By Albert Samaha
By Amanda Dingyuan
By Anna Merlan
By Anna Merlan
By Albert Samaha
By Tessa Stuart
By Anna Merlan
By Roy Edroso
George C. Wolfe may have recently announced his resignation as producer of the Public Theater, but it's Joe Papp who's the object of sudden nostalgia. On one hand, it's only natural that the Public's founding spirit should loom large at a time when the institution is searching for its next leader. On the other, it's a sign of the trepidation many in the industry feel about the uncertain course of America's flagship theater when corporatizing trends are buffeting even Off-Broadway. Artists and administrators who spoke to the Voice held divergent views on many of the issues raised by Wolfe's impending exit. Yet they concur that the soul not just of the Public but of American theater is on the line, and that the time has come to take a defiant stand.
"It is tremendously important to the rest of us that the Public not falter in its central mission," says Trinity Rep artistic director Oskar Eustis, whose name has been bandied about as a possible successor to Wolfe's throne. "It's the most important theater in America, and the one that made me, and nearly everyone else I know, believe that the theater was worth going into."
Eustis sees four essential elements to the Public's profile: "First, its commitment to the development of new work. No other theater could replace the Public if it were to back away from this. Second, its standing as the premier American theater of social engagement. I say socialonly because of the difficulties in using the word political in these, frankly, reactionary times. Third, the showcasing of new plays alongside Shakespeare, who has been held up as the model for contemporary writersthe epic scope serving as an implicit marker for how big new work should dream and how various its stagecraft can be. Finally, the Public is a theater of inclusion. We really have to credit George for this. He worked a miracle. One can make the case that it is the only major cultural institution in America not perceived as a 'white' institution. That is a staggering achievement. One of the democratic functions of the Public has been to continue empowering people to come into their own as theater artists. If any of these four dimensions are compromised, we will have lost something irreplaceable."
Nora Ephron's Lucky Guy Digests Its Drama for You; NAATCO's Strindberg Diminishes a Dream
Pursuing this ambitious agenda for the Public's six indoor stages and its summer season in Central Park is inherently challenging, but particularly so at a time when the decades-long dismantling of governmental arts funding has entrenched commercialized thinking in nonprofit theaters. Sure, the financial coup Papp achieved with A Chorus Linethe Broadway cash cow that funded artistic risk and commitment at the Public for yearsset the precedent. Yet artistic directors now seem perversely enslaved to this model. "Chasing Broadway," as playwright Mac Wellman calls it, has become both a strategy of survival and the measure of artistic success. Wolfe scored more triumphs than most, but not even his enviable record could keep the accountants from imposing their soul-destroying fiscal regimen.
The Public's board of directors is only now forming a search committee, yet already there is widespread concern that the appointed kingmakers won't question the current system. The names tossed out by the Times(Jim Nicola, Joe Mantello, Michael Greif, Doug Hughes, and Nicholas Martin on February 13, with Eustis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Des McAnuff, Robert Falls, and Peter DuBois added on February 19) constitute a list remarkable mainly for the narrowness of its scope. The not so subtle suggestion is that the most qualified prospects are white male directors who have served (memorably or not) as artistic directors. This feels to some like the spread of a regional theater rash.
The assumption that the position will be filled by a Broadway-bound director has engendered heated debate. "The Public is a unique animal largely because it was originally defined by a visionary producer," says Todd London, artistic director of New Dramatists. "Its mandate and accrued power are so big that it demands a leader whose life work is to create a theater, not merely to stage plays. Unless we're talking about an artist like Elizabeth LeCompte, whose aesthetic deeply defines her theater, directors are divided, forced to choose between the rehearsal room and the office."
London thinks that boards across America should open their collective minds to playwrights, dramaturges, actors, and producers when searching for leaders. Director Anne Bogart points to the model of arts centers, like the Wexner in Columbus, Ohio, that have been playing a key role in the development of innovative performance work. "When I look around the country, this is where I see life," she says. "Artistic producersrather than directorstend to run these organizations, and they've been more courageous than their counterparts in the nonprofit theater world."
"The Public needs someone who views the role of producer as an artistic pursuit," says Nicola, New York Theatre Workshop's artistic director, who's on many people's short list for the job. "George is leaving because he wants to get back to being an artist and not a producer. Running as complicated and sizable an organization as the Public necessarily takes spiritual and psychic energy that might go into creativity as an artist."