Isaac Bulter’s recent post Here Come The “Rock Solid”s could be a depressing but necessary read, but I prefer to think of it as a challenge to the field. He talks about the conservative leanings of institutional theatre in response to a crisis. I would argue the tendency towards conservative, safe choices began far before the economic implosion of Wall Street but that is another post. But however we got here Issac puts his finger on the proverbial button by pointing out:
Looking over season after season and theaters all over America is not exactly inspiring to say the least. I’m not saying this to draw some comparison between New York, which has plenty of theaters doing uninspiring work, don’t get me wrong. But I’m on a regional theater beat right now, and its a little depressing. …you get no sense looking over the seasons that they are serving their particular communities wants/needs, and many of the seasons look remarkably similar.
Certainly Issac is right New York City theatres are not immune from the issue. But the key here is if a theater isn’t serving a specific community and looks like handfuls of other theaters, are we (1) doing our jobs and (2) the least bit surprised that raising money, engaging audiences and selling tickets are such challenging tasks?
After looking at one theater’s safe choices for the upcoming season (even including a production of The Odd Couple), Issac goes on to portray the dilemma of the leaders of said theatres:
I’m even sympathetic to theatre’s plight right now. AD and EDs have a responsibility for the survival of their theaters. They have employees whose livelihood depends on the theater. They have boards to satisfy. There’s a lot of needs pushing and pulling their decisions other than “what is the best work we could be doing right now?” and I imagine most people are trying very hard to do the best work they can given the environment we have right now. Or at least, they think they are. No one wakes up in the morning and goes, “wow, I can’t wait to devote my year to doing uninspiring work that will at least make sure we don’t lose too many subscribers this year!” and I’ve spoken to an artistic director or two who took a bath over the last couple of years trying to move their theaters in edgier directions.
That it’s understandable doesn’t make it less depressing. Or, frankly, less frightening for those of us who care deeply about the future of theater in America.
Here’s the thing, to me the situation is understandable as in of course I get how we landed here – I lived it day and night for years, but there is a difference between understandable and acceptable. I think as theater artists and leaders we have to realize this isn’t acceptable. And before we blame anyone including our boards we need to look at our own place continuing this unacceptable course. The reality is the conservative, safe route is just that SAFE. It is easier. It allows us to bemoan the situation rather than doing something about it. But what can we do about it? Actually we can do several things:
1. We can understand our local community and its relationship to the national and global community and actually pick plays that are relevant to the issues of that community.
2. We learn to address the unrealistic expectations that are place on shows. Artists, audiences, press, and leadership have all placed ridiculous expectations of what we and a show are supposed to be versus looking at who we are and what a show needs. Guess what, Director X doesn’t get a huge set budget just because he is Director X. Some shows require a minimal setting. The audience and critics shouldn’t feel the show is under-produced because the bells and whistles they have gotten used to every production having are more often than not now-a-days are simply excess fat. The rest of the nation is putting an end to excessive consumption – shouldn’t the theater reflect that. As leaders of these institutions we need to assess whether our own expectations are about the work or about ourselves. Is the big enhancement project because we want to be players and have tricked ourselves into thinking it helps the budget or is it an important project for the company to producer that happens to help the bottom line. And as we strip away the expectations that have been handcuffing our organizations we need to publicly and eloquently debunk said expectations.
3. We have to stop making excuses and roll up our sleeves and create change. There are so many opportunities out there! The theater can do so much to address our community’s needs. We need to reset our minds. Find a way to break those bad old habits. We need eliminate the concept of structural deficits, we need to produce in a manner we can afford, and most important we must take artistic risks.
The good news is that there are a decent amount of theaters that are doing just that. Unsurprisingly, they are also weathering this economy a bit better. Issac pulled a random example to evaluate in his post, I want to point out the first theater that popped into my mind that is breaking the mold. It happens to be one of my local theaters (and yes, my definition of local included NYC).
There is nothing generic or boring about Hartford Stage’s 2009-2010 season – a nine play Horton Foote cycle, a gospel musical, a new theatrical experience exploring motherhood, and even their choice of Tom Sawyer for a family oriented show is spot-on in its tie in to Twain’s relationship to Hartford. I will certainly be heading up to see at least four of their shows this season and I am familiar enough with their work to know that the plays will likely be produced beautifully and simply. I congratulate Michael Wilson and Michael Stotts for a creative, intelligent and relevant season!
No related posts.
Additional thoughts from Jodi -
Reading the comments on Isaac’s post again, made me leave my own response:
I want to add something to address other folks responses. As Esther said there is a balance issue, but to balance a season you have to know your community and engage your community – and certianly I think there is a lot of room for local-based work and stories institution-wide. The idea of formulas, which more and more companies seem to be lead to by the marketing departments, suggests that communities don’t change and we all know that isn’t true.
Unfortunately leadership has lost its focus, whether they are looking to NYC, looking only at the bottom line or only at their individual careers, the art of being an artistic director and the art of being a managing director (yes I said ART because it is) has become lost.
If so many theaters didn’t look exactly the same the problem wouldn’t be so glaringly apparent. My first instinct in reading this and writing my response was: who are we to say that a theater is being conservative, perhaps that is a true reflection of challenging in their community, and I certainly can’t say I know someone else’s community well enough to comment. But that so many theaters look the same isn’t just because coproductions have taken over half the slots, it is a movement towards the safe and conservative. It is a obvious trend that you don’t need an economics major to see.
And by the way there is nothing wrong with entertainment, and there is probably a season in which Odd Couple has a place.
Hi Jodi,
I do understand the argument about knowing the community and trying something different, and I wish my local theatre was doing a 9-play Horton Foote cycle. I’d go see it but I don’t know how many other people would.
The only thing I would add is, and I hesitate to mention this because I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. But the thing that bothers me isn’t the choice of plays – I’m always happy to see something on stage that I haven’t seen before. Or even if I have seen it and it’s done in an imaginative way. (Look at what David Cromer did with Our Town.)
What bothers me is that because it’s a resident acting company, I’ve now seen all of these actors in at least three or four plays each and frankly, I’m getting a little tired of them. No offense, they’re fine actors. And I’m glad they have steady jobs with benefits. There are some actors I wouldn’t mind seeing three or four times a year but there are others I’m not that excited about.
(And yes, they do add a cast member here or there, make use of a university MFA program to use students but still, there’s a core that you see year in and year out.)
So while I’m actually looking forward to The Odd Couple, I’m less excited that I’ll be seeing it with actors I’ve already seen in several other roles. I don’t mean to sound whiny but to me that’s the bigger problem than the choice of plays and I’ve been reluctant to mention it.