"They talk to us about compromises. What do they want from us?" asks Gesher Theater Director General Ori Levy. "Should we trim Chekhov's 'Three Sisters' to 'Two Sisters?'"

Levy knows, however, that Gesher - Hebrew for Bridge - has to streamline. The recovery program being prepared for the theater will hopefully save it from collapsing under the NIS 9 million deficit it accumulated by the end of 2005. The 2006 balance sheet will probably show a larger figure. This is an enormous deficit for a small theater like Gesher. In the meantime, the theater is hard-pressed to pay salaries and suppliers.

Heading the committee to find solutions for the theater is David Lefler, who was Culture Ministry director general when Matan Vilnai was minister. The recovery plan, which spans five years, includes government aid under the state budget's "institutions in distress" clause. Gesher will apply for NIS 4.8 million, although approval is not guaranteed. The Tel Aviv Municipality has committed to providing aid totaling 25 percent of the sum received from the Culture Ministry, in addition to its ongoing financial support.

	Advertisement

Gesher must streamline, which means reducing expenses and increasing performance revenues. "The deficit will be covered over the next five years via increased revenues," promises Lefler.

Still, the recovery plan contains nothing new. It is similar to plans drafted for the Haifa and Habima theaters, which were not overly successful.

Ever since its premiere performance - Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead," on April 20, 1991 - Gesher has gained a reputation as a unique, first-rate company. Artistic Director Yevgeny Arye and the troupe of actors, most of whom are immigrants from the former Soviet Union, have brought a taste of an intriguing culture. Gesher's approach is that of a traditional, classic theater, differentiating it from other Israeli theaters. The plays require the full attention of their audiences.

Gesher's plays are marketed countrywide, but unlike other institutionalized theaters, Gesher has not resorted to the subscriptions system, in order to avoid dependency on the audience's taste. Gesher has also avoided recruiting big-name actors or planning an entire season's repertoire in advance. To a great extent, Gesher has been a kind of theatrical island, cut off from the Israeli reality. For years, Gesher was invited to important festivals overseas, such as at New York's Lincoln Center, and in London, Moscow, Paris and Rome, where it has been well-received. The London Times called it one of the five best theaters in the world.

Perfectionist

How then did Gesher find itself mired in debts? Lefler believes Gesher is suffering from underbudgeting and an uncompromising commitment to the highest standards, which require a massive investment. "The investment in plays mounted outside Tel Aviv is the same as within Tel Aviv," explains Lefler.

Levy concurs. "In order to break even, Gesher needs NIS 2-2.5 million a year. We receive less [financial support] than the Be'er Sheva and Khan theaters. Air-conditioning Noga Auditorium, the theater's home stage, for example, is not the same as air-conditioning the Khan Theater."

Regarding demands for compromises, Levy responds, "Gesher is a theater with a special character. A play like 'Adam Resurrected,' based on the book by Yoram Kaniuk, for example, has been staged annually for 14 years, each time in a series of 10 performances. At one time we received NIS 100,000 to perform in a circus tent on the grounds of the Tel Aviv Museum, but for years we have not received a single shekel. We still mount the play, because we feel it is an important part of our repertoire. Should we drop it because it is not economical?"

Levy rejects claims that management errors have contributed to the deficit.

"The only thing Gesher spends money on is art, and if [people] don't want art, if Gesher is a luxury, then we will be shut down," he says. "There is no reason for us to be a theater. I have been working in Israeli theater for 55 years and am not prepared to rack my brain to find ways to streamline. We search for ways, such as taking just 60 light fixtures to performances outside the city, instead of 250. This saves the cost of one truck and a few electricians."

Gesher, like all cultural establishments, has been hurt by repeated budget cuts, but it is doubtful underbudgeting is the only problem. In the past few years the theater has been somewhat of an artistic disappointment. A whole series of repertoire choices did not prove themselves, such as "Pillowman," directed by Ben Bar-Shavit; "Love and Human Remains," directed by Ido Mussari; and "Design for Living," directed by Lena Kreindlin. "Medea," also directed by Kreindlin, is a problematic and controversial production, although it was well-received by the audience, particularly high school students.

Levy says, justifiably, that a theater is allowed to make mistakes and have failures. Still, when the theater is a small one like Gesher, committed to just four new plays a year, every repertoire mistake can have a significant impact. When several such mistakes occur, a huge deficit can develop, threatening the theater's existence.

Big gambles

This is what happened to Gesher. Putting an inexperienced director like Bar-Shavit in charge of a big-stage production that is one quarter of the theater's annual repertoire is not an permissible error, but a risky gamble. This gamble was repeated in the selection of directors for "Love and Human Remains" and "Design for Living." Bringing Adolph Shapiro from abroad to direct "The Threepenny Opera" also turned out to be a mistake.

No one disputes Yevgeny Arye's tremendous talent in directing acclaimed plays including "The Slave," "Shosha," "Adam Resurrected," "Lower Depths," "Moliere," "Village," "City," and "Momik." Some of these plays are still being performed; others we can only yearn for. Still, as artistic director, a position he has held since Gesher's inception, Arye has not managed - or perhaps not even tried - to bring in a director of his own stature. He has also not nurtured any directors at Gesher.

Another problem is the poor enunciation of some of Gesher's actors, including its stars, which often forces the audience to read the Hebrew subtitles. In the past the audience tended to overlook this, but today's theatergoers are far less tolerant.

In its attempt to draw larger audiences to its plays, now a necessary part of the recovery plan, Gesher would do well to adopt the repertoire planning method used by all other Israeli theaters. At present, Gesher must constantly notify the audience of the next play. The theater does have its artistic advantages. However, in its 15th year, Gesher would do well to find a bridge to the Israeli reality.