To subscribe, or not to subscribe. That is the question.

With the two big Sydney theatre players unveiling their 2013 seasons this fortnight, along comes the conundrum: who gets my hard-earned dollars?

This year, for the first time in over a decade, I subscribed to a theatre company. It is a big financial commitment, especially when you have no idea whether the productions will actually live up to expectations.

For example, among our choices from STC’s 2012 line-up was Pygmalion. I love this story, but had never seen the original in the theatre. But Shaw’s writing is fabulously English, witty and challenging, so I felt it would be a safe bet. Sadly the production left me cold. The choice to reset the play (at least in terms of its sparse set and costumes) in the present did not marry-up with the period text. The class comedy was lost because as far as we knew, class wasn’t a factor. A conscious choice of juxtaposition? Perhaps, but I was underwhelmed. 

I had similar high hopes for Liaisons Dangerous, with the always sublime Pamela Rabe and – while I’ve never seen him on stage – equally compelling Hugo Weaving. But alas, this adaptation was also a disappointment. Although harder to put my finger on exactly why it failed to achieve the dizzying heights of my expectations, I walked from the Wharf Theatre feeling bored, and tired. Perhaps the intimacy of the space (sitting three rows back meant we were practically in the drawing room rather than merely observing it through a window) gave me too close a view of characterisations that I felt missed the mark. Or maybe I wanted more sex from the production, having first encountered the story in its filmic form, Cruel Intentions (which was perhaps most famous for the lesbian kiss between Sarah Michelle Buffy and Selma Blair). Regardless, two plays out of my carefully selected sextet were, in my mind, a waste.

But the three other shows that made the cut in my 2012 compilation were surprisingly good. I would even go so far as to say excellent, particularly in the case of Midsummer (albeit a touring production so not entirely the achievement of local creatives). Does the fact I, as a subscriber, get to see three good shows in a year outweigh the cost of paying for two shows I did not enjoy? Even if I had bought tickets ad-hoc, would I still have gone to see the two poor shows anyway? I know that in the case of two shows at Belvoir this year, for which I can obtain free tickets thanks to the fact I volunteer with the marketing team regularly, I deliberately chose not to attend, because of poor reviews and content that did not appeal (apparently to many but that’s a whole other blog).

With one to go I am pondering the potential value exchange in having at least had tickets and gone to see shows, against a backdrop of ten years in the theatrical wilderness, as it were.

I’m not alone in attributing the value of a theatre company subscription to the simple act of regularly attending performances. A number of 2012 Belvoir subscribers, surveyed for the company’s future marketing activities, said the main reason they purchased a bulk pack of performance each year was to ensure they actually went to the theatre. ‘Life gets in the way. You hear about a production, decide you want to go, but by the time you get around to booking tickets the show’s finished or the season’s sold out,’ explained one.

Then of course there is the guarantee of good seats, not missing out on a show which sells out faster than you can say Cate Blanchett, and the discounted prices. And the perks like discounted books, meals, travel – although I am yet to use any of these. Hmmm. Scratch that last then.

On balance, I think subscribing is worthwhile, if only for one of the main reasons I have yet to outline here – that I am doing my bit to ensure theatre continues to be made. Theatre companies rely on subscriber dollars to fund their existence. They give an excellent indication of which shows will be popular among individual ticket buyers (allowing valuable marketing dollars to be funnelled into projects that require a little extra help), and they allow budgets to be set well in advance.

So to the big decision – who to subscribe to? Both STC and Belvoir are offering big names (actors, directors, playwrights), re imagined classics, popular Shakespeare and quirky newbies. In many ways both seasons are very similar. It gives me an idea for my next musing… Until then, wish me luck in my quest for the perfect program.