David Lister: The Week in Arts

I wonder what the owners of some of our famous theatres would think if a levy were added to the price of this newspaper. Along with the normal cover price, we could perhaps charge an extra 10p per copy to help towards refurbishment of the newspaper office, more lavatories or an upgrading of the canteen.

They probably wouldn't be amused. I suspect that they might think that this newspaper is a private company, and though the paper we produce is read by many members of the British public, it is up to the owners of a private company to see to refurbishments from their own pockets.

Yet strangely the same logic does not apply to West End theatres. Though these buildings are owned by multimillionaires, theatregoers are increasingly being asked to contribute towards refurbishment of them each time they buy a ticket. No, actually that's not quite accurate. Theatregoers are not being asked at all. There is no choice involved. Theatregoers have the levy taken from them with each ticket purchase, a matter that has received hardly any publicity, and which is carried out without any advance warning in theatre advertising and listings. Once one has bought the ticket one sees, if one looks hard enough, that a levy has indeed been added.

Already, Sir Cameron Mackintosh, owner of seven West End venues, puts a 75p levy on tickets at his theatres. Now, the Ambassadors Theatre Group, owners of 10 venues, has followed suit. They have introduced a £1 per ticket levy at the Trafalgar Studios. This week they confirmed that by next February the levy will be added at another of its venues, the Fortune Theatre, and after that it will extend to the other eight. Bob Blackman, the London Assembly member in charge of investigating ways of helping with restoration projects, also floated extending the levy as one solution.

It's only fair to stress that theatre owners have put their own money into much-needed restoration and refurbishment too. Sir Cameron has put in £20m. But as much as I am the first to salute him as one of the most brilliant, imaginative and successful figures in the history of British theatre, I still don't quite understand why I and other theatregoers with overdrafts are being made to subsidise the building projects of multimillionaires. And we haven't exactly been asked about it or been involved in any of the decision-making.

If we are being forced – yes, forced – to pay toward refurbishments with every ticket bought, then should we not be consulted on whether we think refurbishment is needed, how many bars and toilets we want, and, more widely and crucially, on how much tickets should cost in the first place? We're not just mute levy fodder.

Much refurbishment has already been carried out in London's theatres, but there is still much that can and should be done. These theatres are, of course, an integral part of the national arts scene, and there is a strong case for public money being used to help, be it from the Government, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Arts Council or the London Development Agency.

But they are not public buildings. They are privately owned, privately run, with the rent from producers privately collected and the profits privately banked. I am uneasy about the ethics of a ticket levy being introduced, almost by stealth. If we theatregoers are being forced to pay the levy, can we have a share of the profits too please?

An 'étoile' amid the strikes

A star was born this week in the world of ballet. Dorothée Gilbert of the Paris Opéra Ballet was formally made an étoile after her performance in The Nutcracker on Monday. No doubt that would be memorable in any circumstances, but it must have been especially so given the strikes affecting Paris. Gilbert had danced on a naked set with poor lighting and a corps de ballet not in costume, all the technical and backstage staff being on strike. The auditorium at the Bastille Opéra was only half full, as transport difficulties prevented half the audience getting there.

These must be heady times for Miss Gilbert. But, when they return, will the backstage staff give her the expected hugs and kisses, or will they mutter about picket lines and workers' solidarity? It can be tough, being an étoile.

* In the welter of publicity for the widely panned Sleuth, Michael Caine has said several times that he was attracted to revisit the film – in which he first starred with Laurence Olivier in 1972 – because Harold Pinter, who was writing the screenplay, had seen neither the first movie nor the original play and so was bringing something fresh to it.

I'm surprised by Pinter's lack of curiosity. As one of our leading playwrights, was he not at all intrigued to see a much-discussed play by one of his peers – Anthony Shaffer – when it arrived in the West End in 1970? As an associate director of the National Theatre in the 1970s, was he not at all interested to see a tour de force on screen by the National's founder Laurence Olivier? Has he not considered hiring a DVD in the intervening years? I never imagined that Harold Pinter, of all people, was so incurious.

More from David Lister