Eric W. Parnis, Mosta
The Opera House saga
Peter Apap Bologna tells us that the Prime Minister's decision to build Parliament on the old Opera House site makes the most eminent sense. He wishes to put an end to the nostalgic desire to rebuild the opera house.
We live in a free world and everyone is entitled to his or her views, so let me beg to differ from Mr Apap Bologna and say that it makes the most eminent nonsense.
Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was absolutely right when he said that the Prime Minister had been ill-advised by whoever gave him the reasons put forward. The Prime Minister said that the footprint of the opera house was too small for present-day productions. Where opera is concerned, I don't know what he means. A look at the One Hundred Years Ago in The Times shows that just about every opera one can think of was performed at the Royal Opera House - no footprint problems there!
He goes on to say that we have three theatres in Valletta and lists the Manoel, the MCC and St James Cavalier. The Prime Minister must have said this with tongue in cheek.
St James Cavalier is barely large enough to swing a cat and should be dismissed outright.
The Mediterranean Conference Centre is nothing more than a conference hall and has none of the facilities of a modern-day Opera House. As for the Manoel Theatre, quite apart from not having suitable backroom facilities, the sheer smallness of the stage severely restricts the opera that could be performed there. All this has already been amply explained by our Joseph Calleja and you cannot ask for a better authority.
Over the years, governments have spoken about "going upmarket in tourism". To me, this means quality tourists as opposed to "package tourists" in their millions. But discerning tourists will only come when we have something to offer other than the sea and the sun, that is,, our heritage and our culture. The lack of a proper opera house in the capital has been a void for far too long. Ours must be the only capital in Europe without a proper opera house!
If the Prime Minister goes ahead with his harebrained plan to build a Parliament instead of rebuilding the Opera House as was, his party will go down in history as the one which messed up (for want of a better phrase) City Gate in the 1960s and the Opera House site in 2008 - and I'm sure he would not want to leave that legacy.
Mr Prime Minister, please think and think again.
13 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Adrian Buckle
Dec 31st 2008, 19:47
Dear Mr Nock.
I doubt anyone has ever expressed the wish NOT to have a house of Parliament. The reason for the controversy at hand is that the PM is proposing to build it on a footprint traditionally reserved for the Arts, when government has loads of other options to consider.
I must also disagree with your numeric arguments. I assure you there are more than 4000 theatre lovers in Malta . . . I would be well out of a job, were it otherwise. But more seriously, does being in a minority mean that our rights can be trampled over? Is that democratic?
The Old Opera House site at the moment serves as an open air theatre. We don't have another in Malta (except the joke built at Ta' Qali which no one ever uses anyway). Surely, there are different solutions to this issue, ways to use this space for the Arts, to really create a stronger economy. The problem at hand is a Parliament with little regard and respect for the Arts.
Helen Caruana Galizia
Dec 31st 2008, 13:35
Dear Mr Nock,
Your comments are not so much "unwanted" (all comments are welcomed in a democratic society) but they seem to me to be ill-informed. Historically MAltese people are serious opera lovers and I believe the numbers would return to what they were before World War 2. Furthermore while the cost of building a new House of PArliament must be met by the tax payer a new national theatre and Opera House would be self-financing and EU funds could be sought to support it. There is at least one other grand and impressive site for PArliament but no other site suitable for an Opera House.
Helen Caruana Galizia
Raymond Sammut
Dec 31st 2008, 12:47
@ Bob Nock
Please give us a break, Mr Nock.
The reason why it is "so few", as you say, is precisely because the Maltese have been denied their Opera House since WWII. Precisely the reason why we need to re-build the Opera House, so it will not have to remain "so few" for ever.
Most Maltese are sick to death of politics, most of it petty and pathetic. Please do not condemn us to this state of affairs for eternity. If you took the time to read my message below you may have noticed, unless my message is not intelligible enough, that what we need is to drastically reduce the political "content" we have in Malta, and start increasing the Arts content for a change.
Unless we do just that, we are pretty much doomed as a people. Mr Nock, honestly, would you prefer to see us in such a frightful condition?
Bob Nock
Dec 31st 2008, 08:00
Probably unwanted comments from a Brit living in Malta.
The old opera house definately needs rebuilding. But as what?
Figures show that less than 10% of the adult population regularly attend opera performances,ballets etc. Approximately 2000 of the Maltese population. Add to that to say another 2000 discerning tourists per year.
Are you going to spend your taxpayers money on a building for so few when you could spend it on a building for a parliament which represents the entire populaton of Malta.
Bob Nock
Raymond Sammut
Dec 31st 2008, 02:47
I have pointed out elsewhere, in response to a letter authored by Karl Consiglio and published by The Times recently, and also in regard to this subject, that Malta's Parliament (and I mean the legislative body of 69 MPs) is too large. I estimated, using conservative numbers, that Maltese tax-payers are paying 4.5 times as much as Australian tax-payers for parliamentary representation. Other similar comparisons can be made. For example, Mauritius have a population of 1.3M, yet they have just 62 MPs.
I feel that Dr Gonzi was grossly unfair with Maltese artists in his recent announcement. First he failed to acknowledge that Malta has more parliamentarians than it really needs. Then he made the inexcusable and unsubstantiated claim that Valletta is "saturated" with theaters. Not only that this claim is, in my view, unacceptable and unjust, but historically the site in question is allotted for the Arts, and for nothing else. This gives ownership to Maltese artists, and is theirs for all times by inheritance. I would go as far as to say that Maltese artists of the present time can collectively make a strong case in the Law Courts if need be. The onus is on them.
Adrian Buckle
Dec 30th 2008, 21:28
May I assure Mr Martinelli that every time a theatre producer puts on a production in Malta, HE GETS ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSIDY EITHER FROM THE STATE OR FROM THE TAXPAYER. Where did he get such a notion? Each time we put on a show, we do it out of our own pockets. If we make a profit or a loss it is our risk.
So no, the taxpayer wouldn't be subsidising anything.
Unless of course, we go for a National Theatre Company, LIKE ALL OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAVE. But it seems that people like Mr Martinelli culture and theatre are not worth subsidising. What fools the other European countries are to do so and to make culture the most flourishing business! Thank God we joined the EU, so we can open their eyes and encourage them to build Houses of Parliaments, instead of their theatres.
vincent a galea
Dec 30th 2008, 19:54
I have never heard or seen, that "over the years, governments have spoken about 'going upmarket in tourism' " ! How, by advocating and licencing low cost airlines?! Since their introduction, 'tourists' are spending less money and nights in Malta. Unless the 'numbers game' is halted once and for all, governments cannot concentrate on UPMARKET TOURISM!
The rebuilding of the Barry Opera House will go a long way to help raise the tourism standards. But this is a cry in the wilderness! Its not tourism that is on the agenda. Its giving a job to Renzo Piano more than anything else!
Astrid Vella
Dec 30th 2008, 18:01
Part 2 - Mr. Martinelli is also overlooking the fact that EU funds could be obtained for the construction of a theatre but not for houses of Parliament, therefore saving huge sums of taxpayer money. The Parliament House could be moved to the Mediterranean Conference Centre, with the long hall accommodating all the St. John's Cathedral tapestries all in one place as has been repeatedly requested.
This would save the 16million Euros that was to be spent on the underground museum, which could be spent on adapting the Mediterranean Conference Centre to become the House of Parliament as well as restoring a palace to accommodate the St. John's Foundation other collections.
Such a move for Parliament would serve to regenerate lower Valletta which has been neglected for far too long, and together with the restoration of St. Elmo would draw tourists and provide job opportunities to this depressed area.
Valletta desperately needs a regeneration masterplan. Let us not settle for piecemeal measures, when this Government has the opportunity to go down in history as showing courage and vision along with a holistic sensitivity to really restore it to its former glory.
Astrid Vella
Dec 30th 2008, 17:43
The picture need not be as Martinelli paints it.Mr. Eric Parnis’ analysis is spot on.It is not generally known that the MediterraneanConferenceCentre receives no subsidies.As Mr. Parnis correctly states,the MCCI does not offer proper theatre facilities,so if the shows were moved up to a National Theatre up at the Opera House site,we would still have three theatres in Valletta,but for the fist time since the war we would have a theatre that can accommodate large-scale productions like full ballets, operas and musicals.
If the MCCI which is so inaccessible can break even,how much more will such a theatre close to public transport.Tourists already flock to performances at St. Catherine of Italy Church and the Manoel Theatre, to the point of prompting return visits to Malta.Cruises also organise concerts in venues which often can’t cope.A National Theatre at the Opera House site will be able to accommodate many of the shows currently being held in the most unsuitable places like old ruins and a mega-tent, with resultant poor viewing and acoustics.
A theatre at the Opera House will boost not just culture but tourism for all Malta,helping employment in the sector,which a Parliament House there certainly will not achieve.
J Martinelli
Dec 30th 2008, 14:07
@ Tony Borg,
You are quite wrong in your assessment as to who pays either way!
If an opera house is built, the audience will pay, but hardly enough that it will not need massive annual subsidies from the government. In the case of erecting a Parliament building, the taxpayer pays.
Therefore if an opera house is built both the audience and the taxpayers pay, but if a Parliament Building goes up the taxpayer pays.
So, it's six of one, half dozen of the other.
In any case, leaving the site as-is, is no option and a serious detraction for repeat tourism which, indirectly, costs the treasury (hidden) millions.
Nigel Lawrence
Dec 30th 2008, 11:11
@Franco Farrugia
Actually the term "to swing a cat" is an old naval expression for the use of the "cat-o-nine-tails", which is a whip, NOT a feline.
tony borg
Dec 30th 2008, 10:24
Well to tell you the truth, for me it won`t make a difference if they built the old opera house as a parlament house or an opera house because in both cases we have actors taking part ,in one case (opera) the audience pay and in the other case (parlament) the whole Malta pays.
Franco Farrugia
Dec 30th 2008, 09:56
@ Mr Parnis - Please, do not get me wrong: I am not out to correct your English, which needs no correction from me.
But expressions such as 'barely large enough to swing a cat' should no longer be used, out of deference to animals. I am sure that the rich English language can provide us with other, more correct, expressions.
Swinging a cat! Tut, tut!