Foreseeable and forewarned – and that’s not just the cancellations of Macbeth

‘Out, damned spot! out, I say … Hell is murky! … What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?’ – Act 5, Scene 1, Macbeth

There’s been a tragedy of errors: not just Macbeth, but theatre and the continuing impact of Covid-19

All the sanitiser in Arabia will not sweeten this

To cite two interconnected events from last week, we had one meriting headline status and deep-dive analysis, only to receive neither… and another which added a few routine mentions to a bulging-yet-neglected canon.

Let us first shine the spotlight on Dame Jenny Harries, still somehow in post as the Chief Executive of the UK Health Security Agency. At the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, her lies under oath included ever having ruled out airborne transmission, undermining the usage and perception of masks, incorrect comparisons with flu and minimising the harms of Covid-19 in children.

In her exchanges on the stand with, among others, Adam Wagner (on behalf of Clinically Vulnerable Families), she could be witnessed practising some top-tier avoidance towards the damned spot on her own hand (one which, to paraphrase Lady M, ‘all the sanitiser in Arabia will not sweeten’).

One member of the aforementioned advocacy group stated that questioning her was “like pinning jelly to a wall”.

Meanwhile, the West End transfer of Max Webster’s Macbeth, led by David Tennant and Cush Jumbo, received further attention – but not for its riveting and timely portrayal of ambition and moral decay.

At London’s Harold Pinter Theatre, the production had to cancel four consecutive performances of its run, resuming with an unprecedented six understudy notices, including its two leads. The cause was listed as ‘illness within the company,’ a phrase loaded with implication within the context of the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

This is a context in which the phrase, ‘due to illness,’ or variations thereof, has become a trope because of the frequency with which it derives from show-cancellation policies excluding Covid-related cancellations; or where, in lieu of safer working conditions, effort has instead been extended towards quietly acknowledging undue risk in the form of a ticket’s liability waiver, i.e. a legal disclaimer which should actually serve as an invitation to ask for accommodations. Thus far, such invitations have been tragically under-utilised.

Layers (of mitigation) aren’t just for Winter

Amid rising concerns about Covid-19’s long-term health effects, the advocacy group, Protect the Heart of the Arts, sought to offer a practical solution: a free HEPA air filtration system—one of several ways of mitigating the level of risk for creatives, venue staff and audience members alike. This was offered to the Macbeth production.

This isn’t the first time Protect the Heart of the Arts has been on the front lines of advocacy for accessible theatre.

When this interpretation of the Scottish Play was first staged at the Donmar Warehouse last December, the same organisation lobbied for the venue to adopt protocols for air filtration and masking in order to at least accommodate clinically vulnerable patrons.

At the same time, Clinically Vulnerable Families surveyed over 300 theatregoers, who made one thing abundantly clear: they would be inclined to resume in-person theatre-going if mitigations like air filtration and masking were implemented.

Sarah Stanley, a member of the group and a former actor, said:

Ultimately, we want clean air in theatres because everyone benefits. Accessible performances are already a familiar part of a show’s run; in the interim, why shouldn’t programming at least include performances with masked audiences?

However, theatres largely ignored such requests, seemingly prioritising the ‘post-pandemic’ illusion of alleged normalcy over inclusivity; pointing to outdated government guidelines rather than ‘following the science.’

What’s at stake with Covid-19

Here’s a snapshot of what’s at stake: Covid-19 doesn’t simply restrict itself to acute illnesses in the short-term; to pick but one example from its extensive, cumulative arsenal of effects, it can weaken immune resilience in the long-term, meaning that those who contract the virus are left more vulnerable to other infections.

For those with positions along the chain of influence (whether they run a building, organisation, union, or government department), this translates into a rather critical choice.

Are they really willing to acquiesce to a pathogen which moves through the air like smoke, thus setting the stage for a play within a play? A plot wherein all the world’s a series of stages at what continues to be a mass disabling event; one too often left unspoken and unchecked while the welfare and livelihood of creatives, venue staff and audiences are all the more jeopardised – particularly those within the estimated third of the UK population deemed clinically vulnerable.

For many, this past year has brought greater light to a painfully jarring lack of accountability in the arts vis-à-vis public health. The above is but one example where a lack or absence of mitigations inevitably results in visible and invisible damage, often for an undetermined duration.

A survey by Theatre Washington reported that while 58% of patrons in Washington, D.C. once attended performances six or more times per year, only 31% have done so since theatres reopened en masse. Almost half of patrons surveyed now attend just three times or fewer, and nearly 68% cited fear of exposure to Covid-19 as a primary reason for staying away.

Meanwhile, research released in October 2021 found that 56% of the UK’s publicly subsidised theatres had no online performances scheduled in their autumn season, after having offered at least one within the first year-and-a-half of the pandemic.

The walking-back of programming and funding for various forms of digital performances across the arts is the follow-up punch in what is a double blow; the short-termist thinking behind this one-two will ultimately prove much more costly to our health and our economies than the direction in which we could and should have headed. One which we still can.

Not just a healthier theatre; a more inclusive theatre

By advocating for common-sense mitigations, Protect the Heart of the Arts raise a crucial question: who is theatre for? If theatre fails to make itself accessible to the employment or custom of those with underlying health conditions, they reinforce an exclusionary environment in an industry dependent on the full breadth of human diversity.

As illness continues to disrupt all kinds of events – like Macbeth – it’s evident that mitigations are key to any industry’s sustainability as a whole.

At the same time, clinically vulnerable people continue to call for formal recognition as a protected group – a status that could help reinforce their place both within the workforce and the public sphere.

This also highlights the urgency for unions like Equity and BECTU to rejoin in advocating for what should be viewed as protections, rather than restrictions; for those who are training, auditioning, working; for those with and without profile, or sufficient means to protect themselves and others in any given industry setting.

From a practical standpoint, solutions are within reach. Among other aspects and interpretations, it is certainly a form of oversight in society at large as to how there are such keenly-felt gaps at a systemic level, especially in how the clinically vulnerable are (or, rather, aren’t) taken into account.

A by-no-means definitive ensemble of mitigations to adopt (and advocate for more widely) might include:

• The provision of PCR testing.
• The provision of respirator masks for all without medical exemptions.
• Filtration via commercially available HEPA purifiers or customised Corsi-Rosenthal boxes.
• Upgraded ventilation, as per the HVAC systems of government buildings like the Houses of Parliament.
• Far-UVC lighting.

Protect the Heart of the Arts – and Macbeth, of course

In the immediate future, accepting Protect the Heart of the Arts’ offer is simply the first step: one which represents a necessary, overdue investment in the health and future of the arts, and in the beleaguered notion and fabric of community.

These past few years should have taught more of us something about the inherently political entity that is public health, as well as the value of basic measures that make spaces safer for all.

Failing to adopt even the simplest tools at our disposal doesn’t just compromise the quality of productions, be they amateur or professional; it also compromises the trust and well-being of everyone who enters a theatre.

In a moment marked by challenges, uncertainties, and endless recovery, what we need most is a commitment to accessibility, equity, and a recognition that live theatre should be for all who want it – even in times as tumultuous as these.

Featured Macbeth image via the Canary