Continuing the discussion on Gender Disparity in Theatre: Opening the Curtain on Playwright Gender

June 23, 2009 • One Comment

Last week I posted some questions about gender disparity in theatre – did it exist, was it industry-wide, etc.  The post got some really interesting comments and I encourage folks to keep adding thoughts there.  The post was inspired by conversations I had been having with friends and the invitation I got to a presentation on a study of gender equality in Playwriting.

Yesterday I was among the 150 or so people who attended the presentation hosted 59E59 Theaters and the wonderful Primary Stages (go subscribe to their next season – with GREAT plays that all happen to be written by women).

I was pleasantly surprised as the audience filled the theatre that there was a nice diversity to the audience (sadly I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had all been women under forty, but it wasn’t).   Of course it would be great to know who was really there as we all know many times events like this are moments for “preaching to the converted” and there are a lot of producers from the commercial and nonprofit world that I didn’t see in the room who I thought would have been interested in the event.

First I want to congratulate Julia Jordan who has really rallied the troops over the last year to make several conversations happen about the field and for using some great personal connections – most importantly Steven Levitt (Freakonomics) to get a real study of the issue done.

The exceedingly well spoken, entertaining, and obviously intelligent economist (yes, economist) who undertook this study is named Emily Glassberg Sands who used the study as her thesis, for Princeton, before she heads off to Harvard for her PhD.  The information she uncovered is fascinating and more importantly, she seems to have been bitten by the theatre bug and it looks like she will continue exploration in the theatre and the arts.

Before I share my notes and quick impressions of the presentation, I want to note that I have emailed Emily for a full copy of the study as well as her PowerPoint summary from yesterday (she was nice enough to offer so of course I took her up on it.)  I look forward to reading all 170 pages of her work.  With her permission I will post her presentation as well.

I truly hope and will be suggesting to organizations like Theatre Communications Group, ART-NY, The Broadway League, the Off-Broadway Alliance, and others that they immediately schedule a presentation by Sands for their membership, but that they actively assist her in finding funding to further her work.  Those of you who run foundations that fund theatre don’t be surprised if I suggest she call you!

So some quick and eye-opening information from the presentation:

Julia Jordon did a quick introduction of how all of this evolved.  She and Sarah Schulman had two “town hall meetings over the last year.  The first was attended by playwrights who expressed frustration at the discrimination or bias they felt existed in the field.  For the second, they invited several artistic directors to join in the conversation.  Essentially the artistic directors argument was that there just weren’t as many good plays by women as here where by men.

I was struck by a comment she made that related to a similar discussion I had regarding the industry as a whole.  Basically Julia noted if there was some sort of standardized test for playwriting her rough study of the field would support the idea that women would likely do better and would have a easier time in the field.  Similarly I had been discussing that if theatre were more quantifiable like say sales – women would have it easier being on an equal playing field.

She also noted rough figures – 31.6% of CREATIVE jobs held in the calendar year of 2008, nonprofit subscription houses, were held by women (writers/actors/choreographers/lighting/setdesigners/directors).   SAD FACT

Julia then turned the stage over to Emily Glassberg Sands.  Now I should note through out the presentation Emily explained the methods used for the study and for validating the data.  I am sure the newspapers and magazines (see links below) will delve into that, I just will list the things that I jotted down while listening.  There was so much wonderful information, I am still digesting what it means to the field.

I should mention by the end of the presentation, Sands proved the playwrights were right – there were perceptions in the industry that were creating biases against and discrimination against female playwrights—the “bar was set higher”; however, importantly she also proved that there were fewer “quality” scripts by women as the artistic directors has stated.  “Quality” was defined through plays getting produced and how often to remove subjectivity.

Sands essentially did three studies – (1) analysis of the field through data on www.doolee.com to determine if there were “too few scripts from which to choose” (2) Is a script received better if written by a man – she sent same scripts with different gender names to 250 theaters (3) Is the bar set higher for female playwrights – using Broadway profits for analysis.

Basically the answer to all three was YES.

Analysis of the field through data on www.doolee.com to determine if there were “too few scripts from which to choose”

  • 25% of produced plays were written by women
  • the rate of attaining production was the same for men and women
  • plays with more female roles were less produced
  • women tend to write smaller shows which was the reason (compensating factor) that the rate for attaining production were the same

Is a script received better if written by a man – she sent same 4 original scripts (donated to the study by 4 female playwrights) with different gender names to 250 theaters and had folks fill out a questionnaire (cheers to Princeton for awarding four $1000 grants to theaters to participated in the study even though the theaters didn’t know what the study was fully about).

  • the scripts “submitted by” women were perceived differently: the characters were considered less likable, the prospects for production were less likely, it was assumed the audiences would not receive them as well and the plays didn’t align with the theaters mission as much as those “submitted by” men.
  • all of the bias was directly attributed to women responding the survey.  Statistically the men who participated rated the scripts the same whether submitted by men or women. [read that again, yes it is true]

Is the bar set higher for female playwrights – using Broadway profits for analysis using the last 10 years of new work presented on Broadway.

  • shows written by women make more money over the course of a run (18% more)!  Note that commercial producers – the stats chart was really clear about that!
  • shows by women on a weekly basis had 16% higher sales than those by men
  • the length of run of the shows was equal whether written by men or women
  • basically scripts by women face higher scrutiny by producers when it comes to keeping them open

Some thoughts by Sands from her work:

  • the bar is higher for women playwrights so the script have to be better to get produced
  • theoretically there are better scripts available from women that haven’t been produced than men
  • women have likely been discouraged from the field by the biases or perceptions of biases

I think it is vital to keep this conversation going and to expand it to the obvious effect it has on the industry as a whole (i.e. less female roles).  Needless to say the last week has been filled with a ton of issues for the field to think about – firing of artistic directors to save money, the disclosure of complete financial mismanagement of North Shore Music Theatre, and budgets cuts and staff reductions (Long Wharf Theatre, Center Theatre Group, Met Museum).  Of course all of these require immediate attention and warrant conversation, but we can’t lose sight of underlying long term problems like gender disparity, creating new financial models, non-profits focusing on mission, and truly serving our audiences.  Lots of work to do folks!

Emily Sands Presentation Deck from her study

Articles on the presentation and study:

New York Magazine

New York Times

North Shore Music Theatre was disaster waiting to happen and the fall-out gives a bad name to theater everywhere.

June 21, 2009 • No Comments

 

If anyone ever wonders why theatre leaders have a bad reputation or why nonprofits are treated like the step-children of business, just look to the mess that is North Shore Music Theatre and you can easily see where the misconceptions and stereo-types come from.

 

North Shore is the perfect example of a bloated organization that had poor leadership and made the wrong decision with every step they took.  Hopefully the story will be a lesson for theatres who are facing difficult financial and artistic decisions.  They say hindsight is 20/20, but the signs of trouble seemed to have been evident for quite some time.

Theater fell to a medley of misfortune By Geoff Edgers, Globe Staff  |  June 21, 2009

 

When Barry Ivan took charge of North Shore Music Theatre, he thought he knew what to expect. For 12 years, he had been a steady guest director at the 54-year-old Beverly institution, marshaling dozens of dancers and scores of singers in eye-popping musicals like “West Side Story’’ and “Les Miserables.’’ Just before taking the top spot in 2008, he had directed the biggest-grossing show in the 1,750-seat venue’s history, “High School Musical.’’

 

All that turned out to be the easy part.

 

Less than a year after Ivan became artistic director and executive producer, the theater postponed its 2009 season, leaving thousands of loyal subscribers in the lurch. Last week, North Shore announced it was $10 million in debt and would close for good….

 

At its peak, the theater drew more than 27,500 subscribers and some 300,000 people a year, making it the largest regional theater in New England.

 

The closing has led to finger-pointing and recriminations, with those loyal to former theater head Jon Kimbell accusing Ivan of poor management and blasting his decision to abandon the organization’s proven holiday-season winner, “A Christmas Carol.’’ But a closer look at the theater’s financial health in its tumultuous final years, which included a devastating 2005 fire and a staff revolt under Ivan, reveals that myriad factors played into the collapse….

 

It was after 11 p.m. on a summer night in 2005 that the electrical fire started. Lights and sound gear melted; the stage and orchestra pit turned into a soggy, charred mess. The run of “Cinderella’’ was cancelled. The year looked lost.

 

But Kimbell, whose 25 years in charge saw dramatic rises in attendance and subscriptions, decided he couldn’t just cancel the season.

 

“Had I closed the place down it would have been impossible to renovate the theater and keep the staff employed,’’ he said in an interview last week from his home in New Hampshire. “I had to keep producing.’’

 

He accepted an offer to put a pair of North Shore productions into the Shubert Theatre in Boston. He also decided to make improvements to the theater’s in-the-round regular home. Insurance covered some of the work, but the upgrades ran an additional $1.5 million, Kimbell estimated.

 

The theater then lost $1.5 million more as a result of shows that had to be canceled, according to board chairman David Fellows, a venture capitalist.

Some theaters could survive that. But North Shore never had an endowment to protect it during down times. When it struggled, it borrowed money.

 

An endowment is not an insurance plan.  A fire is not an excuse to drain an endowment even if you have one! Why  didn’t the theatre have a capital campaign to cover its losses and additional expenses?  If it did and couldn’t raise the money, why did they do renovations that weren’t covered by the insurance money?   The fire was in 2005.  The debt should have been retired in 3 years or less through a campaign. 

 

Still, Kimbell’s era would be marked by great growth. Since arriving in 1983, he said, he had boosted the organization’s budget from $1.3 million to more than $14.5 million, its subscriber base from 7,000 to 27,500….

 

Ivan, whom Kimbell termed a friend after working with him for 12 years, knew the theater had financial problems when he took the job, he said. But it wasn’t until he had started that he recognized their extent.

 

The information, however, was readily available in the theater’s public filings. North Shore, which had deficits in 2005 ($492,184), 2006 ($107,856), and 2007 ($621,240), had an accumulated liability of about $4.6 million in mortgages and other notes.

 

Kimbell said the debt was not his fault. His $252,473-a-year job called for him to oversee virtually everything on stage, but not the business side of the organization.

 

“I haven’t been responsible for the finances of North Shore Music Theatre since something like 1990,’’ he said.

 

Fellows, the board chairman, doesn’t necessarily blame Kimbell or his successor Ivan.

 

“No, but more to the point, I don’t hold Barry responsible for that,’’ he said.

 

Despite its existing debt, theater leaders decided that borrowing more was their only solution. The slumping real estate market foiled that idea. A bank appraiser pegged the 22-acre theater property at $4.9 million. Already owing $5 million, the theater couldn’t borrow from a bank.

 

Fellows’s wife, April, did loan the theater $400,000, using as collateral a house the theater had for actors staying in town.

 

Note the previous quote talks about boosting the budget – but from the filings it wasn’t a balanced budget!  I don’t know anyone who would have a problem with raising expenses.  And when did the audience decline begin? 

 

Also, if the title is Executive Producer or Artistic Director, you ARE responsible for the finances of the organization.  I simply can’t believe Kimbell wasn’t aware of the constant borrowing.  It had to be brought up in a board meeting or some context.  It is part of the job.

 

It’s nice that Fellow’s is so forgiving of everyone’s behavior (although note that his wife’s loan is secured by the theatre’s property, so she will be paid back when others won’t be).

 

The great plan Ivan came up with seemed to revolve around raising funds that were more than double what had been raised by the organization in previous years and High School Musical 2 selling at astronomical levels (equal to the previous production).  It’s not surprising that it didn’t work.  This wasn’t a short term issue, this was years of borrowing and poor decision-making.

When trustees sat down on Dec. 19, the day after opening night, they realized they had a budget buster on their hands, according to Fellows.

 

The theater went into survival mode. There were 57 layoffs, and the theater stopped taking subscriptions for the 2009 season, though $2.5 million in renewals had come in, much of it money that patrons are not likely to get back.

 

North Shore kept on just three staffers, plus Ivan, his salary reduced from about $240,000 to $96,000.

 

In the middle of a devastating economic downturn that shook many nonprofits, the theater tried to raise $4 million to put on another season. Then it lowered its goal to $2 million.

 

Late last week, a few days after the board announced it had given up, Fellows headed to the theater with a checkbook. He met with the three remaining staffers and wrote out checks for the electric and phone bills.

 

Looking back, did he regret anything about the way the theater operated over the last year?

 

“No,’’ Fellows said. “With the economy being what it was, this was unwinnable. I can’t think of anything – knowing what I know now, going back over it – that we would have done differently.’’

 

Laying off 57 people is not survival mode.  That is shut-down mode.    In the comments section of the article (which are well worth reading) a savvy reader noted the following: 

 

Looking at Guidestar.org, I see that for the 2006 season, NSMT had $10,446,776 in program revenue and $1,787,948 in donations

This notes that the decline in budget and sales had begun long before any action was taken.  And the $4M fundraising goal was ridiculous even if a good economy. 

 

How on earth can the board chair not regret the way the theatre operated in the last year?  What about the last 5 years?

 

North Shore’s failure is not because of the current economy its because of years of poor management and it lead to the theater not being able to withstand a slight breeze, let alone the gusts of a tough economy. 

 

It is a sad situation.  It is unfair to the community and industry that the situation was allowed to happen.  Unfortunately, it is the third example this week of bad leadership, between North Shore, BoarsHead and Skylight Opera Theater, it is a pretty embarrassing week for nonprofit theatre.

Recent articles about the arts, theater, etc. from the last two weeks

June 18, 2009 • No Comments

 

A LINK TO A MUST READ POST FOR EVERYONE IN THE ARTS!!! @createequity http://tinyurl.com/mzdl62

Nonprofits gird for long battle – Crain’s New York Business – http://shar.es/Wk9N

How Twitter’s Staff Uses Twitter (And Why It Could Cause Problems) – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/WqUN

Competitive Advantage Is Fleeting (And It’s Okay to Admit It) http://bit.ly/nsMAE

Company has employees volunteer for charities, pays them, takes tax deduction http://tr.im/nXpv

Declaration of Arts Ed Rights – http://shar.es/f39I

The evolving hybrids in corporate structure – The Artful Manager – http://shar.es/2NWv

Roundabout announces $10 Birdie tickets, sponsored by Bank of America http://bit.ly/l1IBT

The Columbus Dispatch : Cultural groups tap audiences via social networking – http://shar.es/2Uqe

Beleaguered City Opera Tries to Hold Off the Ultimate Finale – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/29lH

Helen Mirren in "Phedre" live broadcast #fb http://shar.es/29gt

North Shore Musical Theater to Close – http://bit.ly/j3cVq

NEA reports decline in arts audiences for 2008 | Culture Monster | Los Angeles Times – http://shar.es/rtXO

Obama Plays It Safe With the Arts – WSJ.com – http://shar.es/fNth

Obama and the arts, Part 2 http://bit.ly/11njer

Obama and the arts, Part 3 | Culture Monster | Los Angeles Times – http://shar.es/fNXP

Tonys boost Broadway box office – Entertainment News, Tony Awards, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/roU7

Interesting study on gender and Twitter use: http://bit.ly/tg2XE

Making Art Pay For Art – http://shar.es/r1h4

The Revolution is Tweeted, Does it Matter?  http://shar.es/r1iu

Jonathan Demme to Direct for MCC Theater – ArtsBeat Blog – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/rgem

Arts, Briefly: Broadway’s New Season Takes Shape http://bit.ly/12rzoO

NYT reports giving last year fell by largest percentage in five decades: http://rde.me/Y6

The Associated Press: Amid meltdown, charitable gifts in US fell in 2008 – http://shar.es/fNov

Charitable Donations Fell by Nearly 6% in 2008, the Sharpest Drop in 53 Years http://twurl.nl/ijbq6x

Shrek the Musical Comes Closest to a Perfect Social Strategy for Broadway Musicals, http://bit.ly/e0Dz3

Merce Cunningham plans his retirement – Crain’s New York Business – http://shar.es/f1hc

Laura Benanti and Steven Pasquale have found happiness on and off stage! http://bit.ly/uPGCp

Roger Freidman trying to stir it up with Michael Riedel http://bit.ly/69H5Y

Three sign on for ‘Pillars of the Earth’ http://tinyurl.com/nf5wf2

BroadwayRadio’s This Week on Broadway podcast post-Tony discussion is now available! http://tinyurl.com/ndsn83

 

Here we go again…Artistic Director fired to save money ROUND TWO

• One Comment

What is up in the mid-west?  On Monday I wrote a post about BoarsHead Theater in Michigan firing their artistic director to save money.  At the end of the post I said I hoped this wouldn’t be a trend and low and behold…from today’s Playbill:

In a move that would seem to send a chill down the spine of not-for-profit artistic directors everywhere, Skylight Opera Theatre’s board and managing director eliminated the job of the artistic director on June 14.

Bill Theisen, the Milwaukee musical theatre company’s popular artistic director for the past five seasons will not hold the job for the troupe’s 50th anniversary in 2009-10. Theisen was let go “as part of an organizational restructuring in response to the economic downturn,” according to a statement from the Equity company that produces musicals and English-language versions of classic operas.

Skylight’s “artistic coordination and administration will now be part of the responsibilities of managing director, Eric Dillner, who assumed the managing director position at the Skylight in 2008.

A MUST READ POST FOR EVERYONE IN THE ARTS!!!

June 16, 2009 • No Comments

Ian David Moss over at Create Equity has always written some interesting and insightful posts, but yesterday he wrote a post that brilliantly summarizes all the key issues the arts are facing.  I have great hope that it will unify the many conversations that have been happening on these issues in many blogs (including Off-Stage Right and many of the blogs on the blog roll on the left) including discussion on “sustainability,” business models, artist compensation and equality, and power distribution.

I beg everyone to go read the post in full.

On the Arts and Sustainability

Who needs an Artistic Director? Not BoarsHead Theater or so they say…

June 15, 2009 • One Comment

Times are tough and everyone is worried about what is coming next, but the board at BoarsHead Theater in Michigan has taken a step that might or might not be the start of a trend.  My thoughts on this later in the post.

I found this article through that wonderful resource American Theatre Web.  The article was from Encore Michigan website which is a new on-line publication for Michigan’s professional theater scene (bravo to them for starting the site especially since I probably never would have seen this story otherwise) BoarsHead board cites loss of donations as reason for Thatcher firing by Bridgette M. Redman:

Lansing’s BoarsHead Theater, one of three professional Michigan theaters this month to announce the termination of its top artistic executive, is restructuring its organization to proceed without an artistic director and with a more active board.

This is the opening paragraph of the above cited article.  First thought was what is more worrisome – no artistic leadership or “a more active board.”   Citing the loss of income from foundations and the ANTICIPATED loss of other contributed revenue, the board decided not to renew A.D. Kristine Thatcher’s contract. Second thought, so they haven’t lost the money yet and they think tearing the organization apart will help, hmm…  I said to myself don’t be judgmental keep reading, maybe there is some new artistic structure they are entertaining, under the leadership of the Executive Director John Dale Smith who is sticking with the organization.  So I kept reading.

The theatre’s attendance is down, a major foundation donating 50K a year has ended funding (clear reason not given but subtext is that is more about the economy than the theatre itself), subscriptions down and sponsorships down – so BoarsHead is like many if not most theatres across the country, so why the drastic restructure I wonder, hmm…

[Board Chair Larry Meyer, a former Lansing city council member and retired CEO of the Michigan Retailers Association] also pointed out that while the 2008-2009 season made money, with a projected profit of $22,488, that was due to two significant one-time gifts from Jackson National and Meijer.

According to a financial audit filed with the city, BoarsHead’s net assets grew from a deficit of $63,288 in 2007 to a surplus of $13,305 as of June 30, 2008, a trend that continues a deficit reduction that has been steady since Thatcher’s arrival in 2005. Their cash balance increased from $79,927 as of June 30, 2007 to $182,281 as of June 30, 2008.

However, ticket sales dropped from $330,731 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007 to $280,692 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. While Meyer was unable to confirm whether ticket sales figures were up or down for 2008-2009, he did say they were below expectations. In 2008, the shortfall in ticket sales was made up with $116,477 in increased contributions.

Huh?  The headline seemed to imply lower donations were the issues but the above seems to conflict with that and suggests lower box office but it is difficult to use a two year comparison for a real analysis.  And “below expectations” doesn’t mean there was a drop in sales – after all what were the “expectations.”  But I will keep reading and have an open mind, because hey, new models of leadership in theater can be really good for an organization and the industry.

Faced with a projected deficit, Smith said that every decision the theater and the board makes now must be based on finances. Meyer agreed, saying that the ongoing value of BoarsHead is that arts and culture are “an integral part of a downtown fabric.”

“I certainly understand the business side very well,” said Meyer, while admitting, “I don’t understand the theater part of it. I’m just an old hockey guy.”

When asked whether the board would renew Thatcher’s contract if additional donations or sponsorships were to change the financial situation of the theater, both Meyer and Smith said that such an answer would be pure speculation.

“We have got to lower the cost of the Boarshead,” Meyer said. “We will continue to have high quality artistic presentation. We’ll get at it in a different way.”

The fiscal year 2009-2010 has $27,230 budgeted for artistic direction — a cut from the $59,135 salary that Thatcher was paid. Meyer said that number would not be used for a salaried position, but to pay for the necessary artistic direction.

“There will be artistic direction,” he said. “There will be that critical element of the artistic product that will be properly addressed. There is not currently a plan. We have discussed it in broad terms and I would hope that within a couple weeks we’ll have some announcements.”

He said the board is active, works very closely together and that they will make the future direction of BoarsHead work.

Okay, they officially lost me.  As the kids say WTF?  “Every decision must be based on finances.”  It is a theatre.  Without the artistic decisions how do you even know the finances?  I won’t even go into how can you understand the “business side very well” without understanding “the theater part of it”.”  THE BUSINESS IS THEATER.  They can’t be separated, but how about “there is not currently a plan” and “they [the board] will make the future direction of BoarsHead work.”  Remember the first quote – BoarsHead is one of three professional theaters in Michigan (sorry to my beloved home state, I think you now only have two professional theaters, thank goodness for my friend Guy Sanville, Jeff Daniels and the Purple Rose in Chelsea).

So I keep reading, but admittedly without an open mind, in fact with a bit of anger.

Complements about Thatcher from a former board member.  Complements about Thatcher from a playwright who has been produced at BoarsHead – attributes recent successes and growth to her – even suggest that the previous leadership had led the theatre to the brink of closing and Thatcher brought it back to health.  Opinions on the theater – it is a key player in Lansing arts scene, has a small staff, etc.  Complements about Thatcher from an actor who worked there – she is the heart of the theater.  Interestingly the comments all also say nice things about John Dale Smith.  Some more thoughts from a leaders of other area theaters (which include a shout-out to Purple Rose).  Info on Thatcher and awards she won.

NOTHING in the article to suggest that the work was an issue.

NOTHING to suggest why the board really thought this was the way to go (other than they want a say in the programming).

NOTHING to suggest any kind of plans.

NOTHING to suggest any logic in the decision at all.

Anyone else think there is something else going on here?

So I headed to BoarsHead Theater‘s website.  The front page touts last season’s awards and the 2009-2010 season (I assume chosen by Thatcher).  In the news section I found a statement from Meyers on the reorganization.  I thought okay the article on-line might have been bias, here we have it direct from the decision-makers.

BoarsHead Theater is a nonprofit cultural organization and, like most in this tough economy, we are dealing with extreme financial pressures. Our major sources of income are down dramatically. We have experienced losses in government and private grants, and business and individual donations.

We are not complaining. This is the reality we face, but it forces the board to take aggressive action to resize the organization. We are developing a reorganization plan with one – not two – top staff people. The business model of two people at the top developed 43 years ago by BoarsHead founders John Peakes and Richard Thomsen is not sustainable in these times. We must reduce expenses to continue to operate.

The board’s decision was a difficult one, but necessary in order to move forward and remain the anchor arts organization of downtown Lansing. BoarsHead is the largest equity (shows with professional actors) theater in mid-Michigan and we do not want to lose our value to downtown, our patrons, donors and past and future subscribers. Our reorganization plan will ensure our main stage shows continue to provide top-notch entertainment and our educational programs expand to allow exciting opportunities for the area youth.

We have announced an outstanding season of plays at affordable prices for next year. We need the support of the community to keep this theater sustained and thriving. Come see our shows, and tell your friends and neighbors to come downtown as well.

This theater has a significant impact on the economic development of downtown Lansing. We remain committed to downtown and being a vital part of its exciting renaissance.

BoarsHead Theater has a 43-year history in Lansing. Board members are unanimous in their love for this theater and its future. We are committed to our mission: “BoarsHead Theater entertains and inspires audiences through professional productions and educational outreach programs.”

NOTHING to really explain the decision or elaborate on making such a decision with no plan or who will have actual artistic input on the plan.

Goodness forbid that any board at any respectable theater read this and think this is a good course of action.  Sure there are times for changes in leadership.  There are even good reasons to play with the leadership structure of a theater.  But from the outside this doesn’t seem like a course of action, a strategy or even well-thought out.   In fact is seems ridiculous.

Unless something else is going on or a real plan is created that focuses on theater not just finances, my guess is we will soon see BoarsHead added to the growing list of theaters that have closed.

Women in Theatre

June 10, 2009 • 11 Comments

Last week over dinner a friend and I had a long discussion about being a woman working in the theatre industry.  We were both relatively disheartened and surprised by the on-going struggle we and our peers go through in both the commercial and nonprofit world.

Laura Collin-Hughes wrote a great post on this in her Tony Awards follow-up.  And yesterday I got an invite to a discussion of a study being developed by a group of wonderful playwrights (female of course) on this disparity.

Over the summer I hope to use this blog to discuss this issue – is it an issue? I would really like others to join in, so PLEASE add you comments or email me if you have thoughts about this or would like to be a part of the conversation. It would be really great to have you all help me create a list of topics on how we can address this once and for all.

Completely forgot to post last week’s interesting articles! Sorry

June 1, 2009 • No Comments

 

LAByrinth Gets New Leaders http://bit.ly/wSz7O

TIME’s The Future of Twitter – http://is.gd/KxqB

Harvard Business School’s New "M.B.A Oath" http://tr.im/mVpb

Quality too good to pass up – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/XQXL

Tunesmith takes on "Minister’s Wife" Variety – I hear great things about this show. http://tinyurl.com/mj8q9x

Hold the Interview | forimpact.org GREAT LINK to Chip and Dan Heath article – http://shar.es/XAGh

Tips on Filling Out the Governance Section on the New Form 990 (IRS) http://bit.ly/KqeW0

10 Ways to Think About Social Networking And The Arts (the zen of "free" as a strategy) http://bit.ly/1Dpo5

Babes in Broadwayland: How Old Is Old Enough? http://bit.ly/ymtpi

White House Officials Discuss Plans for Social-Innovation Office http://twurl.nl/zbxpum

Shubert teams with NYC and Co. – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/0mLz

Stephen Belber: ‘Is it better to write for Hollywood?’ – Los Angeles Times – http://shar.es/0nSL

Broadway embraces web community – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/mLLj

Conference Committee report is out on HB2649. Stripped as promised by Rep. Smith. (link at @jimonlight http://is.gd/KPrS)

More thoughts on Rocco and the NEA…

May 29, 2009 • One Comment

I read Arlene Goldbard’s “advise to Rocco Landesman” yesterday.  I was bothered that she did not seem to have much access to research into Rocco’s commentary on theater and specifically non-profit theater.  The most important being a piece he wrote for the NY Times in 2000 (see this post for the article and more quotes), so I was compelled to write a brief response.

I really do think Rocco Landesman is a GREAT choice for running the NEA.  I think we need him right now.  I read about some of the others who were considered (they were listed in one of the articles and I googled them) and he was in my opinion the best choice.  I really believe, as I wrote a few days ago, that we are at the beginning of a modern renaissance for the arts.   We are finally on a path to being relevant in our communities and making theater important again.  We need to have an open mind for change and we MUST stop talking about working within our communities and start actually doing the work, and I am proud to see examples of this happening all across the country.   A leader like Rocco Landesman is exactly the type of person the arts need in Washington D.C.  He is a thinker and a doer.  He is innovative, aggressive and he gets what non-profits are supposed to be doing (something I worry some folks in the non-profit world often forget in the quest to be more commercial, to transfer shows and to chase enhancement money).

I respect Arelene’s thoughts on the symbolism of the NEA, but I think Rocco may be just the guy to take the NEA from being a arts version of the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” to a vibrant, functional, and integral agency that has underscores the importance of the arts in society, has an impact on the cultural landscape of the country and provides a diverse slate of funding.

Are there too many good shows and not enough audience members?

May 27, 2009 • No Comments

 

At one point in early April I made a joke to my husband that the critics were only writing rave reviews – because if shows sold tickets,  producers would buy ads and therefore critics would keep their jobs.  I didn’t really think there was a conspiracy–mostly because I think critics are smart enough to know that writing good reviews for every show wouldn’t save arts journalism (but that’s another post), so could the answer be that there were a bunch of really great shows opening around New York City? 

 

There were certainly more than enough shows opening.  Off-Broadway the non-profit theaters were at the height of their seasons and even commercial off-Broadway was showing some life with the new multi-plex theaters seeming to be almost full for the first time in a while.   The double digit closings on Broadway in January and early February opened up a lot of theaters.  Most of the closings were limited runs or long-running shows except for the wonderful Dividing the Estate which should have been allowed to stay at the Booth longer (everyone buy tickets to see it at Hartford Stage – go buy now – come back and finish reading the post after getting your tickets), but each closing announcement was quickly followed by an opening announcement.   Theater owners seemed determined to keep their spaces filled.   Producers seemed to scale back shows a bit or resorted to producing PLAYS (hooray!) to keep costs down.  It certainly wasn’t the rush on theaters that the late 90’s and early part of this decade provided but the theaters certainly weren’t going dark. 

 

And then it happened…review after review: Ruined, Exit the King, God of Carnage, Our Town, Hair, Joe Turner’s Come and Gone, Mary Stuart, Next to Normal, The Norman Conquests (all three), Rock of Ages, Reasons to be Pretty, Waiting for Godot, West Side Story, Everyday Rapture, The Cripple of Inishmaan, and that doesn’t even name all of the shows that were getting raves – so please don’t get upset if I left your show off -  or the ones that are still to open off-Broadway (high hopes for MCC Theater’s Coraline and everyone is telling me to rush to the Public Theater’s Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson).   It was as if we entered a mini-Golden age for the theatre and so many wonderful straight plays!  They even opened a second  “Plays only” window at the TKTS Booth.

 

So, I started what seems like an endless odyssey to see all of these wonderful shows that are out there.   Now, I am a pretty regular theater-goer, I see most of the Broadway and off-Broadway season each year and even make it to a smattering of off-off-Broadway productions.   But I am finding myself in a the theater a lot more this spring, there is just so much to see!  And you know what, the critics are right, the shows are well-deserving of their raves.  As a matter of fact, the only reviews I seem to disagree with are some of the “mixed reviews”  (come on way too tough of 9-5 it was as much fun as Rock of Ages and hello DOLLY PARTON’s songs were great and Tovah Feldshuh cannot receive enough praise for Irena’s Vow). 

So, I am going to all of this wonderful theater and loving it.  More than that, I am proud to be a part of the New York theater industry.  How can anyone not take great pride in all of the wonderful work throughout the City. 

 

But then at intermission I start looking around at the houses, then after the show, then I start getting there early to watch the audiences come in, and I am deeply, deeply distraught that so many of these wonderful shows with all of these great reviews are playing to partial houses and in some cases partial is bring very polite.  Sure some of the musicals are doing well and I can’t even get house seats at God Of Carnage (and I have tried 4 times) but I have to think if some of these shows were in a less competitive environment they would be playing to higher percentages of houses or would they?

 

Are there too many good shows out there and not enough audience for them?

 

My knee-jerk response is to point to ticket prices.  They are so high.  After all the New York Times just reported how Broadway had record grosses this year.  (Note Ken Davenport over at Producer’s Perspective breaks the stats down and shows the drop-off in total audiences that matched these record grosses, so clearly higher prices play into the slight uptick).  But it would be foolish to say that ticket prices were the issue, lets not kid ourselves they are ridiculously high and the premium seats are way out of control – too many held, etc., but come on practically ever show is at the Theater Development Fund’s TKTS Booth (Follow TDF on Twitter if you don’t believe me) and there are so many other discounts out there!  Google a show and you can get a discount ticket!

 

So is it the about stars?  This season is certainly has more big names involved  on and off stage than any other recent season.   Reasons to be Pretty doesn’t have stars, I hear it over and over.  Well they have done a great job finding a handful of stars to host talk-backs every night for the week or two and that doesn’t seem to solve the fact that this AMAZING show is playing to way too small of houses.  (again, please pause in your reading and go buy tickets to Reasons to be Pretty, really you can come back and finish the post after, I will wait just don’t get lost in their great new web videos, you can go back and look at those later). 

 

So what is it?  And don’t anyone dare say the word “marketing.”  Frankly some of the best marketing out there is for the shows that aren’t filling up and some of the worst for the shows that are (I won’t name examples because of dear friends involved in the shows but you all have seen some of the commercials and print pieces). 

 

Is tourism down?  Are all those “staycations” I keep reading about causing this?  I would imagine they are having some balanced effect – New Yorkers who stay home make up for the tourists?

 

Are the audiences just diminishing?  Have lack of school programs and the value of theater sunk so low that we are now on a trend to just see audiences grow smaller and smaller?  I might think this had more validity if so much of the work out there weren’t so darn relevant and good.  But we can’t completely rule it out.

 

Or is it perhaps that the balance of long-running shows to new shows is off-kilter.   After all the entire theater business is more or less about balance, so did all those long-running shows that closed throw the audience levels off?  I hate to say it but I think this is the largest factor.  Maybe some of the theaters should have stayed dark a little longer.  After all a couple more shows like Mamma Mia, Jersey Boys, Wicked, Avenue Q or August Osage County might balance out some of the competition.  And certainly it would be great if off-Broadway production costs could be reversed so that you could have once again sustain long runs. 

 

So the question isn’t really are there too many good shows out there, but there are too many NEW good shows out there.  What will happen next?  Can some of these shows maintain their success or survive their lower numbers and pull off a longer run?  With so many of the shows on Broadway are we setting ourselves up for next season to mirror this one?  The summer and fall already have a rich schedule from the nonprofit theatres (in New York, Chicago, San Diego, etc.) with several of the shows looking like they are possible transfers, so there will be plenty of competition to fill the theaters that do empty. 

 

I think this means we as an industry have to do some thinking and planning and do it darn quick.  We are digging a hole that is going to be very difficult to get out of if we let it become a trend.  We have to make an environment where a good show can run. We have to make off-Broadway and off-off Broadway sustainable.  We have to reach beyond New York and make sure that theater can be sustainable, vital and relevant throughout the country.   It means dealing with production costs and ticket prices, cultivating future theater audiences, and most importantly learning from the current slate on the boards to find a balance that works.  We can’t just write it off as an anomaly or blame it on the economy (oh my that sort of rhymed), just as the nonprofit theater world must revise its business model to meet a new reality so does the commercial side of the industry.

« Previous Page — « Previous Entries
Next Entries » — Next Page »