Photo: Jesse Kramer


In a sense life paralyzes all of us. Our incessant exposure to the horrors filling television and internet screens leaves us feeling hopeless in the face of gratuitous cruelty and galling injustice on a global scale.
Broken Glass (1994), written by Arthur Miller when he was 78, is set in Brooklyn in November 1938. News of the persecution of the Jews in Germany and specifically the events of Kristallnacht, from which the play takes its title, when Jewish shops were looted and synagogues ransacked during a Nazi instigated rampage, has made the New York Times.

Sylvia Gellburg (Susan Danford) is obsessed with the news. Sylvia suffers from hysterical paralysis of her lower limbs, apparently brought on by her distress at events in Europe; this in an era when the stigma and prejudice surrounding mental disorders was pervasive. Danford is an incandescent mix of delicate vulnerability and commanding personality. She may be bedridden or wheelchair bound, but her dramatic presence seems to have the free range of the stage; it is the audience who find themselves riveted, immobilised by her flashes of passion.

Miller briefly flirts with the conceit that perhaps Sylvia’s response is the sane one, and those going about their business trying to remain unaffected by the atrocities abroad – one easily forgets how strong America isolationism was at the time – are in some sense sick.

Her husband, Phillip (Antony Sher) is filled with self-loathing. He even goes as far as to insinuate that perhaps the Jews have provoked their harassment: “It’s no excuse for what’s happening over there, but German Jews can be pretty . . . you know . . . [stuck up].”

Above all, Phillip doesn’t want to be dragged back by reminders of his people’s suffering.
He is proud to be “the only Jew ever worked for Brooklyn guarantee”; “the only Jew [who] ever set foot on that deck [of his boss’s yacht]”. Phillip has patriotic aspirations and Republican values. He has foisted a military career on his son, Jerome: “he could be the first Jewish general”.

When ingratiating himself with his boss, the Ivy League Stanton Case (Patrick Lyster) who facilitated Jerome’s career, but who talks about “you people”, Philip transforms into the fawning Jewish stereotype he so hates.

Sher’s goal is to have Phillip become not only what he hates, but also what hates him – hence his black clothes and more than a gestural nod suggestive of the Führer. Sher brilliantly harnesses the force of both prototypes.

“That’s one miserable little pisser”, as Margaret Hyman (Anthea Thompson), the wife of the physician on the case, sums him up. “I like to talk and I like to laugh,” she says. Thompson is completely at home as Margaret, the comic relief.

Phillip suffers his own manifestation of psychosomatic paralysis – erectile dysfunction and impotence. Perhaps, the play keeps hinting rather crudely, this is the root cause of Sylvia’s condition.
Sher inhabits his nasal, whining character absolutely. Most powerful are his artful silences. His personal commitment to the part is obvious. In an interview two years ago, Sher told me how, when he first moved to the United Kingdom, for many years he tried to deny his own identity – a gay, Jewish, South African: “The classical actors . . . were all such tall, handsome, essentially British men, whereas I was this little Jewish whelp from Sea Point”.

Broken Glass is at its heart about denial in its many forms and disguises. In relationships, denial leads to personal failure and the resulting regrets turn to recriminations. Sylvia’s paralysis catches Phillip wrong-footed. The marriage shatters like a Jewish shop window in Berlin.

The doctor called in to diagnose and treat Sylvia, Harry Hyman (Stephen Jennings), only precipitates the crisis as unprofessional feelings develop between him and Sylvia. It is good to see Jennings (who is married to Danford in real life) on stage again, and he certainly has his work cut out for him. Hyman is an awkward part. Miller uses him alternatively as a foil for Sylvia and Phillip.

This is true too for Syliva’s younger sister, Harriet (Claire Berlein), whose function it seems is chiefly explication, providing background and off-stage information to sustain Miller’s argument and plot.
Miller is at his best when his characters enter that deeply ironical position of people who surrender their own desires and instead allow their better selves to protect their nearest by disregarding the truth.

The ultimately fatal blow dealt Phillip is when aspersions are thrown on his loyalty to the firm and he loses the confidence and approval of his employer. His heart is now literally broken. Phillip realises he has been used all these years and remains as much an outsider as ever: “You got some lousy rotten job to do” like “close down a business” or “throw someone out of their home”, then “send in the Yid”.

Powerfully worded as the text is, it is governed more by reason that intuition. You can hear the logic of the arguments Miller is peeling open, sometimes to the point of forcing his characters.

Director Janice Honeyman has paced the production well, which is a challenge given Miller’s eleven scene changes, each of which is introduced by a lone cellist, specified in the text, presumably to represent Sylvia’s soul-filled tristesse, but which becomes a means of brooding presentation growing gradually more intrusive.

Dicky Longhurst’s set, suggesting shards of glass, is chilling, if a bit too obvious.
Appallingly, anti-Semitism never seems to go completely out of fashion, whether it’s buffoons like Charlie Sheen (who recently tweeted that his manager was a “Jew pig”), John Galliano and Mel Gibson, or politicians like Mugabe and Ahmadinejad. The play gives no glib proscriptions, except to suggest that hope must rely ultimately on compassion.

Lara Foot, the new CEO of the Baxter, one year into the job, speaks her mind, including her views on what is needed in funding in the arts in South Africa

Inevitably, a fair bit of anxiety and some excitement attend the change of guard at any major institution. The appointment of Lara Foot as the new Chief Executive Officer of the Baxter Theatre Complex was greeted with sighs of relief by many in the Cape Town arts community. Ms Foot had after all been the resident director and dramaturge of the Baxter between 2005 and 2007.

Foot is respected by her peers as a theatre-maker; she undertook a mentoring process with Sir Peter Hall; she has won all the coveted South African awards in her field, from the Fleur du cap Outstanding Young Director award in 1992 to the Standard Bank’s Young Artist for Theatre in 1995, and over the years, the Vita and various Fleur du Cap and Naledi awards.

As CEO, she is known to be both forceful and outspoken. Running a theatre establishment in these times is not for the meek. It is a constant struggle to overcome the seemingly intractable problems that beset the arts. The list of ailments is daunting; to name a few: stymied transformation, declining audiences, rising costs, undependable grants, frail sponsorships.

Foot says her job will “always be about funding because we’re not subsidized by government”. The Baxter, arguably long the country’s most vibrant (certainly busiest) theatre, is a cornerstone of South African performing arts.

Unfortunately, despite the Baxter’s reputation and international standing, favourably comparable to the Market Theatre during apartheid (from its inception 33 years ago the Baxter followed a non–racial policy), when South Africa became a democracy, it was left out of the nine theatres the state adopted.

The Baxter has been bolstered all these years by endowment money. However, successive years of deficit, prior to Foot taking office, have drawn down the available funds.

Funding the Baxter has now become a serious issue. Foot is still seeking additional funds of R2.6 million for 2010, and has started to lobby to make up for a projected shortfall in the current year.

“What people don’t realize is that the Baxter is not subsidized.” Foot relates how she received a letter of complaint that remarked “ . . . with all the subsidy you get”.

There is also a widespread public misconception that the Baxter is supported by the University of Cape Town.

“The university is incredibly helpful in terms of administration and governance and human resources; invaluable, and they give us [R]1.3 million towards operating costs.” She adds, “But we are not a drama school theatre . . . Why should the university be funding arts and culture in Cape Town? It’s not their job.”

According to the most recent available figures, government money accounts for less than 1.5% of total income, and nearly all of that is earmarked for specific projects.

“All I’m lobbying for is R3 million,” says Foot.

No theatre complex in the world of the Baxter’s nature and size (three formal venues with a combined seating of 1453) can exist without significant subsidy.

According to Artscape’s 2010 annual report, it received R35.5 million from the Department of Arts and Culture, R1.18 million from the National Lottery Distribution Fund, and a further R2.2 million from local and other tax funded bodies.

Arstcape is no doubt fulfilling its particular mandate, whatever one’s criticisms of the policy they are implementing may be, but there is something distressing about seeing a complex like the Baxter, one of the country’s most vital cultural arenas, receiving trifling governmental support, while state funded theatres have over the years steadily declined in the quality and the volume of work put on, even though their subsidies as a percentage of revenue steadily climb.

Foot believes that funding should be linked to “measurables”, such as number of productions and audience attendance.

The M&G listings for the past 7 years show clearly that all three venues at Artscape are regularly empty, some for weeks on end, except for random events. The complex seems to be a venue for just about anything nowadays – belly-dancing workshops, whimsical exhibitions, film screenings, awareness concerts, scores of amateur productions, beauty and body building competitions. And Artscape is a positively vibrant institution when compared to PACOFS (R27.8 million government grant) and the Natal Playhouse.

By contrast, the Baxter is almost always busy with professional theatre.

The difficulty is to continue to present work for loyal Baxter patrons while growing new audiences.

Over the past decade, what were previously very clear identities for its various venues – the theatre, studio, and concert hall, each known for staging quality work within a specific market – have loosened considerably as managements cast their nets ever wider for shows that will bring audiences.

Foot’s innovation has been the Flipside, staging work backstage in the main theatre.

“In a very short time we have had shows that have been more integrated and younger,” she explains. “Dramas too big for the studio and too small for the main theatre go to the Flipside”. The first tryouts (such as Magnet Theatre’s Inxeba lomphilisi) were well received. She admits that the venue was a bit cold to start and asks that I assure readers the venue is now adequately heated.

She would like to do more drama. Ideally, she wants to set up a young repertory company of 12 actors. That would need R2 million to operate plus production budgets.

“We are also going to have a new venue, an 80-seater downstairs where films used to be shown. That will be more accessible . . . more young people.”

“The Baxter is growing in terms of its number of productions every year. . . Last year we did 1250 presentations.” (Artscape did 759).

Amongst the country’s leading artists, the Baxter is certainly a sought-after venue.

The Baxter’s figures are impressive: 400 000 visitors, including 73000 school children and a special programme that brought in 7800 senior citizens.

“We’re in the brochures for tourism, we’re internationally known. If we were to disappear we would be sorely missed by the people of Cape Town and by the city and by the province . . . And where would all these [theatre, dance, musical] companies be performing?”

“Ideally the city and province should step in. . . and the public need to tell the city that they want their theatre.”

Last year, the city and province provided R400 000.

“Operating grants are the money that we spend to keep this building open”, without which there is no theatre.

The Baxter’s operating budget is pretty lean at only R11 million.

“Are we nurturing a society with a culture or an economy with a swamp?” asks Foot.

The problem as Foot sees it is that most officials responsible at ministerial and executive levels are totally out of touch, “unaware of what is vital to our culture”. They don’t even know “who the companies are that have made the greatest contributions”. She compares it to herself being asked to pick the national cricket team.

However, notes Foot, “I think that the new CEO of the National Arts Council , Annabell Lebethe is the most promising news we have had in a long time.”

As for the National Lottery Distribution Fund, it is “incredibly slow, unhelpful, even when you do go and see them on a personal level.”

Compared to many of our state theatres, an examination of the Baxter’s most recent annual report and financials reveals a well-run, tightly staffed organization with impeccable governance.

But Foot is not looking to government for a lifeline. She hopes that local business and individuals “will become part of the Baxter family . . . people who believe and want to invest in what we do.”

The Baxter is commencing a massive drive for private sponsorships. “I want to connect directly”, she says.

Foot can be e-mailed directly on: Lara.Newton@uct.ac.za