istinct, the relationship between them is close; same sex twins rather than identical ones. Each has their own nuances of behaviour – the younger twin Broadway hunts that bit more keenly for the next off-beat musical whirlwind; the older West End plays percentages but plays them with palpable success. The term West End was originally coined as a geographical short cut – a way of describing a part of London synonymous with theatre. Since its inception into London vernacular the phrase ‘West End’ has mutated to describe something meta-geographical. While once upon a time it merely represented an actual place, now it also describes the gateway to an invented world of glitz, glamour and show. The West End may still be the home of theatre, but the kind of theatre that it houses has become very easily classifiable. The listings do not lie. And neither do they try to. The West End is a haven for small ideas done big; big names, big shows, big spectacles, big budgets, big risks. The social and artistic significance of theatre as an art form has not suffered in the time since the West End theatres were constructed. But the immediacy of rival entertainments, chiefly television and film, has undoubtedly provided so comfortable an alternative for the borderline theatregoing public that its popularity has. Ultimately, the public’s relationship with theatre has somewhat inverted itself; once the entertainment of the people, theatre has become high-brow, elitist, exclusive even. Or so we are led to believe. Every year the people entrusted with running the country’s theatres are ensconced in attempts to make theatre more accessible. Nicholas Hytner at the National Theatre has incorporated a sponsorship deal with Travelex with the express purpose of enabling its shows to be available to people for as little as £10 a ticket. Theatrical output is continuing to diversify in new directions. The National Theatre still produces the time-honoured classics that will appease their traditional supporters. But they also invited outside companies including Theatre de Complicite, Improbable, Shunt and Kneehigh to co-develop their new work. Arts Council funding dictates a certain amount of programming for in-house producing theatres throughout the country. It is impossible to equate the artistic worth of a proposed project while it exists solely as an outline on a piece of paper. But it is easier to quantify the greater social import of the same project. Therefore the involvement in various local outreach initiatives including young people’s theatre and new writing programmes serves duplicate purposes. But in doing so it runs the risk of wrestling a certain amount of control from the artistic directors, or at least diluting the intent of their work. But the West End is not really concerned with any of this. The theatres are privately owned and have little social obligation. West End theatre is a notoriously unpredictable money market. Make a big success of yourself and you can eventually buy it up – which is ex>