-
Marion McClinton 10/31/2010 1:44:00 PM
What will the American theater do and what will Broadway do are not the same question even if their answer is the same. Do whatever they can do to sell the most tickets. Now even though the answer is the same how they do it or rather try to do it can be a marketed difference (literally as well as figuratively.)Broadway because of the possibility of what a killer hit can be in the sort and long run will try to get as many stars they can get and pass the expected heavy (for Broadway not film remind you) cost on to the consumers who can afford it. Period, end of story. The smaller joint has to have an event like status but the event is for their version of the heavy consumer, somebody who might not have the heavy hitter money of a Broadway crowd but if they dig it will come again and again and again because they are onto to something hip happening. Which can get them moved to Broadway without a star because the play and production are the star. They look for something to be a hit and wind up at the TONYS too. The TONYS are about money, sometimes actually art is what people are buying (ANGELS IN AMERICA is the star in it's production and wouldn't be a surprise back on Broadway---the CITIZEN KANE of the American theater)but NYC is all about the Benjamins cause you got some heavy hitting home run favorite sons like the New York Yankees kind of contribution. You gotta announce your presence with muthafukking authority or you will be at Port Authority with a one way ticket out of town (or until you got one of those twin theatrical ambitions.)It ain't dog eat dog but dog ate dog. Only eaters are wanted in NYC. Can get you some junk, granted, but the possibility of a LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, JOE TURNER'S COME AND GONE, DEATH OF A SALESMAN, A RAISIN IN THE SUN, FENCES, OUR TOWN and the aforementioned ANGELS IN AMERICA to name but a few exists as a sort of New York Lottery---hit it and pays off for a long time for and in the soul. In their own way both Broadway and the American theater usually hit in between .200---.250---.300, with the "3" about as common as in the league. Those that bat .400 rarer in the theater than baseball but only difficult, not impossible. Am I saying this makes the American theater's future bright? No. Because it's past is so shallow there isn't the net to catch each fall. Didn't want to pay for it. World theater will be cool, they have a lineage that goes back millenniums. Ours goes back to Thursday. Another great dissertation on the thing that gives America it's soul when done with America's heart and mind by Mr. Feingold, who has plenty of all of the above and a whole lotta love. Matches the MISS SAIGON piece. What should the artists do? Never give up, give an inch, or give in. It's hard, damn near impossible it seems at times cause shit it straight from jump but so what? Sheeeeet ... if it was easy everybody could do it and if everybody can do it why do it at all. Bring what ain't anybody ever witnessed before---you,yourself, and thy.
So it goes.
-
Colleen Werthmann 06/29/2010 9:59:00 PM
By "resident" companies, do you mean companies that own their own buildings? Because there are a great many companies (ERS, The Waterwell, NTUSA, Red Bull, just to name a few) tackling classic literature and theater on their own terms without (richly deserved) permanent homes.
-
Joseph Fletcher 06/28/2010 1:48:00 AM
Mr. Feingold,
Thank you for articulating, far more eloquently than I ever could, something I've been saying/feeling for a while about New York and American theater. I think the current situation should be looked at as a challenge to over come. The best work and greatest heights reached are in the face of the greatest adversity. Thank you again for your work.
-
Rob Ready 06/26/2010 2:00:00 AM
"[The Roundabout] hardly seems aware of a nonprofit institution's obligation to the public—or to the community of artists in which it resides."
This is really the meat of the problem. Theater is entirely about community, and unfortunately, the more successful a company becomes, the more difficult it is to stay closely connected to their community of artists and audience. As arts organizations depend more and more on funding and grants and less on earned income (the trend of the last 40 years), they slowly but surely move away from being culpable to their audience and artists, and towards being responsible to a select group of people who write checks. This is a huge problem.
And it's a double edged sword. A $20 ticket buyer is incredibly important to a tiny shoe-string budget company, but not so important to a giant regional theater - that giant regional theater places that weight on an investor, funder or grant panel. The higher the budget of a company, the less likely that company is to produce work which is untested and perceived as risky. Essentially, the more money it costs to operate the company, the less likely it is that the company will stay closely connected to its community because it simply cannot afford to put tons of time and energy into something that doesn't pay its bills ($20 ticket buyers, young playwrights etc).
One way to start addressing this is for larger companies/venues to work more frequently and openly with smaller companies. For example, the National New Play Network is a great idea, but getting a 50-seat theater into that network is nearly impossible (pretty sure there is nothing under 100 seats in that network, but I could be wrong). And 50-seat theaters are where all the cool new shit is developed. So one way to address the issue of bringing larger commercial and non-profit theater closer to their communities is to bring in companies that are, by necessity, incredibly close with their audiences and artists.
One program which I am a big fan of and which I believe starts to address this issue, is Steppenwolf's program of selecting an up and coming company each year to perform their season of plays at Steppenwolf. It gives the up and coming company a big spotlight and clues Steppenwolf in to a while new slate of writers/directors/actors/audience. I would love to see some New York houses and other large regional theaters adopt a program like this. I'd love to see TCG push the larger companies to adopt a program like this.
I'd love to see a lot of things really, but I thought Mr. Feingold's article was fairly correct in his assessment of the industry at large. What are some other ways that larger, big budget affairs can connect with audiences? To be honest, I'm not sure. But I think this is definitely an issue that needs addressing.
-
Daniel 06/25/2010 8:43:00 PM
Mr. Feingold has written, once again, a thought provoking article. However, I would like to add that also at issue, although Feingold does not mention this, is that audiences need to be nurtured. The theatre is loosing audiences because of public funding IN THE SCHOOLS!! Young people (I mean REALLY young - like elementary school age) need to be introduced, nurtured and encouraged to participate in theatre activities. Not to turn them into theatre professionals but to show them the intricacies of theatre arts - and not just as a performer. When I was a child, not only did I participate as a performer but teachers encouraged us to make our own costumes (yeah, out of construction paper), write our own plays (I wrote a 3 page play in 4th grade about Columbus discovering America), build our own sets (cardboard anyone?), etc. I don't think schools are doing this now-a-days and this is a very big problem. Maybe this concept could be a follow-up to the above article??
-
Eric Parness 06/25/2010 7:15:00 PM
Keen observations, Michael. And still hopeful and even uplifting for those of us in the trenches. Thanks for the read.
-
Bruce Dickson 06/24/2010 9:31:00 PM
A very timely and astute (read helpful) analysis.
Part of what shocked and dismayed this year was that the "big-media" convergence overtones were so unabashed. An image of Broadway being largely a re-distribution outlet for product already proven successful on other platforms (iTunes, MTV, movies, television, etc.) can't help but be unsettling to those steeped in a tradition that prefers to see it as a world apart. Since nothing spelled that out more indelibly than the Hollywood celebrities' pervasive presence, they became human lightning rods, thereby tempting the backlash to get personal.
No surprise, then, that much of it has gone that route - as regrettable as it is counter-productive. A community of performers that devolves into divison defaces itself while becoming distracted and weak. Natural allies become enemies; and what are, in fact, mutual concerns/ objections get turned, impotently, inward, while, most likely, their causes remain external and unscathed.
That said, I believe that there are effective ways to strike a far better balance, ways that advance the interests of all concerned. That is, however, a whole other discourse (one I am only too ready to get into with the flimsiest provocation). Thus, if the strident reactions to this year's Awards show are paving the way for productive changes that are eminently possible and necessary, then - despite their short-lived hurtfulness - they will do much to redeem themselves.
-
Norman Filzman 06/23/2010 9:26:00 AM
How can I (or anyone) access all of your reviews and non-review writings since you began working at the Voice? For what it's worth, whenever I encounter someone interested in theater, I recommnd--strongly recommend--that they read you, religiously--as I do--in the Voice. Full disclosure: I have completed my first play and in a short time I will register it with the Writers Guild East and then submit it to Playwrights Horizons.
