Madam, - In his letter regarding the recent crisis at the Abbey on foot of cost overruns (May 17th), Christopher Fitz-Simons mentions how the chief executive/financial director "honourably resigned" and artistic director Ben Barnes stood down six months before the expiry of his contract. In my view, this is all too little, too late.
Ben Barnes's tenure as artistic director has been disappointing and a large portion of the blame for the theatre's current perilous state must rest fairly and squarely on his shoulders. He undertook an overly ambitious centenary programme.
He took over the reins of artistic director from his predecessor Patrick Mason at a time when the Abbey was in credit and leaves it now in crippling debt. He and his financial director were working alongside each other, yet obviously weren't sufficiently aware of the other's activities. None of this inspires confidence. Barnes's stepping aside is long overdue and vindicates the stance of those shareholders who tabled a vote of no confidence in his stewardship at an emergency meeting last September.
The money was lost, apparently, on touring productions, one of which was a Playboy of the Western World which was a garbled modern mish-mash bearing little relation to Synge's original classic. This, sadly, has been typical of a lot of the Abbey's output in recent times.
Bad management and decisions have been rife in the Abbey for many years, for example the short-sighted decision to abandon the theatre's repertory company some years ago. After 100 years, we have a "National Theatre" which is far removed from the ideals of its founders and what that definition should constitute. A National Theatre should exist to represent a cultural vanguard and present a repertoire of the classics alongside work which may not have popular appeal and fresh innovative plays by contemporary playwrights. This is patently not being achieved with any degree of success at present, and, as long as mercenary matters dominate the agenda, is unlikely to.
There are very serious difficulties facing the Abbey which won't be resolved by the misplaced, cosmetic exercise of moving it to a new site, a solution so beloved of many of the chattering classes. - Yours, etc,
DAVID MARLBOROUGH, Kenilworth Park, Dublin 6.
Madam, - The latest furore in the turbulent history of the Abbey Theatre may well be a case of too many cooks spoiling the theatrical broth.
I was responsible for the operation at the Olympia Theatre, both financially and artistically for a period of 18 years. During that time I learned one fundamental lesson: it is not possible successfully to run a theatre by a committee.
Of course, the artistic director must ultimately be responsible to the board for his decisions.
He will no doubt present a monthly financial report prepared by an independent chartered accountant and operate within agreed financial guidelines. However, if he is expected to be answerable to a 21-strong advisory council, individually and collectively, as well as the board, he will be put under severe pressure.
Incidentally, it is difficult to understand how the Abbey sustained substantial touring losses. In my experience of dealing with touring companies, whether they were from the UK, USA or Australia, they would always expect a guarantee against loss plus a percentage of profits. The Abbey Theatre has a worldwide reputation which should have made it possible to agree no-loss contracts with receiving theatres.
I would suggest that the Abbey should not be afraid of commercial success, such as The Shaughran, and make the most of their artistic and commercial successes. A reasonable percentage of a successful West End or Broadway successful production could help to wipe out the current deficit.
More importantly, despite their experience in the recent past, the board of the Abbey must trust the new artistic director, Fiach Mac Conghail, and give him the space to do his job well. - Yours, etc,
GERRY SINNOTT, Rathfarnham Gate, Dublin 14.