A return on our investment?

Why can’t the Arts Council invest in commercial shows and use the profits to support more arts organisations?

This question occurred to me as I was reading Ruairidh Nicoll’s piece in the Observer about the Royal Opera House. He points out that the ROH only has 2,268 seats, so it can never, ever be a ‘people’s palace’, even if the seats were a quarter of the price (to be fair, you can still stand for four quid). However, the Royal Albert Hall has something over 6,000 seats, and Raymond Gubbay uses it to put on huge, popular and increasing critically-acclaimed productions such as his current Madame Butterfly.

If the Arts Council were to be able to buy a few shares in that, it would do a number of things: make money for ACE which it could distribute elsewhere; get a return on the money ACE has already put in over decades to the creation of the talent which Mr Gubbay is able to draw on to produce his shows (including great backstage and technical staff); show approval of and support for Mr Gubbay’s entirely laudable aim to bring opera to a wider audience; increase the cash at Mr Gubbay’s disposal at the outset of a production, enabling him to continue and increase the artistic success of his work.

No doubt this sounds naive and possibly old hat, but maybe it’s an idea that could come round again in the endless turning of Fortune’s wheel. (I do hope you noticed that reference to another hugely money-spinning choral and orchestral work.) It’s a model used by the UK Film Council, though perhaps we oughtn’t to say that out loud given that body’s imminent demise.

The ROH is going to take the Royal Ballet to the O2 Arena, which is a great idea and for which they have to sell 52,000 seats. Will this make money? If so, could the Arts Council have bought into it and generated some funds? I can’t see why they shouldn’t be able to – plenty of registered charities invest to generate financial return which can then be put to good charitable use.

Of course there would be downsides – if the show tanks, then that’s public money down the drain. However, I feel sure there’s a way to minimise the potential damage – for example by using ring-fenced reserves, and also by being very careful when choosing which shows to back.

Some of you will be thinking that this is a bit of a right-wing idea to come from the pen of Lady Eff, but there again, most of us have our savings in interest-generating funds, and this idea is not so very different.

Addicted to heroines

Many of you will have noticed that Tuesday is an important day this week. No, it’s not just the pancakes – though obviously that’s a significant culinary moment for many. It’s International Women’s Day.

I thought I’d celebrate it by highlighting the Bechdel Movie Test. Alison Bechdel is a wonderful artist who produced the ‘Dykes to Watch Out For’ comic strip all through the 80s and 90s, and wrote the truly marvellous ‘Fun Home’ graphic novel. Read these if you possible can.

She also promulgated (though did not actually invent) the Bechdel Movie Test. (It has ended up being named after her by accident.) It exists to test the visibility or otherwise of women in mainstream cinema. It involves asking three questions:

1. Is there more than one female character in this movie who actually has a name?

2. Are these female characters ever depicted having a conversation with each other?

3. If they are seen talking, do they talk about anything other than men?

It’s astonishing and horrifying to discover the roll-call of movies which do not pass on these three simple test questions. They include many thrillers and blokes’ pix, but also family and young people’s films such as Shrek and the Pirates of the Caribbean series. Watch the video on this page of her website to find out more – and then next time you go to the movies, keep on the lookout for any films that pass the Bechdel Movie Test.

Yo sistahs!