off-stage right

Back to the blog debates:

Before we dive in everyone should bookmark, subscribe via RSS feed or visit regularly Leonard Jacobs’s blog http://clydefitch.blogspot.com/

Honestly, no one is covering theater more than he is. And although sometime I disagree with his posts (although rarely) he is provoking some of the best thinking among theater bloggers. He also has the best list of blogs for theater on his site and provides a weekly summary of other blogs. Seriously anyone interested in theater should be following his posts. I imagine Frank Rizzo’s new blog http://blogs.courant.com/curtain/ will grow into a similar resource. Not surprising as both Leonard and Frank are true journalists who have followed the field for a while.

At the end of the posts I will put a bunch of links in to blogs that are talking about these issues (many will be to Clyde Fitch Report).

In nonprofit theatre the debates seem to be centering for the most part around two arguments:

1. The funding model for theatre has to be changed, but how – more earned revenue, more contributed revenue, or more government support?
2. Do all the theatres in trouble really deserved to be saved (two overriding arguments are emerging – (a) there is just too many theatres or (b) is the fact that a particular theatre’s “art” really wasn’t that relevant, engaging or well-executed why it is in trouble in the first place, and if should it be saved?

My thoughts on funding models: First, most theatres will tell you they have an income problem and not an expense problem. I will take each and everyone one of them at their word. I have been crunching numbers for theaters since I was 16 years old – and have never been in or seen a theatre that is over-funded or that isn’t cost cutting 24/7, 365 days a year.

Certainly there is an discussion to be had about the way the expenditures work towards meeting their mission but that is really for part two of this post – whether theatres should be saved.

I will go out on a limb here and probably anger a lot of friends, but I am among those that think NEA funding is not the answer to saving theatre in this country. The NEA is more like a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. I certainly don’t object to government funding (and think there should be plenty of it and will always advocate for increases), but the real answer to sustainability for the theater isn’t going to be found through government funds. It just isn’t.

All one has to do is look at the current $50M in the Federal Stimulus package which will barely dent covering other cuts organizations will be enduring from state and local agencies and requires that organizations be funded by the NEA in prior years. Why isn’t the $50M going directly 100% to retaining jobs in the arts – wasn’t that the point of the Stimulus bill. I imagine every organization funded by the NEA could use some support in maintaining staff.

And unfortunately the process of apply for any kind of government funding is inherently biased towards older and larger organizations. I worked for an arts council for 3 years; I sat in the panels; and it is simply the truth that there is a bias. (Although as a side note, I will commend the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs under Kate Levin’s leadership – as the most forward thinking reformer trying to create equity).

What is the right funding model?

This isn’t any new discussion, unfortunately too many organizations (and more importantly their boards) are still striving toward the 60:40 earned to contributed rule that became a health barometer for performing arts long ago and simply is not an accurate measure of success or sustainability and hasn’t been for years. (history lesson via wikipedia: Baumol and Cultural Economics and Baumol’s Cost Disease ).

The only answer I can come up with in this current climate is that each and every organization needs to throw out all generalities and industry standards and be as creative as possible to figure out what is right for its own mission and health. Let’s look at some examples:

One I know well is NYC’s Signature Theatre Company‘s GREAT THEATRE! GREAT PRICE! Campaign. Through corporate, foundation, and individual support they found a way to have $15 tickets for two seasons and $20 for four seasons for every regular performance. Through vision and pure will James Houghton and Signature pulled this off (I know – I was there for it). It was never envisioned as a discount ticket program. It is and always has been a subsidy program.

Most people are surprised that the idea grew from a frustration we faced regarding the value of a ticket to small off-Broadway shows – where papering agencies did more business than most theatre’s box offices. All those free tickets were being given away and no one was coming to the performances because we had taken the value out of the ticket.

It also grew out of mission. Signature’s unique study of a playwright’s body of work over a set period of time requires a committed, devoted, and repeat audience – what subscribers used to be – was essential to the Signature experience. Because the choice of playwrights was diverse, a certain trust in the company had to be established with a variety of audiences – young, old, different ethnic groups, etc. The ticketing initiative addressed all of the mission issues in a simple way, as simple and beautiful as the mission itself. Of course the initiative didn’t solve all of Signatures funding issues (I am not there but feel pretty confident guessing this – I know Jim has huge ambitions and a strong vision that will always be out front of the company’s abilities – just as it darn well should be). It most certainly has created a unique funding model and I really believe Jim Houghton will come up with a way to make it keep on working in Signature’s favor! I also think as Signature moves into its new home Jim will be able to keep the organization’s mission locked firmly at the center of everything the company does.

Another unique group with a unique model that works for them is the LARK. The Lark develops new work, and we all know that the audience understanding and hunger for new work is a bit less than we would like. But here the Lark has figured out how to be completely driven by a contributed income model.

Then there is Steppenwolf who years ago used real estate as a new alternative revenue stream.

Of course there are dozens of theaters using co-production or enhancement models as a driving force to change their income models.

I guess what I am saying is that we are going to have to rely on our wits, vision, and missions to solve funding problems and not rely on the government. Of course we won’t let them off the hook, especially when it comes to Arts Education, capital initiatives, legislative issues regarding non-profit status, and special projects. I will be the first person in line to argue for increases, I just have more faith in the creativity of the field than any politician – even the most arts friendly.

This leads to the much more difficult conversation: should we be trying to save every theatre out there? Unfortunately the answer is NO.

I firmly believe that some organizations simply run their course and reach a point where their mission has been “achieved” or they are no longer the organization who should try to achieve it – and in this situation there is no shame is drawing the organization to a close – this applies to every nonprofit.

Sad to say. but most of the theaters that are in significant trouble aren’t in that spot because they have achieved their missions.

What we have is the same problem facing many industries:

• too many institutions
• too many that are off-mission or doing a mediocre job of fulfilling their mission
• too many that are not serving their communities because they are serving the ego of staff or board members
• too many clinging to the past and therefore can’t move forward
• too many living beyond their means
• too many trying to meet expectations they shouldn’t be or don’t need to be

I know everything I have just said is going to anger a lot of people, but the current economic melt-down makes it necessary to really look for the organizations who have strong missions that they are fulfilling, the organizations who are doing the best work, the organizations who are contributing most to the field and we are going to have to save those. We are in the middle of the creation of a new reality and no one knows for sure what it will look like or mean on the other side..

Those who meet the above will certainly have problems, but they will likely be able to work with their communities and supporters to save themselves. This isn’t going to be about the age or size of the organization or about the will, desire, or money of one or two people to keep something going. The situation demands more than that. It must be about mission, how an organization serves its community, how an organization works with other organizations (arts and others) and what an organization decides to focus on.

And who decides whether a theater is saved is going to be the most difficult part. Hopefully artists, staffs, boards, and donors will ask organizations the really hard questions before they commit to who to save – the entire field will depend upon it.

http://clydefitch.blogspot.com/2009/03/ian-david-moss-backlash-to-future.html

http://www.artsjournal.com/jazzbeyondjazz/2009/03/recent_nea_grants-getters_win.html

http://www.gaspjournal.com/2009/03/arts-funding-and-social-criticism-in-2009.html

http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2009/03/deliberately-unsustainable-business.html

http://createquity.blogspot.com/2009/02/backlash-begins.html

http://clydefitch.blogspot.com/2009/03/should-some-theaters-die.html

http://www.artsjournal.com/lies/2009/03/tragic-magic.html

In addition to all of the most major newspapers arts sections, traditional industry periodicals, web-sites, etc., I have been reading a lot of blogs lately – a lot.

I am trying to really understand what is happening across the country in theatre, the arts, and non-profits and how difficult the environment is. Whenever, I am trying to sort out idea or major themes for myself, reading others thoughts certainly helps. For now I am just going to focus on theatre.

I should as a side note mention how amazing it is that SO many people are out there posting and how intelligent many of them are – whether I agree with them or not. There certainly seem to be enough folks focused on the issues at hand so maybe we can make a difference for future generations.

In nonprofit theatre the debates seem to be centering for the most part around two arguments:

1. The funding model for theatre has to be changed, but how – more earned revenue, more contributed revenue, or more government support?
2. Do all the theatres in trouble really deserved to be saved (two overriding arguments are emerging – (a) there just too many theatres or (b) is the fact that a particular theatre’s “art” really wasn’t that relevant, engaging or well-executed why it is in trouble in the first place, and if should it be saved?

Then there are the cross-over debates that folks from non-profit and for-profit theatre are having. These are issues that have more or less plagued theatre for a long time:

1. Should we just give the “masses” what they want and make some money or do great art and hope the masses notice?
2. Are the so called “masses” pop culture obsessed, short-attention-span idiots or are we under-estimating them – in other words – do we know what the masses want?
3. Those darn critics have too much power.
4. How the hell do we get people to come see shows?

So over the next few posts I am going to throw out my thoughts on these and point out some the blogger who have had some really interesting (and maybe even controversial) thoughts on it.

I have been so blessed in my life to work with so many amazing actors, directors, and playwrights. I live in awe of most of them. But truthfully, there was one I respected above all others, the incomparable Horton Foote.

This had nothing to do with me spending a large portion of my life in Texas. Horton’s work spoke to me in a unique way that other movies, plays, and stories never could. I can’t explain why Harrison, Texas seemed so much like everyplace I had lived and loved. His characters leapt from the stage or screen into my heart and seemed to take a part of my soul away with them. Those characters, especially the women – no one wrote Southern women as well as Horton, were so real, so true. I love them all no matter what their flaws.

I have worked in the theatre since I was 16 years old and without question, I have read and re-read more of Horton’s work than any other playwright. He is the only playwright whose work I read like it was any other book or story. I read his work because I loved it not because I was working on it.

All the descriptions of him as a brilliant, kind, generous gentleman are true. I could listen to him speak endlessly. I am grateful that earlier this year I went to Hartford Stage Company to hear the theatre’s artistic director, Michael Wilson interview Horton about the writing of the movie of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD as part of the NEA’s Big Read programming. Michael told the story of being a young theatre artist who met Horton while he was still in school in North Carolina and Horton inspired him to keep working. After the discussion Michael and I talked about what young artist in the audience that night would be inspired to pursue a life in the theatre after hearing Horton speak. After briefly chatting with Horton that night at Hartford Stage, I drove back to Westport with Brian honored and amazed that we knew one of the greatest American writers. It was the last time we saw him, and I will cherish that night forever. Horton inspired so many people and was loved by so many.

I will never forget the event we held at Signature Theatre Company for his 90th Birthday. His smile lit up the room as so many who knew and had worked with him made toasts in his honor, Robert Duvall, James Earl Jones, John Guare, Matthew Broderick, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the one and only Harper Lee. It is still one of the most magical nights I have ever experienced.

Next Thursday I will be heading the Hartford to see the highly acclaimed production of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD that Horton helped craft featuring the wonderful Hallie Foote, Devon Abner and many other of the “regulars” who worked on Horton’s work (especially with director Michael Wilson who has done such wonders with so many of Horton’s plays). I will of course head back a few weeks later to see DIVIDING THE ESTATE for the third time – a show for which Horton and Hallie should win the TONY AWARD. And, I have been anticipating the ORPHANS CYCLE productions in Hartford and at Signature Theatre Company since the moment I heard they would happen. I will reread his work regularly starting with his two part memoir BEGINNINGS: A MEMOIR and FAREWELL: A MEMOIR OF A TEXAS CHILDHOOD. So in many ways, Horton will be present over the next year. I am grateful Horton’s beautiful words will be in my life forever.

I look forward to watching Hallie continue her journey as the master interpreter of his work. I will be there years and years from now for the opening night for her turn as Carrie Watts in THE TRIP TO BOUNTIFUL – I only hope I am working on the production in some way. On that night Horton will be smiling down on the stage – just as he did from the audience most performance nights for his plays – I imagine him watching – the smile, a Hershey bar and a Coke – enjoying a night in the theatre. We are all so blessed that Horton Foote walked this earth and wrote about it.