I love the National Theatre in London.

The National Theatre is a government-funded theater in London.  It gets about a third of its funding from Parliament, which provides for an enormous budget, and subsequently some amazing resources.  The National has three theaters, can produce 20 productions a year, about 3 productions on the same stage at any given time, hires hundreds of actors, musicians, crew members and administrators (we’re talking thousands of employees), and even free outdoor shows during the summer.  It’s all pretty amazing and kind of unbelievable, coming from a nation where a theatre company can struggle to put on a no-set, 3-actor production.

The National is always changing; it reminds me of my 8^th grade U.S. history class when I learned that the Constitution of America is a “living document,” because it is always changing and growing.  That’s what the National feels like; it is never static.  Not only because multiple shows are in its repertory at any given time, but it seems to push itself to grow and explore new work all the time.  The last two shows I saw at the National kind of exemplify this.

One was a brand new play, Earthquakes in London, written by Mike Bartlett.  It is all kinds of contemporary.  The stage is a curving cat-walk, there are media projections everywhere, loud rock and techno music, and scenes that go up to the year 2525.  But the show was beautiful and complex and touching.  It considered how we take care of the earth and how we take care of each other.  The writing and acting were suburb, and I give a lot of credit to the National for taking a bold risk with this play.

The next night, I saw Terrance Rattigan’s After the Dance.  It was written in 1939, and though it was highly acclaimed, it was not the right play for the time.  As the Depression wound down, and another world war was around the corner for England, it addressed the issues that people feared and therefore couldn’t confront.  So the National recovered this play that hadn’t been done since Rattigan’s time. The play was classically British: one set, regular scene structure, characters who don’t allow their true emotions to show, and absolutely moving.

I remember thinking how the National feels unique in this way – it can revive classics, and put on brand-new, innovative and risky works.  And all under one roof.  In the U.S., I don’t know if we could do that.  Would the same audience members come to both productions?  If our government ever decided that the arts were important enough to fund, would they dare put on a production with (gasp!) the F-word?  Or would the edgiest, off-Broadway, bohemian slash punk rock theater dare to revive a play from the 30’s?  What a non-discriminatory attitude the National seems to exhibit.  On both ends.

I love how the National can be all these things; new and old, bold and comforting, big and small.  I love how it can transform a stage into a cat-walk, and build the most beautiful, upper-East-side apartment that I can only drool over.  I love how there are free shows outside that anyone can attend, whether or not they will attend the theater later that night.  And that these jugglers and acrobats are employed performers, just like any other actor.  I love that it is practically mandatory to enjoy ice cream during the “interval.”

I am very jealous of England, a nation that has deemed all these things important enough to be supported by the government.  And I hope that maybe, just maybe, America will catch up one day.  That we will see the arts as a national priority, explore all kinds of work, make jobs for artists and writers and directors and designers, and be an interested and open-minded audience.

Or at least start serving interval ice cream.