages and stability that Quinn discusses. It was not just a celebration of culture that brought festivals into existence after the war, it was a celebration on the global stage. These festivals boasted international reach that would help rebuild — both metaphorically and physically — the cultural structure destroyed during war time but would also be used to increase tourism and forge ties between post-war countries (Quinn). As the world expands and connects, there is an increasing desire for nations to have a name on the international scale, and international theatre festivals achieve just that. A marketplace of sorts, where culture is the product, theatre festivals allow countries to display local culture to the entire world. This focus on international appeal and business acumen has only risen in recent years such that there has been an exponential rise in arts festivals around the world in the past two decades (Quinn).
Reasons explaining this proliferation lie in a series of interrelated factors that include changing approaches to urban management, structural changes in economic production, the use of culture as a means of restructuring wealth and job creation, and the unsettling effects of globalization. All of these factors, in combination, have prompted a reconceptualization of the festival as a useful strategy for the contemporary city to adopt in the attempt to reposition and differentiate itself in an increasingly competitive world. (Quinn 927)
No longer are festivals bred and sustained out of a pure desire for artistic creation, rather there has been a change in mindset that now views these artistic gatherings as an opportunity to develop local economy and garner appeal on an international scale.
The concept of profitability through art in itself is not a negative, on the contrary it could be considered a great benefit to be able to encourage both culture and local economy in one fell swoop. The problems arise, however, when economic desire outweighs and overshadows that cultural focus. It was in the 1980s when “cities were no longer functioning as landscapes of production but as landscapes of consumption” (Quinn 930) that theatre festivals began to be viewed as a type of cultural commodity. With this change of practice, theatre as a whole was embraced by the tourism industry with the desire to profit from this “landscape of consumption.” Theatre and theatre festivals have become a brand for cities, functioning to draw in tourists through a marketable identity (Bennet). Cities can market themselves as cultural hubs, drawing in audiences both locally and internationally which brings money not only into the arts market, but into the wider city. “Cultural institutions draw millions of tourists, bringing in $450 to $600 million a year in economic benefits just to the hotel and food sectors” (Bennet 411). The benefits of theatre festivals to their host areas are exponential, then, as they attract tourists who spend money not only on the shows but other tourist attractions, accommodations, restaurants and more — all benefiting the entire city’s economy. These economic benefits allow theatre festivals to remain profitable, such that it becomes an essential aspect of modern theatre creation. Bennet discusses the necessity of the tourism industry to theatre, saying that it “suggests at least one way that theatre has survived in a global fiscal paradigm that might otherwise find this art form’s demand for unique, live production by a skilled labour force on a daily (or something approximating daily) basis to be at best anachronistic and at worst extravagant to the point of infeasibility” (412). Indeed, in a world often guided by profit margins, to maintain cultural attractions for culture alone is unlikely. Therefore the money brought in by theatre festivals, and the stimulation to local economy provided is not only positive, but necessary to ensure these festivals’ prolonged existence. The issue, however, is that the priority has shifted to profitability rather than artistic creation such that theatre festivals are viewed first and foremost as “baits” to draw in tourists (Bennet). This results in theatre festivals being viewed as a whole — the focus is not on the artist or the artistic quality of the shows, rather it is on the festival as a marketable event.
A holistic view is often applied to festivals, exploring the way they function as an event or performance in their own right, a collection of sub-performances within a containing whole. “Festivals are not only where the work is; it is where the artistic output of the actor, director, choreographer, etc. is eventified” (Hauptfleisch 39). Theatre festivals often offer additional programming and auxiliary events, as well as being curated around a certain theme or value and thus the shows performed are shaped by being part of a festival experience. The effects of such eventification can help create a cohesion in festival pieces, imbue them with added meaning by tying the themes of multiple pieces or events together, and stimulate conversation and discussion by creating an atmosphere conducive to artistic interaction. This viewpoint of theatre festivals as an event, however, is also often embraced for its fiscal benefits. Not only are theatre festivals showcased as large cultural events in order to attract tourists, the reframing of these festivals can also change the way they are funded. The Edmonton Fringe, for example, is widely viewed as a carnivalesque festival event with vendors, public attractions and spectacles all taking over the city along with the theatre shows. This rebranding as an overall event, separating the Fringe from it’s solely theatre-based identity has allowed funding to be given to the festival regardless of the shows that occur. “Corporations and governments could support both the Fringe as a cultural event and the Fringe’s administration as the facilitators of this event without having to endorse the theatre being produced” (Batchelor 41). In this way, funders are not obliged to agree with or publicly support the specific shows put up during the festival, rather they can be seen as providing financial stimulation to a cultural event and the city as a whole. Indeed, by eventifying such festivals, the host areas do often benefit through increased traffic and neighbourhood revitalization (Willems-Braun). This can clearly be seen through the revitalization project, headed by TransAlta to the Old Strathcona area in Edmonton. Old Strathcona Bus Barns was a widely unused space until it was leased to the Chinook Theatre to be used for the Edmonton Fringe. In 1998 Calgary-based power and energy provider TransAlta, pledged three million dollars into the revitalization of the area (Batchelor) which, along with provincial and federal funding, allowed the creation of a state-of-the-art centre for the Edmonton Fringe as well as a complete renewal of the area. The new Fringe head-quarters (now called the TransAlta Arts Barns) locates the Fringe firmly and permanently within the city creating a synonymous connection between supporting the festival event and supporting the city economy.
The Edmonton Fringe is but one example of how an urban space can be turned into a festival space when a theatre festival becomes fully integrated into the city. However this merging of city and festival, and the overall eventification of the festival can place the attention on the festivity and spectacle of the event rather than the theatre being performed. This shift in focus means that festivals become “a cultural space in which globalized capitalism repurposes theatrical enterprise according to specific market logics that favour profitability over innovation and creativity” (Batchelor 43). When the financial viability of a theatre festival outweighs the innovation of said theatre, the creativity that such festivals supposedly encourage can be lost. Just as funders do not have to worry about being tied to the specific shows being staged, the entire reception of eventified theatre festivals has lost artistic focus. The shows performed in such festivals must compete with vendors and public spectacles for audience attention and thus must become spectacles themselves. Bennet in discussion of wider theatrical offerings such as broadway shows argues that theatre is becoming less of a high art and more of a spectacle in order to compete with other forms of entertainment such as sporting events and concerts (427) and a similar effect can be seen in eventified theatre festivals. When festivals are filled with free performances, buskers, and even vendors and restaurants that all vie for audiences’ time and money, theatre has to become cheaper to produce and attractive to wider audiences in order to break even (Bennet). Fringe shows all over the world exemplify this development as more and more of the offerings conform to the same profitable formula; fittingly described as “fringe machines” (Brown). These shows consist of one or two person casts, minimal set and tech, and are stand-up or “easy-listening” comedic shows that cost very little to produce and successfully bring in large crowds (Batchelor). This transformation of Fringe festivals is frequently cited and bemoaned by academics (and some critics) and yet the trend continues because it is very often the only financially viable option. When forced to compete with so many other, often free, sources of entertainment at theses festivals “few theatre companies — pushed, as Per Fitzgibbon argued as early 1990, ‘towards soft content and hard sell’ — can afford to produce experimental, avant-garde, or alternative work unless it is also sensational or has sufficiently broad popular appeal to draw crowds and attention in a fiercely competitive free-trade marketplace” (Knowles 186).
This created competition and resulting “fringe machine” style of shows has resulted in the loss of creative innovative art in festivals that were originally created to support just such ventures. The Edinburgh Fringe — which was founded in 1946 with a desire to promote more groundbreaking, alternative theatre than what was being seen at the Edinburgh International Theatre Festival — features an overwhelming number of comedic and stand up performances, leading to claims that “the spontaneity and asceticism of the first Fringe Festival has faded, clearly demonstrating that in the last fifty years the Festival has in part turned into the very thing against which the original companies fought” (Maresh 278). By allowing profitability to restructure theatre festivals, the initial desires for innovative (fringe) art and cultural celebration is lost as these festivals become a “spatialize[d] capitalist free market” (Batchelor 45) that values and promotes the familiar. In Reading the Material Theatre, Knowles begs the question “has the line between cultural and other tourism been irrevocably crossed?” (187) and as theatre festivals originally motivated by a desire for the new and the daring forgo such development for larger audiences and tourist appeal the answer seems worryingly clear.
It is not just the localization and solidification of theatre festivals within their host city that can detract from cultural focus; the outward movement created by globalization can have a similar effect. As the world expands and becomes more interconnected, cities and countries vie for recognition on an international scale. This leads to an increased popularity of entertainment and leisure activities because they place countries’ cultures on an international platform (Aoyama). Culture is becoming a commodity that packages tradition and local behaviours “in order to construct certain representations that then promote the uniqueness of that place or community” (Duffy 230). In order to attract foreign talents, draw in tourists and garner international notice, countries must present themselves as a cultural hub and to do so, theatre festivals are again called into commission. Theatre and other high arts are considered a representation of the creating country’s culture and international festivals provide an opportunity to share this work with the world. “Today Edinburgh, Avignon, and other festivals… function primarily as manifestations of a theatrical version of late-capitalist globalization, postmodern marketplaces for exchange, not so much of culture as cultural capital” (Knowles 181). Culture has become a commodity and theatre festivals act as a trade show to allow this product to be showcased on an international scale, with audiences and governments alike as the buyers. “With the connivance of national governments interested in cultural showcases as promotional opportunities, an increasing percentage of theatrical production is taking this form, as the cultural economics of nations becomes increasingly globalized” (Knowles 184). International festivals have become a platform for governmental agencies to market their culture to other nations, like in 1999 when the British Arts council ran a program bringing in theatre artists and producers from all over the world. Designed to help network and “plant the seeds of touring, co-production, and collaborative initiatives” (Knowles 187), the ultimate desire of this program was to encourage the longevity of these shows elsewhere rather than a focus on putting a quality “product” on display. With a mind to appealing to international audiences — both international festivals audiences and future audiences for touring shows — the productions face a challenge of having to translate their culture and product to a wider audience.
When the utmost goal is to appeal on a wide scale, and when that appeal can ensure a show’s success or failure, international festivals which seek to promote interconnectedness (McMahon) can have quite the opposite effect. There is an increasing demand for distinct cultural experiences which “reinforces the need for regional cultures to establish links to export markets for their survival” (Aoyama 103) and puts the priority on exporting the idea of culture, rather than culture itself. Although presented as having a desire to share cultures with other nations and promote cultural exchange, international festivals force shows to refrain from culturally specific messages or fear being misread by audiences not equipped to understand such references. As such there is a trend of festivals showcasing performances built to circulate which “are often visually stunning but politically impotent” (McMahon 3). International shows must fight language barriers and a lack of cultural context for foreign audiences and thus will often resort to spectacle and “flashy products” which can appeal on a much wider scale. The problem is only exacerbated by the fact that it is this type of show that is encouraged and supported by government grants as they wish to create theatre that will draw in as wide an array of spectators as possible. McMahon found that the majority of “government grants subsidize productions that showcase facile versions of ‘national’ culture in order to promote cultural tourism” (McMahon 3) rather than shows that accurately portray their nation or try to promote a message. Rather than risking a narrowed audience or a misreading of the content, governments choose to support shows that cannot be misread because they lack substance. When culture is displayed on the stage, it is often a simplified or overly exotic form that appeals to an audience desiring to see “culture” while still remaining highly packaged and universal (Knowles 187). Paradoxically then, although built on a desire to promote cultural exchange and create “one festival for all,” international festivals result in a created sense of unity that isn’t truly culturally representative.
The potential for theatre festivals is great as they offer opportunities and platforms for a wide range of artists and foster a community of engagement and discussion (Dickinson), however the desire to promote and highlight culture and innovative artwork has been lost. “The whims of the global arts market… seems bent on evacuating theatre of its dialogic potential” (McMahon 3) as conversation can not be had when there is nothing of substance to discuss. With a mindset to the potential for theatre festivals as a business opportunity the focus turns from the creation of inspiring work to products that have been proven to “sell” and culture is foregone in favour of sleek packaged shows with wider appeal. Ultimately, theatre festivals which cite a desire to create cutting-edge works in an atmosphere devoted to innovative theatre expression (Batchelor), are having an opposite effect as the economics of production, and the desire for profitability take the centre stage on both the local and international scale. Susan Bennet, in discussing tourism in theatre, asked “when is a play not a play? When is it a financial phenomenon?” (428). This essay does not hope to decide what defines a “play” and if the shows put on in the current socioeconomic climate warrant such description, but the second question is of immediate relevance. Although there are certainly innovative, daring, culturally grounded shows that still come up at theatre festivals, these productions are becoming more and more rare, and perhaps even more worryingly are not the shows being supported by government and corporate funding. There has been a push towards shows that serve a financial purpose; either by being low cost comedies and skits that can draw in tourists as a simple form of entertainment, or by being sleek and flashy but devoid of any cultural substance so as to appeal on a larger scale. Based either in the idea of directly making money, or exporting culture to gain recognition and thus profit, theatre festivals have become a business, and shows are indeed in dire risk of being less of a play, and more of a financial phenomenon.
Theatre Festivals: A Financial Phenomenon
Emma Keil-Vine
To find an exact and all-encompassing definition of a theatre festival would be a challenging task, due to the sheer complexity and diversity of what a festival can entail. Ranging in size, theme, location, duration, and any number of other factors, festivals are as irregular as they are numerous. However, one common and determinable aspect of theatre festivals is their creation of a meeting place to share art and culture. Beginning in Ancient Greece as “spiritually charged celebrations of life and art uniting the whole community in crucial rites” (Wehle 52), festivals continue to value these goals of unity and celebration with the festival taking on an identity outside of the shows it presents. More than just a holding place of various performances, festivals are a form of performance in themselves due to thematic programming, auxiliary events, and the encouraged dialogue of gathered minds (Hauptfleisch). Above all else, these festivals cite a desire to create cutting-edge works in an atmosphere devoted to innovative theatre expression (Batchelor). This central goal, however, is being overshadowed by an increasing financial mindset, brought about by globalization and urbanization that is reshaping theatre festivals into a form of business rather than a place of art. A desire to have international appeal, fixation on attracting audiences and bolstering local economy through tourism and revitalization, and the reframing of culture as a good to be exported has resulted in a festival industry driven by economics rather than artistic creation. In this way, the view of theatre festivals as a commodity or product, has had a detrimental impact on their original purpose and function of creating innovative art and developing culture.
To understand the change occurring in festivals in the globalized world, we begin by exploring the unaffected festivals of the past. Festivals have existed, in various forms, for centuries, always with a desire to create a time and place for communal cultural celebration (Quinn). Beginning in Ancient Greece where religious festivities were held to honour Dionysus the god of feast, dance, and revelry (Quinn), festivals have continued in various forms to this day. These celebrations of culture often are seen with greater frequency during times concerned with local identity. They gained high popularity in twelfth century (lasting through to the eighteenth) Western Europe when cultural heritage and community identity became the distinguishing characteristics of the time (Quinn). A similar increase can be found after the second world war when countries experienced a resurgence of culture and local spirit in celebration of international stability and freedom. In the aftermath of the devastation of World War II countries sought to rebuild their nations, and with that, their cultures. This desire manifested itself in a resurgence of art and theatre, and a specific rise in festivals as a public and celebratory coming-together of a recovering nation.
The post-war period witnessed an upsurge in the number of festivals being established. In an era where the drive towards reconstruction, political stability and the forging of international linkages through trade (including through a fledgling tourism industry) set the tenor for economic and social advancement, the emergence of such nationally important festivals as at Avignon (France), Edinburgh (Scotland), Amsterdam (the Netherlands), Wexford (Ireland) and Spoleto (Italy) were important contributions to Europe’s cultural infrastructure. (Quinn 929)
These festivals exist to this day, and many more have cropped up since, all with goals of artistic creation and celebration. Although for many years festivals mainly produced popular, ‘high art’ theatre shows (Quinn), the desire for cutting edge theatre in festivals could be seen emerging in 1947 with Jean Vilar’s vision for the Festival d’Avignon. With funding and support at a high in post war France (Wehle), Vilar “hoped to introduce his audiences to more aggressive forms of dramatic literature and art” (Wehle 58). Through this desire he brought in creations from cutting edge artists of the time and fostered an atmosphere of critical discussion about theatre and the works being performed. The Festival d’Avignon was the first of its kind, but by the sixties and seventies a stronger emergence of innovative theatre began (Quinn). International artists were seeking to push boundaries and become more daring in their works all as part of a “wider movement seeking social change in tandem with the widespread economic restructuring being experience throughout the Western world” (Quinn 930) at the time. As feminist, anti-war and environmentalist movements surged, so to did innovative and political theatre throughout the festivals.
Even though their was a desire for art to make a statement and to echo the cultural and political statements of the time, these theatre festivals were still founded through the drive towards international linkages and stability that Quinn discusses. It was not just a celebration of culture that brought festivals into existence after the war, it was a celebration on the global stage. These festivals boasted international reach that would help rebuild — both metaphorically and physically — the cultural structure destroyed during war time but would also be used to increase tourism and forge ties between post-war countries (Quinn). As the world expands and connects, there is an increasing desire for nations to have a name on the international scale, and international theatre festivals achieve just that. A marketplace of sorts, where culture is the product, theatre festivals allow countries to display local culture to the entire world. This focus on international appeal and business acumen has only risen in recent years such that there has been an exponential rise in arts festivals around the world in the past two decades (Quinn).
Reasons explaining this proliferation lie in a series of interrelated factors that include changing approaches to urban management, structural changes in economic production, the use of culture as a means of restructuring wealth and job creation, and the unsettling effects of globalization. All of these factors, in combination, have prompted a reconceptualization of the festival as a useful strategy for the contemporary city to adopt in the attempt to reposition and differentiate itself in an increasingly competitive world. (Quinn 927)
No longer are festivals bred and sustained out of a pure desire for artistic creation, rather there has been a change in mindset that now views these artistic gatherings as an opportunity to develop local economy and garner appeal on an international scale.
The concept of profitability through art in itself is not a negative, on the contrary it could be considered a great benefit to be able to encourage both culture and local economy in one fell swoop. The problems arise, however, when economic desire outweighs and overshadows that cultural focus. It was in the 1980s when “cities were no longer functioning as landscapes of production but as landscapes of consumption” (Quinn 930) that theatre festivals began to be viewed as a type of cultural commodity. With this change of practice, theatre as a whole was embraced by the tourism industry with the desire to profit from this “landscape of consumption.” Theatre and theatre festivals have become a brand for cities, functioning to draw in tourists through a marketable identity (Bennet). Cities can market themselves as cultural hubs, drawing in audiences both locally and internationally which brings money not only into the arts market, but into the wider city. “Cultural institutions draw millions of tourists, bringing in $450 to $600 million a year in economic benefits just to the hotel and food sectors” (Bennet 411). The benefits of theatre festivals to their host areas are exponential, then, as they attract tourists who spend money not only on the shows but other tourist attractions, accommodations, restaurants and more — all benefiting the entire city’s economy. These economic benefits allow theatre festivals to remain profitable, such that it becomes an essential aspect of modern theatre creation. Bennet discusses the necessity of the tourism industry to theatre, saying that it “suggests at least one way that theatre has survived in a global fiscal paradigm that might otherwise find this art form’s demand for unique, live production by a skilled labour force on a daily (or something approximating daily) basis to be at best anachronistic and at worst extravagant to the point of infeasibility” (412). Indeed, in a world often guided by profit margins, to maintain cultural attractions for culture alone is unlikely. Therefore the money brought in by theatre festivals, and the stimulation to local economy provided is not only positive, but necessary to ensure these festivals’ prolonged existence. The issue, however, is that the priority has shifted to profitability rather than artistic creation such that theatre festivals are viewed first and foremost as “baits” to draw in tourists (Bennet). This results in theatre festivals being viewed as a whole — the focus is not on the artist or the artistic quality of the shows, rather it is on the festival as a marketable event.
A holistic view is often applied to festivals, exploring the way they function as an event or performance in their own right, a collection of sub-performances within a containing whole. “Festivals are not only where the work is; it is where the artistic output of the actor, director, choreographer, etc. is eventified” (Hauptfleisch 39). Theatre festivals often offer additional programming and auxiliary events, as well as being curated around a certain theme or value and thus the shows performed are shaped by being part of a festival experience. The effects of such eventification can help create a cohesion in festival pieces, imbue them with added meaning by tying the themes of multiple pieces or events together, and stimulate conversation and discussion by creating an atmosphere conducive to artistic interaction. This viewpoint of theatre festivals as an event, however, is also often embraced for its fiscal benefits. Not only are theatre festivals showcased as large cultural events in order to attract tourists, the reframing of these festivals can also change the way they are funded. The Edmonton Fringe, for example, is widely viewed as a carnivalesque festival event with vendors, public attractions and spectacles all taking over the city along with the theatre shows. This rebranding as an overall event, separating the Fringe from it’s solely theatre-based identity has allowed funding to be given to the festival regardless of the shows that occur. “Corporations and governments could support both the Fringe as a cultural event and the Fringe’s administration as the facilitators of this event without having to endorse the theatre being produced” (Batchelor 41). In this way, funders are not obliged to agree with or publicly support the specific shows put up during the festival, rather they can be seen as providing financial stimulation to a cultural event and the city as a whole. Indeed, by eventifying such festivals, the host areas do often benefit through increased traffic and neighbourhood revitalization (Willems-Braun). This can clearly be seen through the revitalization project, headed by TransAlta to the Old Strathcona area in Edmonton. Old Strathcona Bus Barns was a widely unused space until it was leased to the Chinook Theatre to be used for the Edmonton Fringe. In 1998 Calgary-based power and energy provider TransAlta, pledged three million dollars into the revitalization of the area (Batchelor) which, along with provincial and federal funding, allowed the creation of a state-of-the-art centre for the Edmonton Fringe as well as a complete renewal of the area. The new Fringe head-quarters (now called the TransAlta Arts Barns) locates the Fringe firmly and permanently within the city creating a synonymous connection between supporting the festival event and supporting the city economy.
The Edmonton Fringe is but one example of how an urban space can be turned into a festival space when a theatre festival becomes fully integrated into the city. However this merging of city and festival, and the overall eventification of the festival can place the attention on the festivity and spectacle of the event rather than the theatre being performed. This shift in focus means that festivals become “a cultural space in which globalized capitalism repurposes theatrical enterprise according to specific market logics that favour profitability over innovation and creativity” (Batchelor 43). When the financial viability of a theatre festival outweighs the innovation of said theatre, the creativity that such festivals supposedly encourage can be lost. Just as funders do not have to worry about being tied to the specific shows being staged, the entire reception of eventified theatre festivals has lost artistic focus. The shows performed in such festivals must compete with vendors and public spectacles for audience attention and thus must become spectacles themselves. Bennet in discussion of wider theatrical offerings such as broadway shows argues that theatre is becoming less of a high art and more of a spectacle in order to compete with other forms of entertainment such as sporting events and concerts (427) and a similar effect can be seen in eventified theatre festivals. When festivals are filled with free performances, buskers, and even vendors and restaurants that all vie for audiences’ time and money, theatre has to become cheaper to produce and attractive to wider audiences in order to break even (Bennet). Fringe shows all over the world exemplify this development as more and more of the offerings conform to the same profitable formula; fittingly described as “fringe machines” (Brown). These shows consist of one or two person casts, minimal set and tech, and are stand-up or “easy-listening” comedic shows that cost very little to produce and successfully bring in large crowds (Batchelor). This transformation of Fringe festivals is frequently cited and bemoaned by academics (and some critics) and yet the trend continues because it is very often the only financially viable option. When forced to compete with so many other, often free, sources of entertainment at theses festivals “few theatre companies — pushed, as Per Fitzgibbon argued as early 1990, ‘towards soft content and hard sell’ — can afford to produce experimental, avant-garde, or alternative work unless it is also sensational or has sufficiently broad popular appeal to draw crowds and attention in a fiercely competitive free-trade marketplace” (Knowles 186).
This created competition and resulting “fringe machine” style of shows has resulted in the loss of creative innovative art in festivals that were originally created to support just such ventures. The Edinburgh Fringe — which was founded in 1946 with a desire to promote more groundbreaking, alternative theatre than what was being seen at the Edinburgh International Theatre Festival — features an overwhelming number of comedic and stand up performances, leading to claims that “the spontaneity and asceticism of the first Fringe Festival has faded, clearly demonstrating that in the last fifty years the Festival has in part turned into the very thing against which the original companies fought” (Maresh 278). By allowing profitability to restructure theatre festivals, the initial desires for innovative (fringe) art and cultural celebration is lost as these festivals become a “spatialize[d] capitalist free market” (Batchelor 45) that values and promotes the familiar. In Reading the Material Theatre, Knowles begs the question “has the line between cultural and other tourism been irrevocably crossed?” (187) and as theatre festivals originally motivated by a desire for the new and the daring forgo such development for larger audiences and tourist appeal the answer seems worryingly clear.
It is not just the localization and solidification of theatre festivals within their host city that can detract from cultural focus; the outward movement created by globalization can have a similar effect. As the world expands and becomes more interconnected, cities and countries vie for recognition on an international scale. This leads to an increased popularity of entertainment and leisure activities because they place countries’ cultures on an international platform (Aoyama). Culture is becoming a commodity that packages tradition and local behaviours “in order to construct certain representations that then promote the uniqueness of that place or community” (Duffy 230). In order to attract foreign talents, draw in tourists and garner international notice, countries must present themselves as a cultural hub and to do so, theatre festivals are again called into commission. Theatre and other high arts are considered a representation of the creating country’s culture and international festivals provide an opportunity to share this work with the world. “Today Edinburgh, Avignon, and other festivals… function primarily as manifestations of a theatrical version of late-capitalist globalization, postmodern marketplaces for exchange, not so much of culture as cultural capital” (Knowles 181). Culture has become a commodity and theatre festivals act as a trade show to allow this product to be showcased on an international scale, with audiences and governments alike as the buyers. “With the connivance of national governments interested in cultural showcases as promotional opportunities, an increasing percentage of theatrical production is taking this form, as the cultural economics of nations becomes increasingly globalized” (Knowles 184). International festivals have become a platform for governmental agencies to market their culture to other nations, like in 1999 when the British Arts council ran a program bringing in theatre artists and producers from all over the world. Designed to help network and “plant the seeds of touring, co-production, and collaborative initiatives” (Knowles 187), the ultimate desire of this program was to encourage the longevity of these shows elsewhere rather than a focus on putting a quality “product” on display. With a mind to appealing to international audiences — both international festivals audiences and future audiences for touring shows — the productions face a challenge of having to translate their culture and product to a wider audience.
When the utmost goal is to appeal on a wide scale, and when that appeal can ensure a show’s success or failure, international festivals which seek to promote interconnectedness (McMahon) can have quite the opposite effect. There is an increasing demand for distinct cultural experiences which “reinforces the need for regional cultures to establish links to export markets for their survival” (Aoyama 103) and puts the priority on exporting the idea of culture, rather than culture itself. Although presented as having a desire to share cultures with other nations and promote cultural exchange, international festivals force shows to refrain from culturally specific messages or fear being misread by audiences not equipped to understand such references. As such there is a trend of festivals showcasing performances built to circulate which “are often visually stunning but politically impotent” (McMahon 3). International shows must fight language barriers and a lack of cultural context for foreign audiences and thus will often resort to spectacle and “flashy products” which can appeal on a much wider scale. The problem is only exacerbated by the fact that it is this type of show that is encouraged and supported by government grants as they wish to create theatre that will draw in as wide an array of spectators as possible. McMahon found that the majority of “government grants subsidize productions that showcase facile versions of ‘national’ culture in order to promote cultural tourism” (McMahon 3) rather than shows that accurately portray their nation or try to promote a message. Rather than risking a narrowed audience or a misreading of the content, governments choose to support shows that cannot be misread because they lack substance. When culture is displayed on the stage, it is often a simplified or overly exotic form that appeals to an audience desiring to see “culture” while still remaining highly packaged and universal (Knowles 187). Paradoxically then, although built on a desire to promote cultural exchange and create “one festival for all,” international festivals result in a created sense of unity that isn’t truly culturally representative.
The potential for theatre festivals is great as they offer opportunities and platforms for a wide range of artists and foster a community of engagement and discussion (Dickinson), however the desire to promote and highlight culture and innovative artwork has been lost. “The whims of the global arts market… seems bent on evacuating theatre of its dialogic potential” (McMahon 3) as conversation can not be had when there is nothing of substance to discuss. With a mindset to the potential for theatre festivals as a business opportunity the focus turns from the creation of inspiring work to products that have been proven to “sell” and culture is foregone in favour of sleek packaged shows with wider appeal. Ultimately, theatre festivals which cite a desire to create cutting-edge works in an atmosphere devoted to innovative theatre expression (Batchelor), are having an opposite effect as the economics of production, and the desire for profitability take the centre stage on both the local and international scale. Susan Bennet, in discussing tourism in theatre, asked “when is a play not a play? When is it a financial phenomenon?” (428). This essay does not hope to decide what defines a “play” and if the shows put on in the current socioeconomic climate warrant such description, but the second question is of immediate relevance. Although there are certainly innovative, daring, culturally grounded shows that still come up at theatre festivals, these productions are becoming more and more rare, and perhaps even more worryingly are not the shows being supported by government and corporate funding. There has been a push towards shows that serve a financial purpose; either by being low cost comedies and skits that can draw in tourists as a simple form of entertainment, or by being sleek and flashy but devoid of any cultural substance so as to appeal on a larger scale. Based either in the idea of directly making money, or exporting culture to gain recognition and thus profit, theatre festivals have become a business, and shows are indeed in dire risk of being less of a play, and more of a financial phenomenon.