Download On November 17th 2004, the Czechs have been

1. Theatre belongs to those who create it
In their ongoing and frustrating fight with censorship in the mid 1980s a group of theatre
artists associated with small studio theatres in what was then communist Czechoslovakia,
publicly argued that the “ theatre belongs to those who create it.1” The idea of such argument
was a simple one – the theatre does not belong to the nomenclature, it does not belong to the
Party neither to the state. Behind the battle cry, which incidentally was first formulated in the
1930s by the famous communist theatre director E.F. Burian, was the desire to destroy the state
monopoly in founding and operating every single theatre in the country, and directly influencing
every aspect of their work. It was clear that the communist theatre system was absurd,
unbearable, and unsupportable. In the light of the total artistic, financial, organizational, and
ideological control under the communist regime, it was only natural for the artists in general and
the theatre artists in particular to demand the immediate division of state and culture after the fall
of communist regime in 1989.
Theatre however is an expensive affair, and the question of who and how will pay for it
arose almost simultaneously with the call for de-etatization immediately following the Velvet
Revolution. The transition to democracy and market economy awoke both hopes and fears in the
Czech theatre community. Hope for the end of censorship and a complete freedom of creation,
and fear in terms of the economic pressures on theatre financing and its sheer survival.
The fact is that in 2004 the Czech theatre is no way in danger of financial ruin.
While it is true that in light of the cataclysmic social and economic upheavals in the fifteen years
after the fall of communism the organization and financing of the Czech theatre continues to
undergo significant changes, compared to the Anglo-American system the state and especially the
municipal support for it remains strong. On the other hand, the transformation of financial and
organizational structures have been accompanied by an ongoing debate about the role of the state
1
Bohumil Nekolný, “Formation of Transformation - Part Three” (Formace transformace, část třetí), Svet a divadlo
6(2003): 33.
1
in formulating some sort of a cultural policy, numerous legislative proposals and counterproposals, political quarrels, unfulfilled promises, accusations of incompetence, an ever-present
bickering between cultural officials and theatre professionals, and between theatre professionals
themselves. During the 1990s and the first years of the 2000s, the system of financing the theatre
has been often labyrinthine at best and Byzantine at worst. The major point of contention has
been the unequal distribution of public financing, which continued to favor large multi-ensemble
repertory theatres and long established companies, while at the same time it failed to adequately
support the growing number of independent theatre organizations. It was not until 2002 that the
inherent injustice of the system of distribution of public funds has been seriously addressed, and
the city of Prague took the first concrete steps in order to remedy the situation.
In order to understand the relatively complicated mechanisms of organization and
financing of the Czech theatre, I will first offer some current statistics, and chart out the overall
societal role of the theatre in the Czech Republic. Than I will explain briefly how the theatre
functioned during the communist era, and lay out some of the fundamental questions about the
relationship between the state and the theatre in the first half of the 1990s. Later I will show the
different organizational and financing models currently in existence, and explain how the
fundamental problem of the continuous existence of large, state and municipality-owned
repertory companies shaped the gradual process of the financial and organizational
transformation of the Czech theatre. I will present a detailed account of the new model of
financing the theatres in Prague, and its effect on the municipally-run regional theatres. I will
hopefully show that despite the ongoing confusion in terms of the myriad financing models,
ideological differences between the cultural and financial officials and the theatre professionals,
and some almost absurd incongruities, the state support of the Czech theatre is among the highest
in the world. The continuous commitment of both the public and the cultural officials, the Czech
theatre at the beginning of the 21st century indeed “belongs to those who create it,” and despite
the ever-present grumbling and complaining by many theatre professionals, and the constant talk
2
about the lack of funds from government officials at all levels, the state and especially the
municipalities continue to provide generous support.2
2. Basic statistics3
According to the latest statistics complied by the Czech Theatre Institute, there was a
total 200 theatres and subjects dedicated to the performing arts in the Czech Republic in the
2002/2003 theatre season. Fifty-three of those were repertory theatres with more than eighty
ensembles performing in approximately ninety venues that were directly funded from public
resources, and operated by the state or municipalities. These so-called “subsidiary organizations”
(of state or municipalities) presented 14 442 performances of 1231 individual productions for
more then four million audiences. The publicly funded and operated theatres employed 7162
people out of which 3275 were artists. Their average self-sufficiency is about thirty percent, with
the lowest rate of seven percent in the National Theatre in Prague and several regional theatres
reaching up to forty percent. In addition to the publicly financed repertory theatres, there were
about 150 private and non-subsidiary performing arts institutions of various sizes with about fifty
permanent companies, which presented more than 11 000 performances and played for over one
and half million audiences. Those theatres employed about 1800 full time employees, the
2
The amount of complaints about the inadequate and injust funding of the arts that I encountered during my research
for this article was inordinate. It reached the summit when after seeing his extravagant and utterly lavish production of
a new Czech play, I was sitting backstage with the Artistic Director of Drama of the National Theatre in Prague, which
receives a yearly state subsidy of almost 400 million Czech Crowns ($40 millions) plus ticket sales, and listened to his
litany of complaints about the lack of funds. But then again, we are in Central Europe, where along with Pilsner
Urquell, complaining belongs to the two most important life necessities.
3
All statistics are taken from the following sources:
Kuchařová Pavla, et.al. Czech Theatre Directory 2002. (Prague: Divadelní Ústav, 2003).
Černý, Ondřej, et. al. Theatre in Czech Republic 2002-2003 - A Yearbook (Divadlo v České Republice) (Prague:
Divadelní Ústav, 2004).
Dostál, Pavel, et. al. Yearly Report of the Department of Culture2003 (Výroční zpráva Ministerstva kultury 2003).
(Prague: Ministerstvo kultury, 2004).
Brabencová, Marie, et. al. Culture in Prague, Yearly Report on the Financing of Culture by the Capital City of Prague
in 2003 (Kultura v Praze, Výroční zpráva o financovaní kultury hl. M. Prahou v roce 20030). (Prague: Odbor Kultury
Magistrátu hl. M. Prahy, 2004).
3
majority of which were artists, and their self-sufficiency was anywhere between sixty to hundred
percent.4
The total numbers for the theatre subjects in the Czech Republic are quite staggering,
considering that the country has a little more that ten million inhabitants: approximately 200
professional theatre companies presenting more than 26 000 performances of about 2 000
productions for five and half million audiences. Moreover, theatres in the Czech Republic employ
around 9 000 full time professionals, out of whom more than 4 000 are artists. On average
theatres play to eighty-five percent capacity; the publicly funded companies are on average thirty
percent self-sufficient, and the non-subsidiary theatres achieve self-sufficiency of anywhere
between sixty and hundred percent.
In terms of public financing, the total public support for the operational expenses of all
theatres was more than two billion Czech Crowns. With the official exchange rate of 25CZK to
1US$, this would make 80 Million US$. However, the exchange rate is misleading considering
the actual buying power of the Czech Crown, real relationship between the Czech Crown and the
US$ is closer to about 1:10,5 making the public support of the Czech Theatre in 2003 comparable
to about 200 million US$. The majority of public support for the theatres however came from the
municipalities, who contributed on the order of 1.4 Billion Czech Crowns to their theatres, with
the state government contributing only about 600 Million Crowns. The overwhelming majority of
public monies (ninety eight percent!!!) went to the “subsidiary organizations” of the state and the
municipalities, with only a fraction going to non-subsidiary theatres in terms of various grants
and programs. The vastly unequal distribution of the public financial support for the subsidiary
and non-subsidiary theatres has been a subject of much discussion in the last fifteen years, and it
4
According to the Theatre in Czech Republic 2002-2003, 698., the non-public sphere is difficult to capture
statistically. Many companies come and go, and not all private companies have replied to the Theatre Institute’s request
for statistical information.
5
The ratio of 1:10 to 1:15 is based on a monthly salary of CZK 30 000, the costs of apartment, average monthly
expenses for food and utilities, and the average cost of selected articles, services and goods both in the United States
and the Czech Republic.
4
was not until 2002 that concrete steps were taken to remedy the situation and open access to the
funding to all theatres regardless their legal standing.
Taken from various sources, which sometimes present slightly different numbers, the
statistics don’t include additional state financial support, especially in terms of long-term
investment in theatre buildings, and extra funds made available to various theatres after the 2002
floods. However, they point towards three major conclusions. First, the number of theatres and
audiences in the Czech Republic is quite staggering. Second, the state and municipal support for
the theatre is extremely high, whereas the cities and the regions are picking up by far the largest
part of the tab. Finally, the distribution of public funds to the theatres is unequal in terms of state
and municipally owned theatre companies who benefit most by the generous system, and the
private and semi-private sector which seems to be left out.
3. Three Traditions
In order explain the phenomena of a comparatively high number of theatres and
audiences as well as the ongoing willingness of the state to support them, it is important to
explain the role theatre has been playing as a socio-cultural phenomenon in the Czech society,
and to show how the long tradition of public support for the repertory theatres plays against the
financing of independent theatre activities.
According to Ondřej Černý, the director of the Czech Theatre Institute, there are three
major, Czech-specific traditions that shape the current organization and financing of the theatre in
the Czech Republic6. The first and most important is the socio-cultural role of the theatre in
reawakening Czech culture and language. After it has been almost eradicated by the Austrian
authorities in the late 18th century, a small group of Czech nationalists have began to use the
theatre to re-introduce the language to the masses, writing and producing a number of Czech
plays, operettas, singspiele, and other performances. The theatre performances became
6
Ondřej Černý, in Personal interview. September 6. 2004.
5
immensely popular, and soon Prague and many provincial towns in what was then Bohemia,
began to build lavishly designed and generously equipped theatre buildings. The current theatre
network in Czech provincial towns is the direct result of such nationalistic “cultural building
boom” in the late 19th century. At the same time, the early Czech nationalists subscribed to the
Shillerian and Lessingian model of theatre as a community builder. The combination of a
beautiful and pride-awakening theatre building often in the very center of the town, and the
strictly nationalistic repertoire were instrumental in the Czech cultural, linguistic, and indeed
national renaissance. As such, the theatre in the Czech Republic today continues to be a standard
bearer of national culture, and it is generally considered an integral part of the social fabric of the
nation. Indeed, the text and music of the Czech national anthem comes from a popular 19th
century sentimentally nationalistic singspiel called Fidlovačka, and it was not by chance that the
open resistance against the communist regime in 1989 was lead by theatre artists. Second, the
Czech theatre is organized along the lines of other Central European traditions, primarily the
German and Austrian ones, which favor a certain bureaucratic involvement of the state in all
things cultural. The existence of the large number of municipally run theatres in the Czech
Republic is the result of the long tradition of Austrian and German regionalism, which influenced
the creation of the theatre network in what is today the Czech Republic. The public influence on
the theatres expresses the Central European definition of the theatre as a “public service,” for
which the state and local governments not only feel responsible but also take pride in. It is not
unusual to find a provincial town in the Czech Republic, which allocates more than five percent
of their entire annual budget for culture, with the majority of the public financing going to the
large local municipal theatre. Finally, the backbone of the Czech theatre have always been large
repertory companies based on the co-existence of several permanent ensembles under one roof.
Many cities and municipalities take their pride in their multi-ensemble companies that produce
drama, opera, operetta, and ballet and are willing to allocate large amounts of money to them.
6
4. Forty Years of State Monopoly
The sentimental/nationalistic tradition, the strong public influence, and the support for
large multi-ensemble repertory companies, have largely been perpetuated during the forty years
of Communism in the Czech Republic. In 1948, all Czech theatres were nationalized, and the
newly installed Communist government quickly realized the traditional potential of the theatre as
an ideological community builder. Theatres became “state enterprises” and as long as they
followed the ideological line of socialist realism, they continued to be adequately supported. The
Czech tradition of state influence on culture has been only accentuated by the state requirement of
socialist realism, and the existence of several ensembles under one roof made censorship and
party oversight easier and more efficient. A legislative act of 1972 further specified that theatres
could only be operated, administered, and financed either directly by the government through its
Ministry of Culture or by the regional Party Committees as representatives of the state
administration. Thus, from 1948 to 1989, the state had a virtual monopoly on the operation of
theatres including artistic regulation and censorship, funding and abolishing theatre companies,
planning the yearly “theatrical output” in terms of the number of productions, and naming artistic
and managing directors. The system of state financing was simple. All theatre artists were state
employees and their salaries were set by the state according to a sort of a civil servant pay scale.
Theatre budgets were calculated using straight forward economic indicators such a the cost of
heating the auditorium, the permanent size of the ensemble, required number of technical and
administrative staff, state-planned number of productions, unit cost of stage material, etc7. Such
paternalistic system in both financing and administering the theatres has of course resulted in an
artistic amnesia, and the large repertory theatres rarely if ever produced artistically interesting or
challenging works. On the other hand, there were a number of small municipally run studio
theatres, which managed to navigate the myriad restrictions and regulations and produce
7
Ivan Hronec, in “The Horizon is Achievable in Shortest Time Possible” (Horizont dosažitelný v co nejkratším
časovém úseku), Svet a divadlo 3 (1994): 129.
7
interesting work while remaining financially secure. Most of these theatres existed in the
provincial towns, far from the Communist power center in Prague, in regions that had the luck of
having either more “enlightened” cultural officials, or – more often – cultural officials of such
limited intelligence that it was easy for the more adventurous artistic directors to outsmart them
and run a relatively independent operation.
The survival of a handful of such semi-autonomous theatres however was always in
question. A new regional Party official, a directive from Prague, a change of mood in the regional
Party Council, or any other new circumstance could spell a vastly reduced yearly budget, removal
of the artistic leadership, or, ultimately, a quick death of such theatre. A simple fact remained –
the theatres were fully in the hands of the state power and subjects to its fancies. However, the
complaint that such level of control was a result of the Communist regime alone was not entirely
justified. The Communists have only adapted and further ideologized an already existing system
and set of cultural values, which had been in place for more than hundred years. The post 1989
desire of theatres to free them selves from the ever-present state control was understandable, but
it soon became apparent that the call for division of state and culture and the transformation of the
existing theatre system were not merely matters of shaking off the communist yoke. It became a
struggle against an ingrain national tradition that allowed for the existence of a highly developed
and well-supported theatre network but at the same time discouraged independent theatre
activities, and perpetuated the paternalistic influence of the state on the theatre in general.
5. Liberalism vs. The Open Arms of the State
The transformation of the theatre system began in the early 1990s and the legislatively
dictated state monopoly on the operation of the theatres was quickly eliminated. First, the
Regional Committees of the Party were abolished and the administration and financing of the
majority of theatres has been transferred to the cities and municipalities. Second, the right to
found and operate a theatre was given to any physical and legal body, which led to the explosion
8
of private theatrical activities mostly in the form of large musical productions at first, but also to
the growth of independent theatre activities. Third, censorship and direct influence of the state on
the artistic expression disappeared completely, and in a nod to the societal importance of the
theatre, the first two post-communist Ministers of Culture in the Czech Republic were theatre
artists.8 Finally, the early 1990s saw the creation of numerous non-governmental theatre
associations, such as the Actors Union, the Association of Regional theatres, the Prague-based
Theatre Community, and a number of private independent talent and literary agencies. Despite
the fears of many theatre professionals, the transformation to market economy has not affected
the financial security of the existing theatre network. On the contrary, Prague alone saw the
creation of fifteen new theatre and dance companies between 1990 and 1995, and out of the
network of 54 regional repertory theatres, only one has been abolished since 19909. Yet despite
the ongoing stability and indeed the growth of the theatre network in the 1990s, there were a two
fundamental problems that needed to be solved: that of the relationship between the State and
culture in general and the theatre in particular, and the problem of the continuous existence of the
so called “subsidiary organization theatres” that to this day continue to receive generous state and
municipal support.
The first half of the 1990s, especially during the tenure of the liberally minded Ministers
of Culture Milan Lukes and Pavel Tigrid were dominated by the effort to de-etatize and privatize
the existing theatre network, which until then has been fully funded and supported by the state
and municipalities. Such efforts corresponded with the overall societal trend of decentralization
and privatization. Along with such efforts, there had been discussions whether there was a need
for some sort of “Cultural Policy” of the state in general, and a specific “theatre legislation” in
8
Milan Lukeš, the former Artistic Director of the National Theatre, was Minister of Culture in the “Government of
National Understanding“ between December 1989 and July 1990. He was followed by the Czech playwright Milan
Uhde between 1990 and 1992. It is telling that of the seven Ministers of Culture during the last fifteen years, four had
been theatre artists. The current Minister Pavel Dostál, a former actor and director, has occupied that post since 1998.
9
Nekolný, Bohumil. Theatre in the Czech Republic since 1989. (Divadlo v České Reublice po roce 1989) (Prague:
Unpublished manuscript, 2004), 7.
9
particular. According to a comparative study of the countries of the European Union, each has a
clearly stated cultural policy of the state anchored in their constitutions, the majority having
indeed specific theatre legislations.10 In the 1990s, in anticipation of the admittance of the Czech
Republic to the EU, many artists and cultural officials considered a similar legislative document a
necessity. On the other hand, because of the memories of an ideologically tainted official cultural
policy and the restrictive theatre legislation during the previous regime, the sheer sound of such
words awoke fears and disdain in a large part of the artistic community in the Czech Republic.
Nonetheless, the successive governments since 1989 have attempted to formulate a
comprehensible cultural policy in regard to the theatre, first in the form of numerous government
proclamations and later in the form of sets of recommendations. However, as of 2004 no
legislative act that would specify the relationship between the state and culture has been passed.11
In the early 1990s the emphasis has been on de-etatization and privatization of culture in general.
The economically liberal policies of the center-right government of the Prime Minister Vaclav
Klaus were reflected in the tone of the official proclamations until 1998. So for example, the
Government proclamation from July 1992 stated that:
The major principle of the government’s cultural policy is that the decisive factor in the
field of culture is neither the state nor the particular cultural institutions but rather the
individual for whom the cultural goods are intended. While we do not deny our
responsibility for the financing of cultural heritage and cultural creation, we want to
create an environment, which will allow the financial participation of private and nongovernmental organizations and individuals in preserving and creating cultural goods.
The Government will continue the transformation of state administration in the field of
culture, in the process of gradual privatization of number of cultural institutions until now
administered by the state, and in the creation of independent public non-profit
institutions.12
10
These theatre legislations however, sometimes assume hugely buerocratic proportions. For example the Austrian
legislation about its four leading federal theatres has more than 70 articles. That is about 10 percent of the entire
Austrian Civil Code.
11
The Czech rermkulturni politika has been subject to much discussion, since it denotes “politics” rather than
“policy.” Czech artists are allergic to hearing the terms politics and theatre in one sentence, and this may be one of the
reasons why many have been so skeptical about a state-formulated cultural policy. Some cultural officials have began
to use the term kulturni strategie – “cultural strategy,” which may be more fitting term.
12
Bohumil Nekolný, “Formation of Transformation - Part One” (Formace transformace, část první), Svet a divadlo 4
(2003): 12.
10
For the first time in more than 40 years, the government has publicly distanced itself form
the formulation of cultural policy, and empowered the individual citizen as the recipient of
culture. It stated the intention of creating an “environment” for the development of culture, rather
than a insisting on a direct influence. It stated its intentions to privatize cultural institutions and
opened a space for independent non-governmental initiatives. At the same time the government
affirmed its limited responsibility for the financing of culture. The economically liberal policies
of the first half of the 1990s have led to the complete privatization of the Czech film, and
publishing industry, as well as the TV and Radio (which have been transformed into “publicly
held organizations” along the lines of BBC) but the stated intentions of the center-right
government did not lead to any legislative action that would directly address the continuing
existence of the direct state or municipal financing of the existing theatre network, and the
absence of mechanisms for the financial support of independent theatre companies.
In 1998, the center right government was replaced by a coalition of Social and Christian
Democrats. The cultural policies of the new moderately left government remained more or less
continued those of the previous administration. It too has published a number of government
declarations, commissioned studies of cultural policies of the countries of the European Union,
and publicly committed to the principles of multi-source financing of culture, and to increasing
the budget of the Ministry of Culture to the levels common in the EU. It repeatedly declared its
intention to transform the existing subsidiary organization into not-for-profit institutions
competing for state funds in an open environment, and in 2001, the Social Democratic
government ratified an official declaration entitled Cultural Policy in the Czech Republic as the
first binding and coherent set of principles of the relationship between state and culture. The
declaration restates all of the above principles, and proposes concrete economic and tax policies
for the support of „cultural industry,“ and for the first time „obliges” the government to
11
implement its principles.13 However, despite the „official and binding“ nature of the declaration,
no part of it has not been put into effect as of 2004. The relationship between the state and the
theatre remains unclear, but for an outside observer of the Czech theatre landscape a question
inevitabley arises whether such relationship indeed needed to be legislativelly anchored. The
veritable mountain of documentation from the Ministry of Culture and other govermental
organizations is immense and redundant, and as the above statistics have shown, the Czech
theatre remains vital and loyally attended. On the other hand, there exists a rather bewildering
array of different models of theatre organizations and financing that may need to be streamlined
in the future. Unlike the United States, where the lines between a for-profit and non-profit theatre
is relatively clearly drawn, and where the financial contributions of Federal or State governments
is almost non-existent, the picture in the contemporary Czech Republic is blurred.
6. Theatre as a Subsidiary Organization
The largest recipients of direct public support are the so-called “subsidiary
organizations.” Theatre as a subsidiary organization is the most common model of repertory
theatre organization in the Czech Republic, and there are currently 53 such theatres in the
country. In praxis, a subsidiary theatre is a single-source organization that is run, administered
and financed by the state or a municipality. The financial subsidies for such theatres are allocated
from the particular state or municipal budgets on yearly basis according to both the needs of the
theatre and the economic realities of the individual municipality. Organizationally, the subsidiary
theatres are sort of “state enterprises” where the Ministry of Culture or the municipal
governments have the right to name or remove the artistic directors, increase or decrease the
yearly subsidies, and – theoretically – close down the theatre if the economic or political situation
changes dramatically. In that, the subsidiary theatres are perhaps the last vestiges of Socialism in
13
Bohumil Nekolný, “Formation of Transformation - Part Two” (Formace transformace, část druhá), Svet a divadlo 5
(2003): 139.
12
the Czech Republic, and despite the ongoing efforts to change their legal standing they survive as
the most common form of repertory theatre organization. The advantage of the current system is
the relative financial stability of such theatres, and especially in the regional theatre network
outside of Prague, the system seems to suit the majority of artistic and managing directors. On the
other hand, the reliance on a single source of financing (the subsidiary theatres are not allowed to
apply for additional grants, and corporate support for culture is almost non-existent in the Czech
Republic), and the dependence on the political will of city or Ministry officials often leads to a
lack of flexibility in terms of artistic and staff wages, a pervasive conservatism of the repertory,
and a general feeling of stagnation in many of the regional repertory companies. Finally, the
continuous state and municipal financial support for the subsidiary organizations has led to a lot
of bad blood among Czech theatre professionals who often begrudge the financial favoring of the
established network of subsidiary theatres.
There are two kinds of such subsidiary organizations. First, there are the so-called
“national institutions” that are operated and fully financed by the Ministry of Culture. This
includes the gargantuan National Theatre, the State Opera, and the famed Laterna Magika theatre.
As an officially designated “national institution” the National Theatre receives a close to 380
million Czech Crowns for its operational budget every year.14 This sum does not include funds
for the maintenance of its two large buildings, which are registered national landmarks, and
whose upkeep is financed through a different budget line of the Ministry. The National Theatre is
a multi-ensemble theatre with a three large permanent drama, opera, and ballet companies, two
permanent orchestras, large number of directors, designers, dramaturges, conductors, choral
directors, etc., and an army of technical and administrative support staff. Administratively, the
National Theatre is a “subsidiary organization” of the Ministry of Culture, which means that the
state remains the “founder and operator” of the theatre. While since 1992 the theatre has its own
board of directors, its function is purely advisory, and the successive Ministers of Culture have on
14
Dostál, Yearly Report of the Department of Culture 2003, 91
13
numerous occasions ignored the board’s recommendations, most severely in terms of naming the
Executive Directors of the National Theatre in the 1990s. In that, the administration of the
National Theatre remains firmly in the hands of the Ministry perpetuating the traditional notion
that the hand that gives also directs. In addition to the direct support of the National Theatre, the
Ministry of culture also allocates about 125 million Crowns to the State Opera in Prague,15 thus in
a sense duplicating the financing of the National Theatre’s own opera company. The financing of
the State Opera through the Ministry of Culture seems absurd, considering that the physical
building of the State Opera is located less than a mile from the National Theatre’s opera stage,
and the repertoire of the two companies often overlaps.
Second, there are 53 repertory theatres that function as “subsidiary organizations” of
cities, municipalities, and as is the case in Prague, city neighborhoods. These theatres are
financed from the individual budgets of the municipalities and cities. Organizationally, these
theatres are operated by the individual municipal governments, which also name the Artistic and
Managing directors. The individual budgets of the municipal theatres vary according to the size
of their permanent company and staff, the number of companies under one roof (14 of those are
multi-ensemble theatres with their own opera and ballet companies as well as orchestras), and the
financial and political circumstances in the individual cities. So for example the rich city of
Prague can afford to allocate more than five percent of its annual budget to culture, out of which
more one third or about 480 million Crowns goes to its subsidiary theatres and various theatre
grants,16 and the enlightened Prague city government does not shy away from supporting
controversial works, whereas smaller regional towns, who tend to be poorer and whose city
commissioners tend to be politically more conservative often expect their municipal theatres to
present a more frugal and safer repertory. The regional theatres (with the exception of Prague,
and few other cities) tend to present a mixed picture: On one hand they enjoy a relative financial
15
Ibid., 93.
16
Brabencová, Culture in Prague, 7.
14
security in terms of an automatic yearly subsidy from the municipality, but on the other hand,
they are in a sense at the mercy of the individual city governments. The single-source financing
model prevents them from seeking additional funds,17 and they continue functioning along the old
communist model.
7. Non-profits and Private Theatres
Until 2002, the subsidiary organizations have swallowed ninety eight percent of the entire
state and municipal support for the theatre in the Czech Republic.18 As much as their financing
may be questioned from the point of view of equal distribution of state funds, and the dependence
on a single source, their organizational model is simple. They are in a sense “state enterprises”
funded and operated by a governmental entity. However, next the subsidiary theatres, there exist
almost 150 additional independent theatre and dance companies in the Czech Republic that are
able to survive as professional companies in various forms. Roughly, the non-subsidiary theatres
in the Czech Republic can be divided into pure for-profit ventures, and a hybrid form of nonprofit theatres. The for-profit “private theatres” range from one-time musical productions, to
theatres intended mainly for foreign tourists, to respected small repertory houses, which base their
repertory on successful small cast foreign imports and the star power of their performers. The forprofit theatres usually charge a higher ticket prices than the subsidiary and non-profit ones, and as
a rule they are hundred percent self-supporting. The organizational structures of the non-profit
theatres in the Czech Republic, on the other hand are complicated. In general, there are two
organization models for the independent theatre companies, which seemingly come much closer
to the Anglo-American system. First, there are the “Civic Associations” that could be described
17
However, in 1996, the newly constituted „Association of Regional Theatres“ has successfully lobbied the Parliament
in order to obtain direct funds form the Ministry of Culture as a supplement to their municipally allocated budgets. As a
result, the Ministry created a “Program For Support of Regional Theatres,” which allocates about 35 million Crowns a
year to 33 regional repertory companies. Compared with the individual municipal and regional contributions to the
regional theatres, the 35 millions divided among 33 companies is a mere drop in the water.
18
Press Release by the Czech Theatre Institute, (Prague: September 11. 2002.)
15
as non-profit organizations that are tax exempt. Second, there are theatres organized as “Limited
Companies.” In a strange twist, which demonstrates the complexity of the theatre organization in
the Czech Republic, such Limited Companies could be crated as non-profits as well, and just as
the Civic Associations, are eligible for grants and government support, and their tax structure
follows a complicated model of profit and loss, so designed, that they end up essentially tax
exempt as well. Since the endlessly discussed legislation about not for profit organizations has
not been passed, and doesn’t seem to be anywhere close to passing, the designations of “Civic
Association” or “Company Limited” are more or less arbitrary in terms of taxes and eligibility for
grants and other forms of support. The difference is that a company that is associated with a
specific artist, or run by a strongly-minded artistic director such as Jiří Suchý’s Semafor Theatre
or Jakub Špalek’s Kašpar Theatre in Prague tend to organize themselves a Limited Companies
“owned” by the leading personality, and lacking a board of directors. The owner and operator of a
“Company Limited” has the final executive power over all artistic and financial matters of the
theatre, and as such the model lends itself for strong leading figure. Other, more ensemble-based
companies, tend to stick to the Civic Association mode, complete with a board of directors,
annual open meetings, and a complete financial and organizational transparency. However, in
terms of financing, tax laws, and eligibility for public financial support, both models function
more or less the same. Their financing ranges from a medley of different governmental and nongovernmental grants and contributions to a hybrid form of corporate support.19 The major source
of their income, however remain their ticket sales and secondary activities, such as theatre bars
and restaurants, renting out their spaces, and guest performances in the provinces. Unlike the
subsidiary theatres, their survival and economic wellbeing is not dictated by the fancies of the
state or municipality, but rather by their own financial and artistic creativity.
19
Because of the absence of a tax code allowing tax deductions for charitable contributions, the corporte support for
the arts is minimal in the Czech Republic. However, some major Czech and international corporations support the arts,
and the theatre. Because they cannot deduct their contributions from their tax bills, they declare them as „advertising
expenses“ in their book keeping.
16
The non-subsidiary theatres like to see themselves as the only viable model of theatre
organization in the Czech Republic today, and their artistic as well as financial successes are
reflected in their average attendance numbers of ninety to ninety-five percent, as well as their
self-sufficiency, which often reaches more than ninety percent. On the other hand, the
approximately 150 non-subsidiary theatres receive no more than two percent the two billion
Crowns of total state and municipal support, whereas the other ninety eight percent are distributed
among the 53 subsidiary theatres and various other state- supported theatrical activities, such as
selected theatre periodicals, the operation of the Czech Theatre Institute, travels to international
theatre festivals, and others.
8. Closing of the Gap
Until about 2002, the discrepancy of state funding on one hand, and the continuous
survival and indeed financial success of the independent theatres gave ammunition to both sides
of the ideological spectrum in relation to the financing models of the Czech Theatre. The liberals
argued, that the success of the independent theatres clearly shows the redundancy of direct state
support for the subsidiary theatres. They pointed out the “cultural market” forces that naturally
regulate the survival of successful theatres, and continued to demand a complete stop in state
support for the subsidiary theatres. The proponents of a more direct state influence on the other
hand saw it as a sign that the subsidiary organizations can easily exist side by side with the
independent theatres. They point out that the vast majority of the non-subsidiary theatres exist
only in Prague, and that the abolishing of direct state subsidies to the theatres in the smaller towns
and provinces would most probably lead to their quick death. While in the mid to late 1990s the
gulf between the two camps seemed to be insurmountable, at the beginning of the 21st century the
two sides started coming closer together. It became clear that the national tradition of regional
repertory theatres with a strong municipal support is a fact that everybody will have to live with.
The cities and municipalities have proven themselves to be relatively enlightened in terms of their
17
support for the theatre, and there were very few instances where the municipal officials tried to
exercise a direct influence on the artistic decisions of the theatres. In 2001, the extremely
conservative and lavishly state-supported National Theatre, a thorn in the eyes of just about every
theatre professional in the Czech Republic has hired a new Artistic Director for Drama, a young
adventurous director Michal Dočekal, who introduced a new dramaturgy, invited a number of
independent theatre groups to perform on the stages of the venerable national institution, and in
general introduced a new era of adventurous, often controversial, and directorially interesting
works at the National Theatre. Similarly, the independent theatres became more accepted as a part
of the existing theatre network in the Czech Republic. Rather than being considered a nuisance by
the theatre establishment, they began to be seen as equal partners by their more established
colleagues. There had been even some voices from the subsidiary theatres themselves, calling for
the end of the automatic subsidies for their theatres. In addition, the catastrophic floods of 2002
that have affected numerous Prague theatres, bringing few of them to the brink of financial ruin
have brought the theatre community closer together. The rising waters of the Moldau River in a
sense leveled ideological differences between the subsidiary and the independent theatres, and the
theatre community stood together. In short, at the beginning of the new century, it became clear
that rather than letting the gap between the two organizational models grow wider, a formula
needed to be found and a mechanism put into effect to create a level playing field.
8. Transformation in Prague
From about 1994 on, the Czech theatre bi-monthly, Svět a divadlo, published a number of
analyses, opinion pieces, and proposals concerning the financing and organization of the Czech
theatre. Among the most interesting were the thorough analyses and comparisons of different
financing models in the countries of the European Union.20 As a newly forming society, the
20
Bohumil Nekolny, In Europe… and Here – the Theatre Models in the Countries of the European Union (V
Evrope… a u nas – Divadelni systemy v zemich Evropske Unie) Svet a Divadlo 3 (2002): 145-160.
18
Czechs were naturally looking abroad for inspiration, and the EU theatre financing models served
as guidelines for the eventual transformation of the Czech system, and, primarily, as a means of
remedying the inherent discrepancy between the subsidiary and non-subsidiary theatres. On one
hand the existing Czech model of subsidiary theatres financed largely by the municipalities was
found to be close to that of Germany and Austria, and to some degree France, and the legislative
anchoring of the support of the arts in those countries, along with their commitment to allocate at
least one percent of the state budget for the arts was seen as something to emulate. On the other
hand, the British system of independent non-governmental Arts Councils exercised a great deal of
fascination especially because the Czechs, tired of a direct state influence in the arts, saw the need
of establishing a sort of a “buffer” between the state and the individual theatre organizations. The
British Regional Arts Councils were seen exactly as such buffers, and a number of subsequent
transformation proposals in the Czech Republic sought to introduce a similar system. The
analysis of the theatre financing models in the countries of the European Union eventually led to
three major conclusions: One, the arts in general and the theatre in particular need to be defined
as a “service to the public,” and as such the state has the duty to financially support it. Second,
while the state ought to provide the funding, it must not exercise direct influence in its
distribution and it must not run the arts organizations. Third, in order to insure the independence
of the arts organizations, an environment must be created in which there exists a multiplicity of
financial sources for which all theatres are eligible, but which are competitive, and whose
distribution is tied to a set of criteria that the theatres must fulfill.
According to Alena Brabencová, the transformation of theatre system in Prague started
already in 1996 when she became the city’s Theatre Commissioner.21 In an effort to begin to
close the gap between the sixteen theatres that the city of Prague operated as its subsidiary
21
Helena Brabencová, in Personal Interview, September 10. 2004.
19
organizations22 and the more than 50 independent theatre and dance companies without a reliable
source of support, she introduced the first, at the beginning severely limited, system of city grants
to be distributed to the independent theatres in Prague. However, the larger transformation did not
begin until 2000. At that time, the Prague City Council under the pressure of Brabencová
commissioned the Czech Theatre Institute to work out a detailed proposal for the transformation
of theatre financing in Prague. The Theatre Institute promptly obliged, and submitted the proposal
to the City Council at the end of 2001.
In its preamble, the proposal acknowledges its indebtedness to the various models in
existence in the countries of the EU. In that spirit, it broadly defines theatre as a “cultural service
to the public,” and vice-versa obliges the public to support such services through their tax
contribution; it considers culture as one of the “basic human rights,” and mentions the role of the
theatre as a means of “social cohesion.” At the same time it calls the theatre an “industry,” and
spells out the economic advantages of a vital theatre network for the city, including the so called
“multiplication effect.”23 It lists a series of “Aims of Cultural Policies of the City of Prague,” such
as the desire to continue the tradition of Prague as a national cultural center, and at the same time
creating an innovative European cultural center, which will lead the way towards the Czech
integration into the European Union. It posits a number of “Major Principles of Realization of
Cultural Policy of the City of Prague,” specifically tailored after the countries of European Union.
These include the creation of a grant system that insures equal access to public financing for all
theatres in Prague; the city’s obligation to finance but not to run and operate the theatres, the
primacy of public interest in terms of the “highest quality” of theatrical output; transparency in
terms of distribution funds and its use by the individual theatres in the form of yearly audits and
22
This includes the three subsidiary theatres in Prague that are financed and operated by their individual city districts.
Even though those three theatres are not directly supported by the Magistrate, they too, as subsidiary organizations are
considered a part of the Prague transformation porocess.
23
The „multiplication effect“ became something of a buzzword in the Czech Republic. It is a common factor in
determining the financial support of theatres in Switzerland, and its basic premise is that theatrical activities engender
all kinds of other economic growth in their vicinity. There were several economic studies in the Czech Republic that
attmted to calculate the „multiplication effect“ of the theatres in various cities, and their conclusions are often used as a
means to obtain higher subsidies.
20
publicly accessible financial reports; competitive environment where the allocation of funds is
decided by politically independent and competent bodies according to a clear set of qualitative
and quantitative criteria, and a organizational and financial flexibility of both the theatres as
recipients of the public funds and the city as a distributor of such. The principles also incorporate
the need for a multiple-source financing of the individual theatres including the contributions of
the Ministry of Culture as well as the private sector, and the operation of the theatres as a
partnership between the city and the individual theatres themselves.24
More specifically, the proposal recommended that over a period of four to eight years, all
theatres, including the existing subsidiary organizations transform into one or another form of
not-for-profit institutions. These would include either the non-profits, which would be asked to
form their own boards of directors, or the Limited Companies, as I described them above. Rather
than automatic yearly direct subsidies to the subsidiary organizations and the medley of different
grants and contributions scraped from the remaining funds for the non-subsidiary theatres, the
public financing for the not-for-profit theatres would come in the form of four-year-grants for
which all theatres, regardless their legal standing would be equally eligible. The grants would be
distributed through newly formed Grant Council, which would be named, on the recommendation
of the actual theatre representatives by the city council. The Grant Council would “insure the
fulfillment of the goals of the cultural policy of the city in the area of theatre, and formulate the
short-term goals of such policy.” It would function as a “bridge between the Prague magistrate
and the theatres, and at the same time it would be an independent panel of experts judging the
merits of the individual grant proposals.”25 Additionally, the proposal recommends three
categories of theatre organizations and specifies their eligibility for the grants, and it lists concrete
criteria on which the individual theatres would be judged in the grant decisions. Finally, the
proposal calls for a public commitment by the city to assure the levels of financing of the newly
24
Prague Theatre Network as a Cultural Service to the Pulbic (Pražská divadelní síť jako kulturní služba veřejnosti),
Svět a divadlo, 6 (2002): 10-12.
25
Ibid., 15.
21
transformed subsidiary theatres to remain the same if not higher over the period of the next four
years.
With small, relatively insignificant changes, the Prague City Council has accepted the
recommendations, and in 2002 the first phase of the transformation of Prague theatre organization
and financing has been put into effect. First, in an order to assuage the fears of the existing
subsidiary theatres and a number of special interest groups such as the Actors Union, the City
Council published the so-called Declaration of the Support of Professional Theatre by the Capital
City of Prague. In it, the magistrate reaffirms its readiness to “continue to support the activities of
the newly transformed former subsidiary organizations at least at the level of the current
contributions,” and it asserts that “ with the change of the system of distribution of the financial
support to the theatres, the city has created a natural theatrical environment that brings it closer to
the standards common in the countries of the European Union.”26 Second, after a consultation
with the managing directors of several Prague theatres, three out of the sixteen existing
companies agreed to transform their legal standing from a subsidiary organization to a not-forprofit one, and apply for the first set of four-year grants. Third, the access to a long term city
grant has been opened to all theatres, regardless their legal status, and a Grant Council has been
named by the Magistrate to consider further grant applications. In 2003 and 2004 two additional
subsidiary theatres (until then operated by their individual city districts) have joined in the
transformation, and the city plans to eliminate the institution of a subsidiary theatre as described
above by the year 2008.27
26
Igor Němec, et. al., „Declaration of Support of Professional Theatre by the Capital City of Prague,” (Deklarace
halvního města Praha o podpoře profesioálního divadla). Amendment #1 to the legislation #35/35 of the Magistrate of
the Capital City of Prague on 11. 29. 2001.
27
However, one Prague theatre, the venerable Vinohradské Divadlo will remain a subsidiary organization of the City
for the forseeable future. The theatre is what the Czechs call a „stone-buit theatre,“ with a magnificent Art Nuveu
building,very large drama company with a history of star actors and a row of illustrious artistic directors, and a long
tradition of rivaling the national Theatre in terms of the scope of its productions. Since it is defined as a
„Representative City Institution,“ and perhaps because the Prague Magistrate has never warmed up to the statesupported National Theatre, it was decided that the Vinohradské Divadlo will remain a „subject exclusively owned and
operated by the city“ and thus defiantly stand up to the National.
22
The significance of the Prague transformation has been momentous. After more than ten
years of discussions, empty governmental declarations, finger pointing, and numerous proposals
the Prague Magistrate, in cooperation with the city’s theatres, has proven that the seemingly
irreconcilable principles of a generous public support for the theatre on one hand and a true
independence of the individual theatres along with the equality of access to the public funds on
the other were indeed compatible. If at the end of 2001, the ratio of the municipal support for the
subsidiary versus non-subsidiary theatres in Prague was 90 to 10 percent in favor of the
subsidiary organizations, in 2003 the ratio was about 80 to 20 percent,28 and with the increased
pace of the transformation process, the field will, hopefully, soon be leveled. The eventual
elimination of subsidiary organizations will insure that the access to city financing will be equally
opened to every Prague theatre, regardless their legal standing.
On might however ask what exactly has changed. Looking closely at the new model from
a purely financial point of view, one does not detect a difference in the level of support overall.
The magistrate has publicly committed to “supporting the activities of the newly transformed
former subsidiary organizations at least at the level of the current contributions,” and in the first
phase of the transformation the yearly support for the former subsidiary theatres will remain
exactly the same. So for example, the long-established “Drama Club” in Prague has received a
grant of over 60 million Crowns for the next four years. This is exactly the same amount it would
have obtained in direct subsidy before becoming a not-for-profit theatre,29 and since the “Drama
Club” is one of the flagship studio theatres in Prague, it seems unlikely that it’s future grant
applications would be rejected. The advantages of the new model for the transformed subsidiary
theatres then are not of a purely financial nature, but rather, they might be defined in terms of the
distribution of the funds within the individual theatres, and their relationship to the granting
authorities. For one, the new system of four-year grants has freed both the theatres and the city
28
Brabencová, Culture in Prague, 10.
29
Ibid., 64.
23
form what the managing director of the Theatre on Balustrade calls a “bureaucratic Moloch.30”
Where previously even the most minute details of the budgets, such as the individual salaries, the
purchases of additional equipment and materials, the ticket prices, etc. had been largely dictated
by the operator of the theatres (i.e. the city), and every single financial decision had to be first
cleared with the granting authority, the transformed theatres now have a complete freedom to
financially operate with the funds over the period of four years. Second, the not-for-profit
theatres now may apply to additional grants and funds from a number of other governmental or
non-governmental sources from which they were previously excluded. The transformation has put
the stated principle of multi-source financing into effect, thus eliminating the limiting dependency
on a single source of financing. In practical terms, the theatres are now eligible for a number of
European Union cultural grants, from which they were formally excluded,31 as well as for a
number of individual grants from the Ministry of Culture, which previously refused to duplicate
the already existing direct subsidies form the municipalities. However, the most important
advantage of the new system is the sense of freedom that the transformed theatres as well as the
Magistrate now enjoy. Since the city is no longer an “owner” of the theatre, it relinquished its
authority in naming the artistic and/or managing directors. Since, inevitably, many theatre
professionals saw such decisions in political light, and eyed it with suspicion (even though the
naming of the directors has been, with few exceptions, an open process emphasizing competition
and a high level of professionalism) the Magistrate often felt under undue stress und scrutiny, and
the theatres themselves resented the level of government paternalism. The leadership decisions
now are taken by the boards of directors of the transformed theatres in direct cooperation with the
artistic staff, and the Magistrate gladly keeps its fingers out of that process. Finally, according the
perhaps the most thoughtful and outspoken theatre professional that I encountered, the managing
30
Doubravka Svobodová, in Personal Interview, Spetember 8. 2004.
31
The cultural policies of the EU bear a resemblance to its agricultural policies. The EU refuses to provide grants and
support to states that heavily subsidize those industries, and consequently the subsidiary organizations are excluded
form EU grants.
24
director of the Theatre on Balustrade and a professor of theatre management at the Prague
Academy of Dramatic Arts, Doubravka Svobodová (whose theatre will begin the transformation
process in July 2005), there is a creative and psychological effect that the transformation form a
subsidiary organization to an independent not-for-profit engenders. According to Svobodová,
theatre is a dynamic entity that needs to constantly reassess its raison d’ètre and its mission. As a
subsidiary organization with an automatic yearly flow of funding not tied to any programmatic
declaration of the individual theatres, that sort of dynamic reassessment is not needed or asked
for. However, the need to re-apply for the funding every four years in a competitive environment
forces the theatre to time and again justify its existence, to re-state its mission, ruminate on its
existence, and if the circumstances so dictate maybe even perish and clear the way for another
company to benefit from the available funding.32 But the biggest beneficiaries of the new model
are the non-subsidiary theatres. While since 1996 they have been eligible for some city grants, it
wasn’t until 2002 that in terms of eligibility for the city funding their legal status was put on equal
footing with the more established theatres. The discrepancy in funding is still large, but as I have
argued above, the fund distribution ratio is changing.
The Prague transformation however, has a number of critics, who see several flaws in the
new model. They point out the ongoing presence of the political nomenclature in the grant
decision process. The theatre professionals only recommend and nominate the members of the
Grant Council, the final decision rests with the City Council. Moreover, the decisions of the Grant
Council itself are nominally only recommendations to the City Council, which, as a political
entity, has the executive power to distribute the individual grants. There exists a widespread fear
among the independent theatre companies that because of the inherent crossover between the
theatre establishment and the city political elite33 the long-established flagship Prague theatres
32
Svobodová, Personal Interview.
33
The social life in Prague resembles the Paris of Moliere’s The Misanthrope. Everybody who is somebody, knows
everybody else, and the cultural figures including many actors and directors mix freely with the politicians and vice
versa.
25
would inevitably be favored, and that especially the newly formed companies with young
unknown actors and directors would have a hard time obtaining adequate funding. Furthermore,
there is the problem of the “commercial” for-profit theatres. Unlike in England or the United
States, there exist no clear dividing line between “Broadway” or “West End” and the pure nonprofit theatres. Several Prague companies, such as the wildly popular “Fidlovacka” theatre
operate on commercial basis, covering their expenses from ticket sales and some secondary
activities only. These theatres are eyed suspiciously by the rest of the - often highbrow - theatre
establishment, and the City Council is reluctant to include them in the new model of financing.
The term “commercial” is a tricky one. For example, the established “ABC” theatre housed in a
city-owned space close to the Wenceslas Square specializes in relatively light commercial
dramaturgy, seats about five hundred people, employs over seventy full time artists and staff, and
as a subsidiary organization of the city, it receives 20 million Crowns in yearly subsidies that will
continue even as the theatre becomes a not-for-profit organization.34 On the other hand, the
“Fidlovacka” theatre on the outskirts of Prague, whose flagship production is a wonderful
rendition of The Fiddler on the Roof, and whose dramaturgy ranges from English sex farces to
Chekhov, seats a little over 500, has a permanent company of 35 artists and a staff of 30. It is,
however widely considered to be a “commercial” house and has so far received one one-time
grant of 3 millions Crowns from the City, and a yearly contribution of 1.5 millions from the city
district where it is housed. The rest of its 32 million Crowns yearly budget comes from ticket
sales, (whose prices are significantly higher that in the other theatres) creative marketing, small
corporate support, secondary activities, and a modest private endowment.35 The founder and
artistic director of the “Fidlovačka” Tomáš Töpfer points out the incongruity and, as he calls it
“absurdity” of the different standards applied to his theatre as opposed to the almost identical
“ABC,” but he remains skeptical about his theatre’s chance to receive a four-year grant form the
34
Brabencová, Culture in Prague, 68.
35
Töpfer, Tomáš, et. al. Economic indicators of the Fidlovačka Theatre 2003 (Rozbor Hospodaření divadla na
Fidlovačce 2003). (Prague: Divadlo na Fidlovačce, 2004).
26
Magistrate. The widely accepted image of his theatre as a “commercial house” is difficult to
shake off.36
9. …And in the Provinces
Despite the critique, the new model of financing has become a fact in the life of the
Prague theatre community. To what degree the model could be applied to the smaller Czech cities
and towns, however remains an open question. The original transformation proposal from the
Czech Theatre Institute specifically mentions the uniqueness of the Prague theatre landscape, and
cautions that it “its findings and recommendations may not apply to other municipalities.”37 With
the vast majority of independent theatre companies concentrated in Prague, the question of equal
distribution of funds may be a moot point in the provincial towns. With the exception of the three
other large cities in the Czech Republic, Brunn, Pilsen, and Ostrava the smaller towns usually
operate only one large repertory theatre, and perhaps one or two non-professional student or
studio spaces. The problem with the subsidiary organizations in the provinces is their complete
dependence on the will of the individual city councils and the economic situation in the often
cash-strapped city or town, which often leads to a creative and artistic inertia. After the
abolishment of the Communist Party Regional Committees in 1991, the operation of the
municipal theatres has been transferred to the cities themselves, who were put into a difficult
situation of fully financing theatres that often serve a larger regional population, which does not
contribute to the tax base of the city budgets38. For example, a study commissioned by the
Magistrate of the City of Pilsen found out, that more than 35 to 40 percent of the city’s large
36
Tomáš Töpfer in Personal Interview, September 14. 2004.
37
Prague Theatre Network as a Cultural Service to the Public (Pražská divadelní síť jako culturní služba veřejnosti),
Svět a divadlo, 6 (2002): 13
38
There are two sources of income for the Czech cities and municipalities. First, they collect taxes and dues on
selected goods and services, and second, they receive funds form the state budget, whose allocation is based on a
complicated formula of their population size, their economic output, cost of living and other economic and social
indicators.
27
municipal theatre audiences come from the larger region rather than the city itself.39 Additionally,
since the Czech Republic is a comparatively small country, the concentration of a number of
large, multi-ensemble regional theatres with their own opera and ballet companies in the same
region is often bordering on the ridiculous. So for example, within approximately fifty square
miles in Northeastern Bohemia, there are three large opera companies, all financed by the
individual, neighboring cities, increasingly showing the need to perhaps abolish some of the
expensive opera companies, engaging into some sort of co-production activities, and distributing
the funds differently.
Nonetheless, the Association of Regional Theatres, composed of the artistic directors of
provincial companies is closely watching the transformation process in Prague. The provision of
multi-sourcing is perhaps the most debated point. While it is increasingly clear that the regional
theatres will probably remain subsidiary organizations of the individual towns, the abovementioned dependency on a single source of financing is slowly being addressed. In 2002, after
more than ten years of political wrangling, the Czech Legislature finally passed a law about the
new regional administration. In an attempt to decentralize the country, it created 14
administrative regions with semi-autonomous administrations elected directly by the regions’
populations. The new regional governments were given the power to keep and independently
distribute a larger portion of collected taxes, and to exercise more executive powers. While the
regional administrations have been in existence for only two years, the individual city councils
and the municipal theatre directors have demanded that the regions contribute funds for the
operations of their theatres. At the beginning of 2004 several regional theatres have received the
first, albeit limited financial contributions from the regional governments thus taking the first step
towards diversification of their financing, and diminishing their dependence on the cities alone. In
addition, the Association of Regional Theatres continues to lobby the Ministry of Culture to
39
Jan Burian, in „Discussion About the Czech Theatre Association“ (Na téma obce divadelníků), Svět a Divadlo, 1
(2002): 93.
28
expand its “Program for Support of Regional Theatres.” The existing support of 35 million
Crowns40 divided between 33 regional theatres41 constitutes less than 3 percent of their budgets,
and the involvement of the Ministry of Culture in financing the regional theatres is widely
considered substandard, especially compared with the common practices in the countries of the
European Union. If the concept of multi-sourcing in the regional theatres were to take hold, the
financial involvement of the Ministry of Culture needs to be dramatically increased either in the
form of direct contributions or individual grants. Otherwise, the Ministry will be relegated to a
status of an irrelevant institution not unlike the American National Endowment for the Arts.
Furthermore, the regional theatres are attempting to involve the private sector of their individual
regions in sponsoring their operation. However in the absence of a tax code that makes
sponsoring attractive, and with the striking lack of tradition and willingness of the private
corporations to contribute to a public good, the financial support of the private sector remains
minimal. Moreover, whereas Prague is the undisputed center of commercial and financial
activities, and the seat of the majority of large corporations that are willing and financially able to
sponsor the theatre in the form of advertising, with few exceptions, the regions largely lack such
base. Finally, with the admittance of the Czech Republic to the European Union, the regional
theatres, as a part of the “European Cultural Industry” are studying the possibilities of receiving
some of the so called “Structural Funds” of the EU, which are designed to strengthen the
economic viability of selected regions of the newly-admitted members. However, in order to
qualify for such funds, which often include a provision of open economic system, the theatres
would most probably need to relinquish their status as subsidiary organizations.
Despite the above problems, the regional and municipal theatres remain the backbone and
the workhorse of the Czech theatre network. They enjoy a relative financial security, and, most
important, they have a loyal support of their audiences. With the average attendance of over 85
40
Dostál, Pavel, et. al. Yearly Report of the Department of Culture2003, 97.
41
These, in addition to the repertory companies, include several puppet theatres, which have a long tradition of support
in the Czech Republic.
29
percent capacity, sold-out school performances, and often more than 30 percent self-sufficiency42
they may be an envy of many regional theatres in the United States. Their success and stability do
come with some cost. As repertory companies with an average of six to eight different
productions in rotation, weekly school performances, and different community actions, their
permanent artistic companies are often stretched to the limit. Depending on the level of
conservatism in the individual cities and regions, their dramaturgy tends to be relatively tame and
secure, and with few exceptions, the regional theatres are not given to experiment. The average
salaries of the actors are relatively low, and unlike in Prague, there are fewer opportunities for
them to augment their income by TV, film, or commercial work. They suffer relatively high level
of attrition of especially young talent, who often consider their engagement in the regions as a
mere springboard for an eventual career in Prague, and as a sort of a “state enterprise” with artists
as public employees, the atmosphere in the companies is sometimes tense and perhaps a little
depressing. But such problems are minor, compared with the service these companies provide to
their communities and the work opportunities that they offer to hundreds of professional theatre
artists. In a sense, the regional companies embody the traditional model of the theatre as a
community builder, and a provider of somewhat enlightened cultural services to the population.
They, and their financial supporters continue to carry on the three traditions of the Czech theatre,
and it may be that in the ocean of the cataclysmic changes in the Czech Republic during the past
fifteen years, they remain symbols of stability.
10. Towards the Future
The strengths and flaws of the current financing and organizational landscape of the
Czech theatre network have been accentuated by the recent flurry of transformation activities in
Prague, and in a lesser degree in the provinces. The strength of the continuous existence of the
42
Černý, Ondřej, et. al. Theatre in Czech Republic 2002-2003 - A Yearbook (Divadlo v České Republice). Prague:
Divadelní Ústav, 2004. (817)
30
network of subsidiary organizations has been its stability in terms of its output (at the end of
2003, there were 51 subsidiary theatres with more than 80 permanent companies producing 430
new productions a year, and playing approximately 15 000 times for more than 4 million
audiences) and its continuous employment of qualified artists and staff (7162 full time employees
including 3275 artists).43 The flaw remains the ongoing, albeit steadily decreasing disparity in the
financing of those organizations versus the non-subsidiary theatres, whose number has more
doubled in the last five years, as well as the continuous dependence on a single source of
financing of the subsidiary houses. In terms of the cities, the size of their individual budgets make
it increasingly difficult to finance the municipal theatres. The multi-ensemble theatres with their
own opera and ballet companies where the average subsidy for a single ticket is anywhere
between 500 and 700 Czech Crowns are especially expensive for the municipal governments.44
According to Bohumil Nekolný of the Czech Theatre Institute, the author of a number of
articles and studies on the financing and organization of the Czech Republic, the priority for the
next few years is the “defining of the aims and strategies of cultural and theatre policy by the
means of legislative action,” which would specify the “legal, economic, and tax environment for
adequate and universally accessible financing of culture and the theatre.” Further, he considers
unbearable the disproportion between the financial support of the municipalities, which contribute
around 5 percent of their annual budgets to culture (with the major portion of the contributions
going to the municipal theatres) and the state, which only allocates 0.6 percent of the budget to its
Ministry of Culture, from which only a minute fraction goes to the theatres, (with the majority
being “swallowed” by the National Theatre).45 He calls for the legislative anchoring of the state
financial support for culture at the level of other EU states (one percent of the state budget), and
43
Czech Theatre 19 2004, etc.
44
Nekolný , Theatre in the Czech Republic after 1989, 26.
45
Furthermore, as a perhaps world-wide oddity, the Ministry of Culture finances all Czech churches, including the
salaries of priests and pastors, church buildings, etc. The financing of churches constitues almost one fifth of the entire
budget of the Ministry.
31
finally, he repeats the need of multiple sources of financing for the theatre fashioned after the
existing models in the countries of the European Union.46
Some of the above priorities have been addressed by the Prague transformation, and the
regional theatres are studying the possibilities of financial diversification. The onus in 2004 and
beyond is on the state and the Ministry of Culture. Compared to the individual cities, and as of
2003 the regions, the Ministry’s contributions are minimal. It is now up to the legislators, the
government, and to a large degree the Ministry of Finances to provide more funds for culture and
the theatre. However, with the present stagnation of the economy, and the immense state debt,
such action may lie far in the future. In the meantime, however, the Czech theatre remains in a
good, if sometimes confusing financial and organizational situation. Of the three traditions that
have shaped it over the past two centuries, the tradition of a community builder and a standard
bearer of national culture are the strongest to survive. As long as the Czech audiences will
continue to fill the auditoriums to 90 percent capacity, the theatre will do well, no matter what the
models of its financing.
46
Bohumil Nekolny in Personal Interview, September 14, 2004
32