Michael Feingold on the freedom of no longer being a Tony voter and the conundrum of theater criticism in the era of digitalized communication

August 14, 2009 • One Comment

 

In this week’s Village Voice there is a really interesting article Theater Criticism Reconfigured: The Internet (unlike the Tonys) lets everyone have their say—to a point. What would Wilde think? by Michael Feingold which delves into everything from critics being shut out of the Tony’s to criticism in the Web 2.0 era.

 

On the Tony’s, Feingold basically says, you don’t want us fine at least I have more time to see what I want to see rather than imported or overproduced fare:

By the end of this paragraph, the producers of Burn the Floor will be sore at the Broadway League and the American Theatre Wing. When the news broke that these two organizations, which jointly manage Broadway’s annual Tony Awards, had decided to remove the first-night theater press from the ranks of Tony voters, my first action was to e-mail my editor that I wouldn’t be reviewing Burn the Floor, Broadway’s new ballroom-dance compilation, an Australian import that has been trekking around the world for some years. As a Tony voter, I might have felt obliged to go: The nominations are so eccentric that you never know what may or may not end up on the ballot, and the ballot always specifies that you may not vote in a given category unless you’ve seen all the nominees. My new non-voter status has liberated me from events like Burn the Floor. Unluckily for its producers, my editor has no space outside my column for it either, so their show will get no Village Voice review. Let the League and the Wing deal with it.

 

Some of my colleagues on the press list are dismayed by the Tony administrators’ decision; some are downright irate. For me, it’s a blessed release. The League, the Broadway producers’ association, works hard to make the public equate "Broadway" with "the theater," but the two were never identical, and in recent decades, the gap between them has steadily widened. Theater, sometimes very fine theater, does still occur in the large-scale venues that function on Broadway contracts and charge Broadway’s staggering ticket prices, but not so often that theater critics need to spend the bulk of their time there. These days, most of what we call "Broadway," good or not, comes, like Burn the Floor, from elsewhere: London, Off-Broadway, resident theaters across the U.S. The era when "Broadway" meant a specific way of creating theater, with its own attitudes and its own approach, is long gone; its surviving practitioners are mostly older than myself. And I am not young, except at heart.

 

The roster of Tony voters includes Broadway producers, presenters of touring attractions, artists with Broadway credentials, and officials of the theatrical unions. By removing the first-night press, the one sizeable voting bloc not directly involved in producing Broadway shows, the Tony management reaffirmed what the award is: a trade association prize, given by members to the work they hold most valuable—which, in practice, often means most commercially valuable.

 

I have to say Feingold’s attitude is probably more incendiary than any letters or articles I have seen more far.  The who cares, I have better things to do with my time and the space in my column is a delightful “who cares and F-you” rolled into one.  It will be interesting to see if he skips other fare.

 

But it is Feingold’s thoughts on “our new era of digitalized communication that are most intriguing.”   First he set some historical context and where we are now:

 

Newspapers and magazines, once the great repositories of arts criticism, are embattled phenomena themselves today, phasing out, as they downsize, not only their staff critics but most of their arts coverage. Springing up to replace it is the babble of voices flooding the Internet, some qualified to speak and others not, some striving for honesty while others pontificate from questionable assumptions and even more questionable motives.

 

Like most human phenomena, this one has precedents. A century ago, when New York had two dozen or more daily newspapers, representing every income level and every shade of political opinion, they all carried theater reviews, which—no surprise—mostly reflected those papers’ overall outlook. Mid-18th-century London, where the practice of publishing regular theater criticism began, offers an even more Internet-like picture, with fly-by-night news-sheets and scurrilous pamphlets popping up everywhere, mingling blind-item theatrical gossip with detailed analysis, often willfully and malevolently inaccurate, of plays and performances. Picture Datalounge and Educational Theatre Journal as the same website.

 

The Internet’s speed makes today different. Reviews by news sites’ designated critics get posted the minute a show opens. Even these are being supplanted, for enthusiasts, by the instant reactions texted or tweeted, to chat boards and networking sites by those privileged to catch the workshop, the invited dress, or the first 15 minutes of the first preview. The multiplicity of opinions online can be refreshing, like a spring rain, but their instant, unremitting inundation of all discourse seems more like the Johnstown Flood: The sane person instinctively retreats to higher ground.

 

Finding such ground is no longer easy. Newspapers, fighting to stay afloat in the Internet torrents, can hardly promote it. The weeklies that still cover theater now strive to post reviews simultaneous with the dailies’; the space their later deadlines used to offer for reflection and reconsideration has mostly vanished. Though many bloggers and chatters have shown that they can supply an intelligent perspective, they’re vastly outnumbered in a medium where even those who purport to love theater seem mainly concerned with which TV stars will appear onstage, or which stage stars on TV….

 

I guess by writing this blog, I am part of part of the dilemma of the era – although I don’t write reviews.  The funny thing is, I completely see Feingold’s point and I do think it is a bit of a problem.  I am still old school enough to think that previews are sacred time to work on the show – rehearsals with an audience is what one of my favorite actresses used to call them.  I get angry when I see a blogger break that tradition and print a outright review before opening.  After all this is when a show can be tightened and it is often the only way for a show to reach that point where the work simply transcends all interferences from the outside work so that it can take the audience on a fantastic journey each night. 

 

But, on the other hand I am seasoned enough to know that the majority of shows that have major flaws or issues will likely not solve them in previews, and I have seen plenty of clunkers in previews that got the poor critical reception I thought they would. 

 

And, let’s not forget that many of the “critics” and “journalists” have adopted standards that match that of the lowest common denominator in blogging.  Frankly are there that many real theater critics out there?

 

Aren’t we all “backseat drivers” or “Monday morning quarterbacks” when we are tweeting and blogging.  It was only yesterday that I excerpted Michael Riedel’s column declaring Spiderman dead (premature or not?) while discussing whether the show was a colossal waste of money or not.  Although I am very careful about what I tweet when seeing shows during previews is it really fair to censor an entire audience.  I don’t think so.  Also, it would be completely off-putting to say “Hey everyone, we’re in previews so no status updates or tweets about the show until after opening.”   After all we as producers are delighted when actors in a show tweet and set up Twitter accounts for the show itself.  We want an audience so we can use these tools but once the audience arrives they can’t?  Doesn’t really make sense does it.  Of course we also only care if someone says something not so nice about the show.  Praise is more than welcome we re-tweet it!  So the only other option would be to censor the audiences?  NO.  Unacceptable.  So we must adapt or embrace the era.

 

But back to Mr. Feingold and his grand finale—the conundrum of how we move forward or do we?

 

Our time is an exceptionally rough one for criticism. With the dizzying changes in the way we communicate altering the whole fabric of our social life, we are going through a double revolution, and revolutions are never optimal moments for integrity and clarity of thought. The critic—whether viewed by the theater as an enemy, a necessary gadfly, a creative partner, or a poor relation to be tolerated—was never more than a small part of the picture. The theater that leans on critics as a crutch, deriving its own estimate of its worth from its reviews, is probably in as unhealthy a state as the theater with no critical guidance or intellectual perspective at all. Somewhere between those two conditions, the new world that the Internet has caused will probably find a healthier middle way for the astute critical sensibility to function as part of the theater. We can’t guess yet what that will be, because we can’t predict what the theater will become. Today’s world has abolished business as usual.

 

One clue for criticism’s future may lie in the aspect of its essence most overlooked in the current upheavals. The instant thumbs-up or thumbs-down so beloved by the Internet is only the smallest part of a critic’s job. The rest involves writing—exploring, simultaneously, the work under review and the critic’s response to it. Oscar Wilde’s definition of criticism applies: "the record of a soul." The habit of reading critics of the past has ebbed in recent decades. But many cultural habits have ebbed and been revived over the centuries. Phenomena like Kindle and GoogleBooks may yet bring this one back, too. The pleasures that lie in wait for readers who love theater may be ending only to begin all over again.

 

So readers…what do you think?  Is theatre criticism a dying art or just in at the low part of the cycle waiting to come around the bend?

Rocco’s first interview

August 11, 2009 • 3 Comments

I always dislike when I start writing a post and I already know it will anger folks who I respect and often agree with, but heck I have been out of town for a week, so why not start off with a bang – WAY TO GO ROCCO LANDESMAN.

Landesman was confirmed late last week and his first interview with the New York Times (New Endowment Chairman sees Arts as Economic Engine) set off a firestorm of responses.  Not one to be shy, in one interview he took the bull by the horns about the arts being sidelined to the “kids table” or written off as frivolous.

Mr. Landesman, 62, made clear that he has little patience for the disdain with which some politicians still seem to view the endowment, more than a decade after the culture wars that nearly destroyed it.

He was particularly angered, he said, by parts of the debate over whether to include $50 million for the agency in the federal stimulus bill, citing the comment by Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” in February, that arts money did not belong in the bill. That kind of thinking suggests that “artists don’t have kids to send to college,” Mr. Landesman said, “or food to put on the table, or medical bills to pay.”

In American politics generally, he added: “The arts are a little bit of a target. The subtext is that it is elitist, left wing, maybe even a little gay.”

He has drawn some criticism for what has been called everything from snarky to elitist by stating that quality would play more into granting decisions than geography.

“I don’t know if there’s a theater in Peoria, but I would bet that it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman,” he said, referring to two of Chicago’s most prominent theater companies. “There is going to be some push-back from me about democratizing arts grants to the point where you really have to answer some questions about artistic merit.”

“And frankly,” he added, “there are some institutions on the precipice that should go over it. We might be overbuilt in some cases.”

Mr. Landesman does believe that the agency should be “perceived as being everywhere,” he said. “But I don’t know that we have to be everywhere if the only reason for supporting an institution is its geography.”

I know I will probably anger some folks here, but I don’t think the NEA needs to fund by geography, it shouldn’t be dismissed but it shouldn’t be a key factor.  I certainly hope that all grants are based on the merit of the project and the organization’s mission/community impact.  The idea that every congressional district should get funding seems like a ridiculous quota.  That type of policy seems the equivalent to begging for legislatures attention )or buying it) and diminishes all of the grants as a whole.

For the record I don’t believe in funding by size either- either of the organization or of the area that the organization is located.  I do agree that there are some circumstances in which institutions should ‘go over the precipice’ and close – there are plenty that have built beyond their means or have been irresponsible or borderline irresponsible in their management.  These Landesman comments, unsurprisingly have drawn the most response from the blogosphere (see below).  Certainly there are multiple interpretations of the comments as well.

No matter what folks in Peoria probably don’t appreciate being picked on.  For the record a quick google search brought up the 91-year old Peoria Players Theatre and the Corn Stalk Theatre.  (I especially feel for the Peoria Players who have a plea on their website stating they are in a financial crisis.  Maybe this will rally folks to send in some extra donations.)

But back to the interview – Landesman notes he is in support of grants for individual artists (which can’t be reinstated without an act of Congress, which I am sure is not the first battle he will choose to fight) and that he plans to fight for a larger budget calling the current appropriation “pathetic and “embarrassing.”

It’s no shock considering who he is and his backgroud that he plans to make the argument that the arts are an economic driver, but in an interesting twist he is building a platform on the old “artists for community revitalization” idea.  He plans to pursue private sector relationships to fund the program he describes below.

I for one applaud this idea.  Many if not most government agencies use strong multi-sector relationships to get things done, why not the NEA?  Certainly this is a project that H.U.D. could also be a part of.  To me this is the kind of thinking that we were all hoping for when he was tapped for the job (interesting note, from the interview we now know he wasn’t really tapped, he asked for the job which I see as a very good thing in that he is more than up for the challenge, he wants it).  If he can make the case well, he may finally be speaking a language that D.C. bureaucrats and politicians can understand.

“We need to have a seat at the big table with the grown-ups. Art should be part of the plans to come out of this recession.”

“If we’re going to have any traction at all,” he added, “there has to be a place for us in domestic policy.”

He was less clear about the details of this ambitious agenda, though he talked about starting a program that he called “Our Town,” which would provide home equity loans and rent subsidies for living and working spaces to encourage artists to move to downtown areas.

“When you bring artists into a town, it changes the character, attracts economic development, makes it more attractive to live in and renews the economics of that town,” he said. “There are ways to draw artists into the center of things that will attract other people.”

The program would also help finance public art projects and performances and promote architectural preservation in downtown areas, Mr. Landesman added. “Every town has a public square or landmark buildings or places that have a special emotional significance,” he said. “The extent that art can address that pride will be great.”

Given the agency’s “almost invisible” budget, he said, goals like these would require public-private partnerships that enlist developers, corporations and individual investors — largely by getting them “to understand the critical role of art in urban revitalization.”

Such arrangements — which he said will be a “signature part” of his chairmanship — will play “right into the president’s wheelhouse,” Mr. Landesman added, speaking of Mr. Obama’s concerns about cities and economic development.

The new chairman said he already has a new slogan for his agency: “Art Works.” It’s “something muscular that says, ‘We matter.’ ” The words are meant to highlight both art’s role as an economic driver and the fact that people who work in the arts are themselves a critical part of the economy.

“Someone who works in the arts is every bit as gainfully employed as someone who works in an auto plant or a steel mill,” Mr. Landesman said. “We’re going to make the point till people are tired of hearing it.”

Interestingly enough, since I was out of town, I am behind on my reading and had to catch up a bit (although still plenty to go), and I stumbled along this great article from New Music Box (the web magazine for the American Music Center).  In Guess Who’s Invited to the White House, Jean Cook and Casey Rae-Hunter make the case that we are at a unique point where we can get the government to actually work for the arts, if we change some of our tactics.  Cook and Rae-Hunter propose the following:

To be sure, the frequent presence of artists in the White House provides us with reason to be hopeful that the new administration will be a good partner for the arts community. But taking advantage of this opportunity will require a dramatic rethinking of the way we engage with policymakers. The previous eight years were spent playing political defense against an administration with little interest in investing in the arts. Now, we’re faced the no less important challenge of transitioning from an oppositional movement to one that’s more proactive. A movement grounded in big-picture thinking, with a vision for how innovation and creativity can rebuild our nation. A movement that understands the role arts will play in shaping a new social agenda.

Because of an uncoordinated government infrastructure, the arts community has, over the years, come to view public policy as highly agency-specific. We’re good friends with the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, but have until recently been strangers at places like the White House, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Copyright Office. And, though the NEA has long been the most visible symbol of our government’s commitment to art and culture (or in some cases, lack of), its miniscule budget means that its actual impact is largely symbolic and generally limited to touring, presentation, and participation in the traditional and classical disciplines. Yet the entire field continues to grow, necessitating a broader view of policy and public funding for the arts.

In its first six months, the new administration has modeled a more holistic approach to policymaking that prizes innovation and seeks ways to improve conditions for all Americans. There’s a renewed focus on inter-agency collaboration and a sharing of ideas and resources to find creative solutions to our many problems as the nation struggles to repair itself in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Of course, Cook and Rae-Hunter note that we will need to address “how we make our case.”  And this is where I think the appointment of Landesman is important.  The articles authors make no mention of Landesman and the article wasn’t about the N.E.A. but when Cook and Rae-Hunter cry-out  “We need a fresh kind of thinking to recognize new opportunities,” I can’t help but think Landesman is the guy to bring those new ideas to the table.

Now being out of town gave me an advantage that lots of folks had commented on Rocco’s first interview with the New York Times, thoughts and links below:

Laura Collins-Hughes over at Critical Difference brings up some great points about the arts being dismissed in The Arts Are “a Little Gay”

Good for NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman for calling out the homophobia that undergirds opposition to federal funding for the arts. “The arts are a little bit of a target. The subtext is that it is elitist, left wing, maybe even a little gay,” he tells Robin Pogrebin in today’s New York Times….

The idea that the arts are gay, and therefore dismissable, is closely related to another notion about the arts: that they are inherently girly….

The arts are widely viewed as a milieu best suited to women, and to men with an affinity for beauty, delicacy and taste and an aversion to muscular exertion (read: gay — and, no, I am not endorsing the stereotype, merely articulating it).

As a nation, we tend not to scrape together public funding if we believe it would benefit people like that. Unless, maybe, we can be convinced that it’s in our economic interest to do so.

Not a new idea but something important to think about when we craft the case for the arts getting a seat at the “big table.”  Collins- Hughes also tackles the Peoria comment:

The straight-shooting Landesman won’t earn many points for diplomacy in that interview, particularly with the ill-considered slap, “I don’t know if there’s a theater in Peoria, but I would bet that it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman.” That remark is bound to alienate whole flocks of legislators as well as artists outside major cities. Nonetheless, the point he’s trying to make about democratizing arts grants — “I don’t know that we have to be everywhere if the only reason for supporting an institution is its geography” — is perfectly valid, and his new NEA slogan, “Art Works,” is beautifully attuned to the zeitgeist….

Gioia might have made some lasting progress for the agency, whose natural opponents have been forced to concede, at least to a degree, that there is value to the arts. If Landesman, a Broadway producer, uses creative-class theory to hang a dollar sign on that value and explain the dividends investment in the arts would pay, he may be speaking lawmakers’ language.

What’s interesting is, I am not so sure that the comment will “alienate whole flocks of legislators.”  Outside of the Peoria delegation, I wonder if it will even register with folks.  I think Collins-Hughes is right that Landesman “may be speaking lawmaker’s language,” and if he is he is leaps and bounds ahead of any of his predecessors.  His plan to stay on the offensive and not apologize for the arts is vital stance that will be necessary if the N.E.A. is going to become a useful and important agent for change and innovation for the arts.

Over at Gratuitous Violins in Rocco, this won’t play in Peoria calls the Peoria comment “snarky.”

Rocco, was it wise in your very first interview to pick a fight with Peoria? Which, as a native Midwesterner yourself, you must know is in Illinois, home state of the president who nominated you to head the NEA.

I don’t know whether there’s a theater there or not. And if there is, maybe it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman. But that’s not the point. The point is introducing more people to the arts. And not everyone can get to Chicago or New York.

The point is, good theatre, music, dance and other art is being made all over this country in communities large and small. As NEA chairman, you should be celebrating that fact and building it up, not tearing it down with a snarky comment.

I have to say,  I think Landesman knew exactly what state he was using examples from.  Readers can see the results of my quick google search above there are theaters in Peoria.  Unfortunately, I couldn’t find easily if there were any N.E.A. grant recipients in Peoria – but via the Illinois Arts Council they would likely benefit from federal funds. I have to say again merit and quality do mean more to me than geography.  I don’t think the comment was ruling out geographic diversity, just quotas and I fully agree with that.

I also don’t think the “point” of the N.E.A. is to “introduce people to the arts.”  It is a government agency that should be a helluva a lot more than what it is – a “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval,” but it isn’t an advocacy or social service agency.  Let’s not kid ourselves, the N.E.A. has never had a big enough budget to make any kind of sweeping national impact.  The capacity is just not there, and I don’t really care to focus on what frankly can not be achieved and probably shouldn’t be.

If Landesman achieves the increased budget he is looking for I would be happy if it didn’t end up in the grant program budgets, if it was used to create new models and partnerships within the arts industries.  I don’t think it is about more “funding” the status quo or for organizations to keep on being dysfunctional (see Funding Models/Saving Theaters).  The regional theater model never was functional and it is time to admit it.  It is outrageous that so many theaters, orchestras, etc. have structural deficits year after year without making any changes to how they are run and how they produce their work.

Now I am a big fan of Scott Walters and an even bigger fan of his <100K Project.  It is nothing short of amazing. It is actually an innovative new collaborative model.  I got my start as a Outreach Director in North Carolina, and I am VERY familiar with the types of communities and arts that Scott is advocating for.  In Time to Blast Rocco Landesman, Scott is starting an outright campaign in response to Landesman’s geographic comments.

Now we have this interview, a clear indication that he is the Ny-centric, high art (or rather, high budget — despite his talk of quality, what he is really talking about is big budget, high prestige institutions) proponent I thought he was. I call on all readers of this blog to communicate your outrage to Landesman. He can be emailed at chairman@arts.gov, called at 202-682-5414, or sent a letter at 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20506.

The arts must be for everyone, not just people who live in the big cities in this nation.  If you really want to see the NEA budget slashed because legislators don’t see any of the money coming to their home districts, just keep trumpeting this elitist nonsense. Landesman needs to read Grassroots Theatre by Robert Gard and learn about the long tradition in this country of democratic, widespread creativity. Theatre historians during the past 35 years or so have virtually ignored this, despite the fact that some of the most important art of the first half of the century came from it (Provincetown Players, for instance, was part of the Little Theatre movement, for crying loud; the Pulitzer Prize winning Paul Green wrote regional based plays in North Carolina).

Now Scott has always taken issue with what he calls the ‘”Myth of Broadway.”  I am at a disadvantage because I grew up without any Broadway influence in my life and actually never imagined myself in New York, as a matter of fact I even through graduate school I said over and over again I was never even going to visit New York.

Of course after a dozen years living in New York and the immediate area, I am grateful for all that New York has to offer.  However, it has never occurred to me to think of theater in other cities or regions as less valid or less important because know the value of the arts as community-building and engines for personal growth firsthand.  I have also been lucky enough to live in 6 different states in 4 different regions of the country in my lifetime.  I know folks tend to be myopic about New York and other major cities, but Landesman’s comment doesn’t bother me as much as others including Scott although I certainly see why what they read into it irks them.  I also just don’t see the comment as being about “big budget, high prestige institutions.”

My thinking is a bit more in-line with Isaac Butler over at Parabasis who responds to Scott’s post at <100K Project – Cue Scott Waters Outrage.  I think there is a place for geography but not at the top:

…while I’m sympathetic to the point about making “merit” a primary guiding value of who gets money, and while I’m certainly happy to hear Rocco say that there are some larger institutions that should be allowed to fail (that sounds harsh, but I think the system needs some shaking up), it seems to me that it’s a myopic strategy to not spread arts money around geographically, or to use geography as part of the calculus. Maybe not as much as merit, but up there.

First off, if we truly believe that the arts are a good economic engine, then certainly Peoria deserves that engine as much as Chicago.

Second, if you’re trying to build widespread support for the arts, spreading the federal pork around a bit is not a bad strategy. During the fight over the $50 million in the stimulus (this is if memory serves, so i could be wrong here) one Republican who tried to demogogue the bill by saying that the arts created no jobs in his district was met very quickly with a list of how many arts jobs there actually were in the area he represents.

Third, the NEA should probably be addressing some of the calcified structural advantages that certain geographic areas have.  Our system of farming actors out from New York creates a structural advantage in New York– it’s filled with very cheap, abundantly talented labor, because people work for less money in New York and make up the difference in TV, Film and Regional gigs, which tend to pay better (this is particularly and shockingly true for directors once you are working at large LORTs). There is, however, some evidence that this isn’t good for the system of theatre as a whole in America, and if someone is going to have their eyes on the broader interests of theatre in America, there’s a far better chance that that person is going to be Chair of the NEA as opposed to, say, chair of the board of MTC.  Or, to put it another way, there is no (immediately obvious) reason why Lynne Meadow should give a shit about the health of theatre in another part of the country. And many artistic directors act accordingly. The ultimate goal of an institution is its own perpetuation. The NEA has a better vantage point to try enact positive change in the industry.

Now call my cynical, but I don’t think spreading the $50M around is going to get us anywhere.  When it comes to the arts I think that getting money into their congressional districts is of smaller concern and weight than with other industries and initiatives.  First, it isn’t much money – yes, of course something is better than nothing, but more importantly it is just that the arts aren’t that important or valued by some (most) politicians.  This circles back to the idea of how we make an case for the arts.

More commentary on merit and/or geography can be found at Createquity Landeman Confirmed as NEA Chair:

I have to admit that I kind of love the idea of a tough-talking NEA Chair, and feel that it will be a helpful weapon in the culture wars that the right seems itching to start up again. The fact that Landesman both has artists’ priorities at heart and is willing to fight for them is very promising indeed. The one quote out of the above that worries me a bit is his attitude toward arts in regional areas — sometimes it’s not all about artistic merit, and there’s certainly something to be said for developing local talent rather than continually losing it all to New York or LA…. On the other hand, Landesman does recognize the arts’ importance to downtown urban economies–presumably, whether they’re in Peoria or anywhere else–and says that he wants to make this focus a “signature” element of his tenure. Landesman promises to be an entertaining figure at the helm if nothing else, and hopefully will end up accomplishing far more than that.

Moss is absolutely right about Landesman’s tenure will certainly be entertaining, but I think and hope he will much, much more than that.   And another perspective on the Peoria comments over at Real Clear Arts Landesman’s Big Risk: Cocky Remarks May Come Back to Haunt Him

Much of the arts community is euphoric about what Rocco Landesman told The New York Times the other day: It was straight talk; he said many things that needed saying; with a few remarks, he extracted the cultural world from the defensive crouch arts organizations always seem to be in. Artists do need to be considered in economic policy matters, though Landesman shouldn’t ignore the fact that investing in arts generally doesn’t have as large an economic multiplier effect asinvesting in manufacturing….

His remark about Peoria, even if true, will come back to haunt him surer than the “wise Latina” remark messed up Sonia Sotomayor. It’s going to make budget requests and hearings much more difficult.

So while Landesman is right to try to alter the national debate about the arts, I hope his cocky first interview doesn’t hurt the cause, rather than help it.

Judith H. Dobrzynski from Real Clear Arts continued commentary in her Forbes Magazine column:

Some of this is refreshing. It’s meant to alter the terms of the debate, to give the arts their due–which does include consideration of their role in the economy. The arts should not be an afterthought, or no thought at all.

In some ways, Landesman is living up to a standard for appointees that many Obama voters expected when they pulled the Democratic lever last fall–only to be disappointed by the president’s mostly conventional picks (some of which encouraged those who didn’t vote for him, but that’s another story). Landesman wants to dispense with business-as-usual at the NEA, and that’s a good thing.

But plenty of other people have gone to Washington with similar forthrightness only to be felled by their hard-charging methods. It would be a shame if Landesman unnecessarily reignited the vicious culture wars of the 1990s. He is taking a big risk, in a town that all but requires compromise and coalition-building, even when the majority is as large as it is today. Let’s hope he doesn’t make matters worse for the arts.

I don’t think Landesman will make things worse, and I hope he doesn’t tip-toe too much.  Risk tends to pay off in the arts – Landesman certainly should understand building alliances and should be able to navigate Washington waters based on his life experiences.  Of course there could have been a less biting way to make the point about geography, but I don’t think it is as big a deal as it is being made out to be, but hey I could be wrong.  But, I am still looking forward to Landesman shaking things up a bit and enacting some real change.  I am going to remain more than upbeat about his appointment, I am downright hopeful.

Last week’s interesting news articles!

August 10, 2009 • No Comments

 

Just in case you missed them, here are interesting articles from last week’s newspapers and periodicals!  For the day’s best in blog discussions check out this page and if you missed any of the blog discussions they are archived here.

 

Arena Stage gets $1.1 Million grant to support new works development program. http://bit.ly/v77IO
Huffington Post: The Obamas: An Opening in the Arts http://is.gd/2aDYl
Chicago theater productions are lighting up NY’s stages: http://bit.ly/Z4XJr
Growing trend to train artists as entrepreneurs – http://bit.ly/8XH27
Cheap Seats: Theater Discounts Without Standing in Line http://bit.ly/P052b
Obama gets that arts & culture play a role. But more needs to be done http://bit.ly/12WV53
Bill Maher: New Rule: Smart President ≠ Smart Country http://bit.ly/18x3Bs
Toying with engaging in a new lifestyle, career, artistic endeavor or life burn your boats http://tinyurl.com/mz5jhc
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia on the Road – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/8doq
Arts Programs in Academia Are Forced to Nip Here, Adjust There. http://bit.ly/oezAF
Broadway Spidey Hits a Bump http://bit.ly/5B7WJ
A report on what factors influence Broadway runs http://bit.ly/8EzgW
Prospecting: Americans’ Spending Unlikely to Rebound Anytime Soon, Survey Finds http://bit.ly/4cy8Ox
NYT Spoon-Fed Cinema quantity of tickets purchased [not] the quality of the experience http://bit.ly/XufW1
Malcolm Gets Joins Off-Broadway ‘Vigil’: Malcolm Gets will star in Vigil http://bit.ly/4E1JXV
NEA chair Rocco Landesman kicks butt, plans to muscle up the agency: http://bit.ly/3WCKJ0
As Classrooms Go Digital, Textbooks May Become History – NYTimes.com http://ow.ly/jsUN
Provoking Arts Politician blog Dizzying Steps of Dance Education Patronage & Advocacy http://tiny.cc/051p4
Linda Winer on bad audience behavior: http://bit.ly/19RY21
Variety: Longevity key to Off-Broadway success http://bit.ly/12WBI5
The Tides Foundation funniest, edgiest marketing from a community foundation: http://bit.ly/UfYSR
Ben Cameron’s keynote to the IAA http://tiny.cc/Tj567
Variety: "Theater is nothing but 2nd acts for creatives looking to jumpstart careers" – http://bit.ly/BXa0b
Blogging American Theatre Critics Association’s response to Tonys cutting out critics. http://is.gd/26Zla
Senate confirms Rocco Landesman as NEA head http://bit.ly/97mlT
Broadway’s Hair Recoups Investment http://bit.ly/zeiBG
Variety – Spider Man musical halted? Producers insist show will go on http://bit.ly/TOFCU
Embattled Skylight Opera Managing Dir Eric Dillner Resigns. http://bit.ly/RMpJz
CNET article about saturation in social media space http://bit.ly/3wEIPR
Investing in the arts is "not only good business, it is good for business." http://bit.ly/11wWZd
Justice? What do you think? RT @CBCArts: Livent founders sentenced to prison http://bit.ly/zmLzu
Financial Straits for Arts Companies in Ottawa and Minnesota http://bit.ly/3mXrmS
Does The United States Have Its Priorities Wrong? http://bit.ly/Mimzl
Tony Awards Management & Administration Committees. http://bit.ly/17tSX4
A free social media guide for NPOs; of interest to even the experienced. http://bit.ly/18T7bl
Charitable donations are down – it’s not (just) the economy http://bit.ly/3OBuYr
LA Times article on how A list directors and actors are making way less money now http://tinyurl.com/ku4ex9
Toronto’s real life Bialystock/Bloom show ends with tomorrow’s sentencing. http://bit.ly/8Sr5D
The turnaround king for struggling arts orgs, Kaiser of Kennedy Cntr on BBC. http://bit.ly/XYCBe
Kresge Commits $600,000 to Promote Arts, Cultural Projects in Economically Challenged Cities http://bit.ly/b6wRX
Pittsburgh production of ‘History Boys’ to stream online: http://tinyurl.com/myysbe
Michael Moore planning to star in a one-man show on Broadway in the next 24 mos: http://bit.ly/hYo62
Milwaukee Theater Has Drama of Its Own http://bit.ly/137Wn7
Big Opening for Epilogue to The Laramie Project http://bit.ly/mAbkV
Economy Pushes Fund Raisers’ Confidence to New Lows http://twurl.nl/v2xw40
For Companies, a Tweet in Time Can Avert PR Mess – WSJ.com http://bit.ly/wFvu6
Charities Use Movie Trailers to Draw Money and Attention to Their Causes http://bit.ly/ZMdBa
"Stagecraft," magazine of Heinz Endowments Pittsburgh arts orgs in survival mode http://bit.ly/3Nagkp
"American Idiot" cast announced! X the digits this moves as planned to Broadway! http://bit.ly/zMLK1
Producer ‘thrilled’ w/New Orleans premiere of ‘White Noise’ http://bit.ly/8B7Nw
Finally, a Way to Hide Your Gmail Addiction – Bits Blog – NYTimes.com http://ow.ly/iT7M
Now on YouTube – Local News – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/iH7L
A number of West End theatres are now employing bouncers… http://tinyurl.com/lkv5dj
"On the Real: Fatebook and Whit MacLaughlin | London Theatre Blog" http://ff.im/-62vqV
Karen Brooks Hopkins: Respect for the Arts–Please New NEA Chair – http://shar.es/zbsJ
B’way-bound billing has pros, cons – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/zHHe

Theater of the future – live from Pittsburgh

August 4, 2009 • 6 Comments

 

Well someone is finally doing it.  As you can see from the press release below the future is here.  Over the last year I have discussed often in this blog the idea of simulcast or live-streaming of production as well as the definition of live theater. 

 

All I can say is mark this day because it is the day American Theater evolved.  We don’t know how yet, but trust me the game just changed forever.

 

Media Contact: Stephanie Riso
412.561.6000 x201
sriso@picttheatre.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

All Eyes on Pittsburgh – Regional theatre goes LIPLO™

Pittsburgh Irish & Classical Theatre first to secure rights to stream August 15th, 2009, 8:00pm performance of The History Boys “live and in person and live and online”

 

PITTSBURGH (August 4, 2009) — Mid-way through its 2009 season, Pittsburgh Irish and Classical Theatre (PICT) has been given the green light by authors and unions to test run its “live and in person and live and online” streaming web portal, allowing people across the world to witness the live production. On Saturday, August 15th, 2009 at 8:00 p.m., anyone with a computer and high-speed internet connection can attend PICT’s live performance of the award-winning play The History Boys by Alan Bennett, being held at the Charity Randall Theatre in Pittsburgh, Pa., via LIPLO™ at www.LIPLO.com. Viewers will have the opportunity to watch the entire show live as it happens and comment on the performance. A customer service technician will be available to help troubleshoot technical problems.

 

LIPLO™ – the acronym for “Live and In Person and Live and Online” – was developed by PICT cofounder and operations director Stephanie Riso in conjunction with Alex Geis of 21 Productions. Between 2007 and 2008, they had great success using LIPLO™ to live stream cabaret entertainment. Riso proposed expansion of the trademarked web portal to include live theatre through her affiliation with PICT, and the idea was embraced by the staff, board, unions and authors.

 

Geis and Riso are both graduates of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU); Riso holds a degree in
Music, and Geis holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Film and Digital Imaging. Geis returns to CMU this fall to begin studies for a Master in Music Technology – a new major offered by the School of Music, School of Computer Science, and Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. “I think this idea is genius” exclaimed Canadian actor Bernard Cuffling, who also plays the Headmaster in the production. “It is not easy to travel from Canada to see many of the theatres I’d like to see, so this option is terrific.”

 

Joe Warik, member of the AEA liaison committee, says “this is a great way to audition for agents and show off your work live as it is happening – nothing can beat the online option when you can’t get to the theatre.”

 

Christopher Lacey, Assistant Executive Director of Pittsburgh’s local chapter AFTRA (American
Federation of Television and Radio Artists), a union which represents actors and stage managers, was enthusiastic from the start, citing the potential for this emerging medium to open up new and unique work opportunities for union members.

 

The History Boys LIPLO™ performance streams live on Saturday, August 15th, 2009 at 8:00 p.m. at
www.LIPLO.com. PICT will continue the program by streaming live performances of Crime and Punishment in September and Jane Eyre in December (dates to be announced). Those wishing to participate, must have a valid email address to access the LIPLO™ portal and the minimum computer requirements, which will be outlined on the website, to properly experience the performance as it was intended. Viewers are also encouraged to comment live during the trial period and will have the opportunity to purchase LIPLO™ signature events for PICT’s 2010 season. For more information about PICT visit www.picttheatre.org. LIPLO™ (Live and In Person and Live and Online) is a 21st century live theatrical entertainment portal which offers unedited theatre performances live as it happens.

 

Pittsburgh Irish and Classical Theatre was founded in 1996 to expand and diversify Pittsburgh’s cultural landscape by providing high quality, text-driven theatre. Now in its thirteenth year, PICT strives to become a leader in 21st century  theatrical production and distribution through innovative thinking, business-minded activities, educational activities  and ongoing diversity-building initiatives that highlight PICT’s motto “Great Stories: Well Told” – using a new world view.

###

Don’t succumb to conservative theater!

• 2 Comments

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!

Interesting news articles from the last week in case you missed them…

August 1, 2009 • No Comments

 

Karen Brooks Hopkins: Respect for the Arts–Please New NEA Chair – http://shar.es/zbsJ
B’way-bound billing has pros, cons – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/zHHe
Audio transcript from Theatre Communications Group teleconference on Twitter is here: http://bit.ly/UhpHc
Merger With Arts Group Will Preserve Ticket Subsidy Program http://bit.ly/OfCCO
Theatre Facts, our annual in-depth industry report is out. https://www.tcg.org/tools/facts/
Great summary of some recent audience engagement innovations in the arts. http://bit.ly/Lb3O3
Tweeting twitter seriously http://tinyurl.com/nz275u
Broadway: More Stars Than Ever in 2009-2010 Season http://bit.ly/xm9k7
Theater Review A Blanche of Doomed Beauty, Guiding a Brilliant ‘Streetcar’ http://bit.ly/rKrLQ
Roger Bart, Shuler Hensley, Brad Oscar, et al. Set for Young Frankenstein Tour http://bit.ly/CTWDu
Soderbergh Says Sydney Theater Project Is Based on U.S. Murder Case http://bit.ly/1eiGG2
Stratford festival to stage hit local high school musical http://bit.ly/5s8sf
Sergio Trujillo To Make Directorial Debut With HAVANA http://bwayworld.com/rd.cfm?i=61906
Shrew versus shrewd – Los Angeles Times – http://shar.es/kGeN
Broadway Bargains: Secrets of the TKTS Booth http://bit.ly/4D2fRe
From acting technique to losing the Tony to Piven, Raul Esparza explains it all http://stage-directions.com/esparza
NYC’s Industry Tax Incentive Update:  film and television  http://bit.ly/rnmtp
Demand-based ticket pricing starts at Kravis, Opera, Florida Stage http://ow.ly/iqIT
Number of Social Networking Users Has Doubled Since 2007 http://bit.ly/le1aw
Malick & Gilpin superb in terrific What Is The Cause Of Thunder? http://bit.ly/vggSz
Lauren Graham tells New York Post, " What really knocked me out was Broadway." http://tinyurl.com/nmjoxd
Give & Take: Does the Nonprofit World Need a ‘Reboot’? http://bit.ly/2j9lI
Why the arts matter and deserve support — especially in bleak times http://bit.ly/N1UvL
New Generation of Philanthropists Want to Work Directly With Orgs (US News) http://bit.ly/13Srfw
Theater Where It’s Least Expected http://bit.ly/PsAEl
Post recovery consumer trends via HBR and what they mean to the Arts – http://tinyurl.com/kkwk8y
‘God of Carnage’ hits $1 million mark – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/xMvx
The recession is over, Newsweek screams from the cover http://bit.ly/k5jXL
"The arts are a huge factor in the economic well-being of communities." http://is.gd/1Pnlm
To Respond to Downturn, Museums Join Forces (NY Times) http://bit.ly/aG8ag
Milwaukee Opera Theater Meets With Angered Performers, Subscribers http://bit.ly/2ZsIU9
Sudden Finale – New York City Ballet Dancers After Layoffs – NYTimes.com http://ow.ly/igRa
New Ayckbourn play My Wonderful Day to transfer directly to New York http://tinyurl.com/lw79am
Despite recession, Broadway booming – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/xaIj
At Vassar, Powerhouse Theater Incubates New Plays – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/xaEh
Douglas Aibel Juggles Hollywood With Off Broadway – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/xaAw
After Winning a Tony, Matthew Warchus Directs Two Musicals – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/xaY8
Complaint Box | Tweet Nothings – City Room Blog – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/xaco
The Arts Politic » Strategies for Arts Survival – http://shar.es/wlta
Star Power in the White House – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/wd8H
Variety – New reporting system inflates Broadway grosses http://tinyurl.com/mko2dk

McLennan and Taylor – are we selling tickets or building community? Good Question

July 28, 2009 • No Comments

Last week there was some interesting discussion around Doug McLennan’s post on diacritical Pay Attention! If Selling Tickets Is Your Business Model, You’ve Got A Problem about the “Attention Economy” and Andrew Taylor’s response What, exactly, do you sell.  I think this discussion is a great companion to yesterday’s post on recovery consumer trends.

McLennan kicked off the discussion by addressing the shifts from manufacturing to transportation to experience to attention economies.  McLennan states “In the infinite choice marketplace, ideas and products only get traction if they get noticed.”  He notes as usual that the arts are behind others in addressing the shifts:

If you believe your business model is the classic consumer transaction (I make the performance, you buy the ticket) then you’re done. Sorry. That’s a Manufacturing Economy mindset, and while it worked when choices were limited, now that you’re competing in the infinite marketplace offering 8000 or 8 million choices, it’s increasingly unlikely that your “audience” is going to choose you as often as they did in the past.

In the Attention Economy it isn’t enough to be the best orchestra or theatre or dance company. People aren’t comparing you with other orchestras or theatre or dance companies; they’re measuring whether classical music or theatre or dance is something they want to choose at the moment. They’re deciding whether they want an active or passive experience; they’re trying to determine what level of social encounter they feel like today. They’re weighing whether they want a predictable, known, comfortable quantity or whether they want to be adventurous and try something new. They’re figuring out whether they want to learn something and are willing to work for that or whether they’re looking for pure entertainment that costs them little. Price matters – if it’s going to cost, it’s got to be better than the free alternative. It doesn’t matter that there are 47 varieties of spaghetti sauce on the shelf in front of me if what I really want is pesto.

The choice is bewildering. Paralyzing, even. You can’t compete with such overwhelming choice with a consumer transaction model, no matter if you’re the Philadelphia Orchestra, the Metropolitan Opera or the Guthrie Theatre.

The responses to the post address key issues – power imbalance between consumers (audiences) and manufacturers (arts orgs), stepping beyond marketing, the inevitable focus on the bottom-line and traditional earned revenue ideas, institution-building over creation of art, relevancy (perhaps the word that appears most in this blog) to our communities, and the need for human to human live connection in addition to virtual communities.

Andrew Taylor of Artful Manager (another daily must read) quickly posted his response addressing a key point that the audiences we have had for years and the work we have produced may be outdated or holding us back:

The deeper challenge for arts organizations is that they DO sell a product, even as they DON’T. That is, an important segment of any arts audience doesn’t recognize the complex bundle they’re seeking when they buy a symphony or theater ticket. They’ve come to use that event as a placeholder or proxy for that bundle, without even knowing it. To this core group (often the most passionate about the art form, the most loyal buyers, the most committed donors) the bundle IS the product. And as you innovate around the delivery or context of your creative work, you challenge their passionate connection to the discipline’s tradition.

It’s not necessarily a generational divide, although generation cohort likely plays a part. But rather it’s a challenge of serving multiple audiences with widely varying interests and expectations.

McLennan posted a follow-up Ticket Sales, Business Models & Community – Five Ideas To Build Community the next day expanding on the thought that community (as exemplified by social media) is key to building relationships and elevating an organization above the plethora of choices available to fill their time.

This all circles back neatly to yesterday’s post on consumer trends because community is the key to addressing all of those trends as well.  The strength of the performing arts is in bringing people together to share something, we create community by creating art.  This has to be applied to how we run our organizations and how we interact with the world around us.  We MUST define and enact how we will do this in the near and distant future.  We cannot cling to the old ideas or methods.  It is up to the current generation of leaders and those rising in the ranks to take charge and re-center our institutions large and small.

5 things we have learned about nonprofit theater in the last year and what they mean to the new reality we produce in

July 26, 2009 • 2 Comments

As many nonprofit theaters end or are near the end of their fiscal year, we are getting a better picture of the industry.  Arena Stage, Guthrie, and many others scraped by despite all of the economic challenges of the year.  Others like Hartford Theater Works and Shakespeare Theatre Company are using staff furloughs and other cuts to try and end the year in a reasonable place.  The news over the last few months had been full of theaters who are reassessing budgets and programming for the upcoming year – Manhattan Theatre Club, Long Wharf Theatre, etc.  Of course we all know about the theatres that have closed or been threatened with near closure.

On the news we have started to hear experts say the end is near – for the recession that is.  That recovery is on the way (Suzy Ormond said it on the TODAY show – what more can you want).  Whether it is or not, July is a traditional time for reflection of what the last year has brought to the industry.  Over the last week or so, I haven’t posted because I was talking to peers in the industry to see – well – what’s up.  So, what have we learned?

1.  There is a call for greater focus on mission and programming.  It isn’t exactly a revelation that we must focus on the art of what we do and the education programs that are key to our future.   But there is a growing realization that the field has spent a lot of time building our real estate portfolios and “corporate infrastructure” rather than building community.

2.  The recession is just now hitting our theatres full force.  Not surprisingly considering seasonal planning and grant cycles, we seem to be about 6 months behind other industries. Every major gathering last year centered on the idea that 2009 would be tough but 2010 would be a bitch – this seems to have been a pretty solid prediction.

3.  The theatres that are surviving are those in the larger and smaller budget categories.  The larger companies have significant subscriber bases and have budgets that although not fat – can withstand some cuts.  The smaller companies prove again that they are the most nimble and adaptable.  It is the much discussed mid-size theaters that are in the most danger.  Each budget cut is equivalent to cutting a limb off of a body.  However several of these companies are taking huge artistic risks and are getting some rewards.  For example, Hartford Stage is undertaking a tremendously ambitious coproduction with Signature Theatre Company of Horton Foote’s The Orphan’s Cycle.  Hartford Stage is receiving unprecedented support from the Mellon Foundation for the project and Signature continues their affordable ticket initiative with major support from Time Warner.  Writers’ Theatre in Glencoe, IL has produced acclaimed show after acclaimed show this year and just announced the FOURTH extension of A Minster’s Wife.  What these and other theaters that are surviving and growing have in common is that they were as prepared as you could be for an economy like this.  They were and are in the middle of long-term projects and initiatives that are the result of lots of planning and innovative thinking.  They were challenging the traditional assumptions and models before it became a necessity to do so.

4.  There are a lot of theatres that were not run as well as they could have been.  Sorry, someone had to say it.  Whether is was poor management, bad artistic decisions, lack of clarity in mission or focus, or an interfering/apathetic board, we are seeing case after case of organizations out of control.  Milwaukee Skylight Theatre has become the poster child for bad decision-making (and bad public relations), but they aren’t the only ones.  I don’t know the details (nor will any of us I imagine) that put the Magic in such debt that it was in danger of closing, but it certainly seems that before Loretta Greco and the board righted the ship, that “something was rotten in the state of the Magic.”   And surely I am not the only one who has noticed that a handful of leaders have been let go not to be replaced – therefore saving money on budgets.  The interesting question will be – do we as a field find a remedy to these leadership issues or is this a necessary correction that results in many theatres closing or down-sizing.  Goodness knows we have been working on it for years, so can we do more?   Is it simply a fact of an industry?  Ironically, as we become “more like business” (boy, do I hate that phrase and idea) we have in many ways become less effective, we have buildings we can’t afford to operate and staff salary structures that are completely dysfunctional and frankly abhorrent.   We have more “corporate” boards, many of whom are filled with board members who have no respect for the leadership’s understanding of their own industry or who want to impose corporate structure/personnel that makes no sense to the field.   Certainly there are healthy examples of boards and institutional leadership – most of them are running the types of theatres discussed in number 3, but it is no secret and it is time to stop denying that the other exists as well.

5.  Social media and web 2.0 are really cool and are great ways to communicate with audiences, donors, artists, etc. But in the end, if you don’t have anything to say, it doesn’t matter how you communicate it.  There are so many theatres who are doing amazing things with social media – MCC Theater, Steppenwolf, Berkeley Rep, and so many more.  RELEVANCE is demanded in everything we do.  There are too many other choices out there.  If you aren’t relevant and meaningful in our art and communications, you will cease to matter.  On the flip side, cheers to those who have taken a huge leap into exploring how to uses social media and web 2.0 in creation of the art, I do believe they will have a tremendous effect on the art form and frankly am more interested in that in the long run.

Last fall there was a lot of talk about was the recession a setback or were we entering a new reality.  I want to suggest this:

As we exited the information age and entered into the realm of user-generated content, as professional and amateur definitions have been challenged, as we have seen several corporate giant who were held up as models to emulate fall into ruin, the reality is that there are no new realities, there are no set-backs, we have entered into a period of constant evolution and change.  We will not be on “firm” ground again during the next cycle of time.  We will need to adapt constantly and be able to maintain a long-term visionary outlook as well as accomplish the day to day.  This isn’t new.  It began several years ago.  We are just becoming cognizant of the constantly shifting ground because the bottom finally fell out.  The beautiful thing about this is that this is a huge opportunity for theater and the arts in general.  This is a moment in time where we should stake our claim, speak out for and with our communities, and create great work.

For the last week I have been letting the things we have learned get me down, so much so that I stopped writing for a while.  I wasn’t and haven’t seen the kind of improvements that I would like to see.  I have written a lot about crisis and the opportunity that I believe comes from it – both on a very personal level and for the industry of theater.  I thought there would be more folks in search of the opportunity versus clinging to the past.  However, I realized today that this isn’t what was really bothering me.  The real issue that we are all struggling with and dealing with in our own way is the lack of stability.   On a personal level I have had a horribly difficult time accepting this idea of a constantly shifting ground, especially one completely out of my control and not a result of any of my actions.  In my own way I have down what several organizations have done – clung to the past, thrown everything out the window, and circled back to the core essence of what I believe in.

I can’t deny – I am scared shit-less.  Some days I can’t bear to get up and go out into the world, but each day I do, and I have to believe that there is a reason for it all.  I seek ways to interact with others, a platform to express my viewpoint, and an exploration of the issues that face my community.  Well, if that doesn’t sound like the process of creating theater, I don’t know what does.

The Tempermentals – more hope off-Broadway

July 19, 2009 • No Comments

 

 

Yesterday I wrote about Our Town lighting a fire that was bringing life back to commercial off-Broadway, stoking those flames uptown is this summer’s The Tempermentals. 

 

Hopefully commercial producers will fight to keep the fire burning off-Broadway.  Even today’s New York Times was cheering about the recent flourish of great shows outside of the Broadway Box.  Although the article did double as a second review for Next Fall (which I will be off to see soon) and doesn’t give enough credit to the work of nonprofits who have produced a lot of great work in the last 9 years .

 

What is most interesting to me about both of these productions is that the absolute commitment to serving the play in it’s purest form.  Simple, almost non-existent sets, props and costumes rule both productions.  The directors have relied beautifully on the story-telling of these two very different scripts.  The audience experience is not only enhanced by this it is electrified.  The success of these two shows are directly tied to the artistry of theatre-making.

 

And I should note that these productions have bucked the trend that has trapped many over that last few years in that neither has big stars attached in fact Our Town’s only “star (and that is only in the theatre community)” is Cromer himself as the Stage Manager and although The Tempermentals has Ugly Betty’s brilliant Michael Urie in it – he isn’t a household name (YET – although I am among those that think he was robbed of an Emmy nomination this year, but that is REALLY a different blog posting). 

 

The Tempermentals is in a small theater on the third floor one West 36th Street.  The space actually reminds me of MCC Theater’s old space on 28th Street where we first produced Wit before moving it to the Union Square. This docudrama features a small cast of 5 (several of the actors play multiple roles).  One part history lesson and one part self-discovery lesson the show moves far beyond simply telling the little known tale of the start of the gay rights movement. 

 

That isn’t to say the tale isn’t important.  It involves the creation of an early advocacy group for gay right (Mattachine Society) that predated the ‘69 Stonewall Riots, and the show is one of those wonderful moments where one can learn in the theatre a nugget of history that is more than relevant today.

Our Town extends into January – have Thorton Wilder and David Cromer brought hope back to commercial off-Broadway?

July 18, 2009 • No Comments

The lights are shining a bit brighter right now off-Broadway.  I have been posting a lot in the last month about a modern renaissance in the arts and the great number of high quality of shows in New York.  However on Thursday, I was elated to hear that Our Town was extending into January of 2010.  I consider this to be a signal that commercial off-Broadway is getting some of its mojo back!

I know we are far from the days when you couldn’t find an empty theater off-Broadway.  I most certainly congratulate all of the New York non-profits theaters who have produced amazing wonderful work over the last 10 years or so. Several of those successful shows had healthy extensions and a handful moved into short-lived commercial productions.  Without the great work of theatres like the Atlantic, MCC, Signature, Playwrights Horizons, Second Stage, New York Theatre Workshop and others off-Broadway would have been basically dark with only a handful of shows being produced commercially – and almost none of those shows being straight plays and many being more “event” theatre than traditional scripted dramas or book musicals.   Of course in strict union definitions most of those nonprofits aren’t even off-Broadway producers (but since the New York Times and audiences don’t differentiate – I won’t either).

Commercial off-Broadway was on the brink of extinction as recently as last year.  We all have debated the reasons – bad financial models, rising costs, pressure for increased production values to compete with Broadway spectacle – and that is certainly a whole other blog post, but whatever the reasons it can’t be denied that that the “golden period of the 90s” was over and commercial off-Broadway had lost its shine.

But then a small glow started…ironically it was again the nonprofit theater that lit the first spark – not the New York nonprofits this time, but the wonderful theatres of Chicago.  First there was the the Chicago festival at 59E59 which imported shows from great companies like Writers’ Theatre’s Crime and Punishment. This was followed by a hearty New York welcome for The Adding Machine helmed by David Cromer.  But it was the import of The Hypocrites’ Our Town directed by David Cromer that has lit a fire off-Broadway.

So is commercial off-Broadway back – not yet, but it could be well on the road to recovery.  Especially if we can continue to use it to allow larger audiences to discover great artists like Cromer.

Our Town is a living, breathing example of the definition of artist’s vision.  I have only seen two shows in my lifetime that I would say were amazing plays produced to perfection – the original New York production of Wit and Cromer’s Our Town.

I have seen several incarnations of Our Town, but Cromer has stripped the play to its essence.  The house lights never go out; the actors are in everyday contemporary clothing; and the audience is literally enveloped in the action of the play.  Even if you wanted one there is no escape.  The tale of Grovers Corners is brought to life elegantly by the 22 actors and the text.  And at the very end, just when you think your heart might burst and you are on the edge of your seat, Cromer brings the play home with an artistic choice that is so majestic  that I can’t imagine wanting to see the play ever performed again because no production will compare.  Edward Albee was right when he called the production “a true, tough, unsentimental, serious production of this great play.”  I was in such awe of the work I had seen, I forgot to rise for a standing ovation of the actors wonderful work (for this I apologize I was truly awestruck).

Of course it is a great play.  I think the brilliance of Thorton Wilder’s work has been lost for some reason or at least underappreciated by many for some reason.  The validity and timeless tale has for some reason lost some of the “seriousness” Albee referred to.   Paul Newman summed up the plays simple beauty best when discussing the Broadway production in which he played the Stage Manager  in 2002 “The play questions what we do with our time, how we use it, the things that we ought to be looking at that we forget to look at. How gloriously special getting through the day ought to be.”

The daily trials of life are trumped by hope in Our Town, so what a fitting play to bring hope back to commercial off-Broadway.  The production proves if the work is good, people will come.

Congratulations to the Scott Morfee, Jean Doumanian, Tom Wirtshafter, Ted Snowdon, Eagle Productions LLC, Dena Hammerstein/Pam Pariseau, the Weinstein Company and Burnt Umber Productions who made a bold move for off-Broadway by bringing the play to New York.

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