Absolutely not a play ... A Chanel fashion show, with clothes designed by Karl Lagerfeld. Photograph: David Levene
I recently saw the film Lagerfeld Confidential for the erstwhile online review programme Culture Clash. If I'm honest, I've never had much time for the fashion industry. It always struck me as a nasty business: shallow and trivial, dealing in unhealthily dangerous, eating-disorder-thin bodies and a vile money-is-everything mentality. So I was surprised how charmed I was by this witty, intelligent film. I was more surprised by the similarities to theatre that kept suggesting themselves. After all, a fashion show is essentially theatre with all the parts that interest people removed.
Want to know what drama would be like with no script, no dialogue, no characters and no plot? Pop along to the next catwalk displays in Milan or New York. There's lighting, set, incidental music and, to paraphrase Peter Brook, "a person walking across the empty space, whilst someone else is watching them". But that's it. And it's absolutely not a play.
The next thing that struck me was how infinitely better remunerated those working in the fashion industry are compared with their counterparts in theatre. After all, what is Karl Lagerfeld but an overpaid costume designer? And what is a model if not a glorified, super-salaried spear-carrier - without even having to carry said spear?
So why is it that theatre seems so cripplingly dependent on subsidy, while the fashion industry makes more money than, well, clothes? Firstly, of course, the fashion industry is not dependent on discreet live events for its revenue. The live events are side-issues in comparison with the marketing of clothing. Secondly, these clothes can be sold in outlets worldwide, while theatre is restricted to being located in a specific place at a particular time.
But this isn't the whole story. After all, the high fashion of Chanel is only available to a very few. Haute couture, with its limited editions, waiting lists for handbags and exorbitant prices, is hardly open to more people than a play at Theatre 503. There are two main factors that separate the two sectors: glamour and cost. The two seem inextricably linked, and theatre has less of both.
However, this is not always the case. Look at the Donmar's much-hyped, little-seen production of Othello. Sure, the face value of tickets was pretty standard - cheap, even, by West End standards. But look at the prices being quoted for the tickets being sold on eBay. These rather suggest that the Donmar could have made an absolute killing by charging more than £100 per seat.
And what was it that prompted this run on tickets, before anyone had even seen the show? A glamorous, starry cast and an air of expensive exclusivity. So, a model for unsubsidised, potentially profit-making theatre does exist. But it is one that derives all its power and authority from external sources - primarily films and glossy magazines - and is founded on a totally different set of values.
Peter Bradshaw notes that many theatres are already less than socially equal, describing the "nasty, dreary apartheid of the London West End: 'good' seats for a lot of money, rubbish seats for a lower amount, up in the gods." But compared with the pricing structures of the fashion industry, these costs are positively inclusive. Yes, £60 for a ticket is quite steep, but compared with a £1,000 handbag it starts to look positively philanthropic. Even the highest priced tickets at Covent Garden (£165) wouldn't cover a pair of Chanel shoes. Or dinner at a fashionable restaurant. Or any sort of proper night's drinking in any of the West End bars, where astronomical prices are used to ensure exclusivity.
No, theatre's problem, ironically, seems to be not that it is too expensive or elitist but that it isn't expensive or elitist enough. In modern Britain, apparently the only way to get real respect is to charge far too much for something, and make it appear forbiddingly exclusive. Perhaps if theatre took this route, Take a Break magazine would be full of "real life" stories of "How I racked up £30,000 debt on five credit cards by watching plays" rather than on trying to live the lifestyle of a footballer's girlfriend while earning a cleaner's salary. Is that what we really want?
