As a person from a low-income household, high-budget theatre has only become a part of my life fairly recently. (We won’t count the time I ran out of a West End production of Wizard of Oz when I was 6 – I think my Mum is still paying off the tickets.) The first ‘proper’ big-budget production I saw came about through school, and, long story short, I was lucky enough to see Saorise Ronan as Lady Macbeth in the Almeida Theatre…for £5.

Since then, I’ve been able to take advantage of my status as both a student and someone from a low-income background to see theatre much more regularly. It’s gotten to the point now where I’ll rarely see a show without first hunting down a ‘16-25 discount’ or spotting a ‘Free Student Tickets’ tab buried in small print near the bottom of a theatre’s website. The Cambridge Theatre Scene, as such, feels like a dream to me. But, considering the rising cost of living, I’m well aware that access to high-quality productions at an affordable price is a blessing that likely won’t continue after university.

“But it reflects an underlying idea that everyone else can readily - or even occasionally - afford to attend the theatre”

This is where I want to bring up The National Theatre. A cornerstone of the London Theatre Scene, the venue showcases an incredible mix of classical, contemporary and original work, and holds a special place in my heart. It was here, through discounts and school trips, I was able to see plays like Angels in America, Skylight, and The House of Bernarda Alba for the first time, and even saw my own play, One Man Duet, as a rehearsed reading. One of the venue’s focuses, particularly since Nicholas Hyter took over between 2003-2015, has been to make theatre more financially accessible. It was in this period that methods such as Concession Discounts, the £10 Friday Rush and Exclusive Standby Tickets aimed at groups like students and the unemployed were all introduced. Now, this is all well and good, if you belong to one of these groups, but it reflects an underlying idea that everyone else can readily - or even occasionally - afford to attend the theatre. This assumption overlooks a wide range of other groups: low-income workers, carers, those in precarious employment, who all fall outside the concession categories, but are still priced out of access. Perhaps, my comments reflect a broader issue with larger institutions more generally, but for an industry that relies so heavily upon public engagement, there is still a long way to go in making professional theatre truly available to all.

As Bethinn Feely[1] and Millie Wooler[2] have both recently highlighted, local theatre plays a vital role in this effort, and for many, it may be the only affordable, or accessible, way to experience the world of theatre. High-budget productions have, however, sought other ways to broaden their reach. Since 2009, the National has also regularly shown recordings of its productions in cinemas, releasing over 30 between 2009-2014, a strategy which attempts to appeal to the average movie-goer, and helps to restore attendance to both theatre and cinemas. The good news? It worked. A Nesta poll found that ticket sales among those with access to NT Live had risen by 6.4% annually.[3] The bad news? Those screenings tend to be a bit pricier than your standard cinema ticket, though far more affordable than attending a live performance. Ok, so not a perfect strategy, but still pretty nifty, right? Well…maybe. Because what happens when people start to engage less attention with longer-form content entirely? When the average attention span begins to decline to the length of an interval? When entertainment is so freely accessible on a phone, that it negates visiting an actual venue? In a cultural face-off between the theatre and the cinema - two mediums already trying to prop each other up - who’s more likely to survive an audience leaning towards cheaper, bite-sized content over their craft? The answer is, neither of them will.

“But, why does the future of theatre have to rely on such precarious hands?”

For high-budget theatre to thrive long beyond our lifetimes, it must be accessible. This involves addressing rising living prices and opening up even more opportunities for people from poorer backgrounds to engage with it. These factors undoubtedly, rely on external forces: politics, government funding, and the goodwill of patrons, for example. But, why does the future of theatre have to rely on such precarious hands? I’ll be the first to admit that I’m incredibly naive when it comes to the broader economics of the theatre industry. But, I wouldn’t say this without believing that good theatre (which is not limited to big-budget productions) deserves greater recognition and support, both from the general public and from the institutions that have shaped its landscape. A decade of arts funding cuts by the British Government, the rise of short form content, and the ominous shadow of AI has conjured a melancholy fear over the future of the industry. But perhaps, if we throw open the doors and let more in to see the wonders which theatre can create, we can ensure that the curtain does not fall for good.

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form