MADC panto withdrawal from Manoel Theatre

I refer to the article titled Masquerade To Stage Manoel Panto In Break With 30-Year Tradition (June 20), to which the MADC feels a number of clarifications must be made.

The article talks of "rumours of a commitment with MADC that Masquerade would produce the upcoming pantomime". The decision for Masquerade to stage the 2008/2009 Panto was far from rumour, but was crystallised in writing in a Memorandum of Understanding designed by the Manoel Theatre Management Committee itself, and signed between Masquerade, MADC and the former chairman of the Manoel Theatre.

Towards the end of last year, the Manoel Theatre proceeded to make a public call for applications from parties interested in producing the 2008/2009 panto, and between last February and April, it sent at least two letters to both Masquerade and MADC requesting their consent to waive the crucial parts of this agreement - presumably because the clauses in question blocked the entry of further applicants into the application process. When both parties refused to do so, the Manoel unilaterally decided to draw lots.

Lots were in fact drawn between Masquerade and MADC, as well as by a third company, FM Theatre Productions Ltd. The latter, founded by Edward Mercieca, was in fact drawn third-in-line to produce the Panto in three seasons' time.

This state of affairs was deemed so unsatisfactory that the day after this ballot, Masquerade filed a judicial protest before the First Hall of the Civil Court, calling on the Manoel Theatre to honour the Memorandum of Understanding and threatening to use all legal means to stop it from going ahead with this new arrangement.

Almost simultaneously, the MADC was informed by the Manoel that this year's fee would be increased for the fifth time in as many years (not three years, as stated by Manoel chairman Peter Fenech) to a crippling €58,000. This was the first time that the figure was ever mentioned to the MADC.

To put this figure into some sort of perspective, it is substantially more than the national budget used in promoting Malta's entry in the Eurovision Song Contest.

The Manoel tabled a list of requests, including the payment of a 10 per cent deposit, which it insisted were to be adhered to within one week, or the MADC would automatically forfeit its right to stage the panto at the Manoel Theatre. Faced with a situation where Masquerade were threatening and had a realistic chance of obtaining a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction against the Manoel Theatre to block the performance of any Panto during the forthcoming season, a ridiculous and extortionate rise in the rental fee for a theatre which was offering no improvement in its services over the previous year to justify its price hike, and an impossible deadline, the MADC felt it had no option but to take its product elsewhere - despite having no other booking of any other venue in hand at the time.

The incumbent chairman of the Manoel stated that it was, and presumably remains, his aim to break the pantomime monopoly, and maintained that increased competition would raise standards. Given that "the competition" includes both Masquerade and FM Theatre Productions, one must necessarily ask who exactly stands to gain from breaking this monopoly? Both FM Theatre Productions and Masquerade have been around for several years and have had ample opportunity to stage their respective pantos at several other venues around Malta. They have opted not to. They have chosen instead to target the very same venue where the MADC - for better or worse - has built up a goodwill spanning 30 years. Given this situation, the question becomes all the more pertinent: Who indeed stands to gain from the breaking of this so-called monopoly?

Is it the audiences? Is it Maltese theatre in the broadest sense of the term? Or is it the production companies who have decided to ride on a brand that has been created, developed and honed by the MADC?

The MADC - it bears mentioning - is a non-profit-making organisation. Its members do not take home a single euro cent worth of profit. All proceeds are reinvested into producing better productions "that are worthy of public support", as the club statutes read. Put simply: decreased profits translate into decreased productions and decreased standards. The same cannot be said for other production houses, whose directors and owners have a personal - albeit perfectly legal - interest in tapping into cash-sources such as panto.

In spite of all this, the MADC has since secured a place at the MFCC in Ta' Qali to ensure it keeps its annual appointment with the public, and is looking forward to carve yet another niche in the MADC's history as the club prepares to celebrate its 100-year anniversary.