Theatre and politics have always had a close relationship. Yes, it’s well-established that Shakespeare responded to the politics of his day, and not even the most light-hearted of musicals can escape being tied to politics in some way or another. This is because the human experience is inherently political, and theatre is simply one part of the human experience. However, the idea that “theatre can be the cleverest and most subtle form of activism”, as performer Rob Madge poses, is much less set in stone. Does theatre really drive political change, or do plays and musicals just react to what is already happening?
Firstly, we must remember that the main objective of the vast majority of theatrical works is to provide entertainment to the most people possible. As the products of the theatre industry, plays and musicals need to turn a profit each year so that the industry remains economically viable. However, despite playwrights, directors, producers, theatre managers and everyone else working in the industry doing everything they can to get more people through the doors, only 14% of Brits go to the theatre at least twice a year. This figure seems quite low to me, and I imagine that it would impact the effectiveness of activism happening on stage, simply because of the majority of the public not being exposed to it.
Moreover, shows which are centred around activism are likely to include strongly political themes are going to struggle to attract a diverse audience because people are reluctant to spend their money on going to see a show that they’re unsure about. Therefore, I think that it is likely that these shows are likely to be preaching to the already converted, because I doubt that people are going to see a show that promotes political views that are opposed to their own. Personally, this is my main gripe with theatre promoting itself as a form of ‘activism’ because, in itself, I don’t think that it is likely to directly cause political change.
Despite the fact that the actual audience members of shows that focus on political themes are likely to already be aligned with the views promoted on stage, I believe that it is still possible for these shows to have a wider impact. Primarily, this is because the physical act of going to the theatre to see a show on stage is very impactful and helps to open conversations about the themes presented. Since distracting yourself from what is happening on stage is difficult (due to being unable to use your phone or chat to your neighbour), theatrical works force you to really think about what is happening before you.
This thought process will probably continue long after the show has finished and will often lead to you having conversations with your friends and family about what you saw or experienced. I think that these conversations are even more likely to happen when the show has hard-hitting or politically controversial themes since, at least in my experience, they tend to live rent free in my mind for weeks, or even months, after you’ve seen the show. Therefore, I think that, despite plays and musicals often directly reaching less people than films or series do, theatre is a powerful medium of activism because of the focus it requires from audiences.
Finally, the influence that these aforementioned conversations can have on the success of a show is huge. In my opinion, for theatrical activism to be successful, these shows need to enjoy a sustained and focused media coverage. This can be on TV or radio, in the news or on social media, or, ideally, across all of these platforms because this is how shows will be able to reach the largest and most diverse audience. I think that this is where theatre has the greatest chance of changing public opinion on certain topics, because a wide media coverage makes it very difficult for people to avoid thinking about the themes dealt with in politically-charged shows.
Here, I believe that “people” includes MPs, because I do believe that activism performed on stage can turn into debates in the House of Commons if enough people are exposed to the activism, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, instead of seeing theatre as a force to create change itself, we should see it as a catalyst for wider conversations which can lead to politics moving forward.
Shows which have “activist” themes, but which lack media coverage, are unlikely to have much, if any, impact on political conversations so they probably won’t drive change. Perhaps quite ironically, I imagine that shows that are more subtle in their activism might actually be more successful because they are likely to seem less polarising so might attract a more diverse audience. Therefore, a larger subsection of society would be directly exposed to the themes and problems on which the activism is centred so conversations around these are more likely to happen in a more diverse spread of communities. Therefore, perhaps we shouldn’t say that theatre is “the cleverest and most subtle form of activism” but rather that “the cleverest and most subtle form” of theatrical activism is the most successful.
