Some interesting thoughts, though your thesis of the need for artists to start thinking of their work as a business does raise some important questions for me. As a playwright, it’s always very difficult to listen to the audience when revising or developing a piece, especially if audience members are not artists themselves. Especially if they’re not theatre artists. Especially if they’re not playwright. This is in no way a statement of elevated status, it’s logic. An electrician wouldn’t ask a televison producer how to better wire a house….etc. Too often I’ve found audience members disagreeing with elements of my plays, suggesting changes of ending, being confused by symbols…etc because they didn’t agree or “understand” it in a visceral sense that they were able to relate to their own personal experience. This is not me being defensive, it’s realizing my vision and intention being addressed from outside, critical eyes. It’s a simple disagreement, and in business, the old adage goes: “The customer is always right.” In this case, “customer” would translate to “audience” or even “producer” (if we should be so lucky). But often times in audience response you have polarities in opinions, most of which come from a responsive place of “I want to see this” vs. “The play/story needs this”. As Leah has brilliant articulated and defended, audience reaction come from a place of personal taste and personal history. Sometimes – in my opinion, all too frequently- artists have their art being criticized and reviewed by members of the varying different classes/statuses/gender/race/sex… and yes, while this is productive for dialogue, how productive is it in the further development and/or the evaluation of the art?

I’m very worried that if we artists begin to look at our work through a heavy business lens, we’ll be creating work that lacks breath, lacks muscles, lacks ourselves. In business, you change plans and models to cater to the customers who are keeping you afloat. If theatre does this, then what’s the point?

Keep in mind too, that Shakespeare was writing in a different time, a different place, and different stories. He is a master of the stage because of TALENT and because, frankly, what other playwright of the time created the complex, beautiful, dynamic stories that he did? It was just a different time, so therefore not at all comparable.

Just my thoughts.
I loved FLYING SNAKES IN 3-D because it made me LAUGH. It was funny, it was campy, it had snakes being represented as silly sock-pockets the actors slipped over their hands. They hissed. They danced. They came from a place of privilege. And they were defeated. By a large mongoose. I loved FLYING SNAKES IN 3-D.

Andrew

You must be doing extremely well over at Tenement Street in order to take such a glib tone in response to my comments. I find such a snarky response to my earnest concerns about the perception of the theatre to be actually quite telling. (Thank you for proving my point, so to speak.) It is exactly this, our inability to look at our art as business, the inability to look at ourselves as entertainers as well as artists, that will continue to speed the decline of an art form I dearly love.

I think I was pretty clear in my discourse that I was not asking for all theatre actors to be or look like movie stars. Only that we begin to take a serious look at the theatre as a business, and hold ourselves to a higher standard in terms of how we present ourselves. In order to continue to survive, and to grow, the theatre needs to begin to look at itself through more of an business lens. It seems that within the last century, perhaps because of the rise of film, many theatre producers and creators have taken a pretty indignant track in the mounting of their productions. The attitude I perceive in many shows, and from many companies is; “this is ‘art.’ if you don’t like it, you’re stupid.” Now, I am aware that this statement sounds childish, but I cannot believe that you have not felt this while watching many shows in New York City. Do you really think that any film studio would last long if they took that attitude toward their movies? You didn’t see any studio heads out defending “Batman and Robin” when they released that movie. The watched the movie, looked at the critical and audience reaction, said to themselves…’people hate this movie.’ Then they got a new director and reset the path of the franchise. Look what happened, they packed the theatres, and created a better product in the process. Unfortunately, this is not the response of many theatre companies. They often respond with childish indignance (Leah gets a pass on this one, as her defense of ‘Snakes’ was intellectual and spoken with passion not merely defensiveness.) rather than with cold blooded, practical, objectivism. I would argue though, that having an ear to the desires of the audience is not impossible as you seem to imply, or in fact foreign to the theatre. Shakespeare performed his plays to packed houses that ran the gamut of the citizenry-from the richest to the poorest. It is well documented that he revised his work constantly in response to the reactions of the audience. So when I say ‘give them what they want’ I think I have some pretty good shoulders to stand on.

Look, John, I am an actor and I have been in many shows and worked with many great actors, directors, and writers. There is no doubt in my mind that many actors will find my position objectionable. They will say, “oh, looks should have nothing to do with it. Business should have nothing to do with it. Like you they will say, ‘well, we can’t all be movie stars.’” Obviously, that’s true, if the guys and gals in the Tenement Street art collective had Steven Spielberg on the phone this morning, I doubt they would be showing up for rehearsal tonight. That being said, why can’t we look at ourselves in the same way and with the same respect. Not everyone can make a violin like Stradivarius, but that doesn’t mean they should not strive to. I believe that we should all make an effort to go on stage with the finest instrument s available to us. Obviously, everyone’s is different, but that does not mean we should not keep them tuned, polished, and well maintained.

I also have to say in closing that I find your final comments about sending a bus to the Bronx to be disheartening. All I was saying is that if we want to reach a wider audience, we need to do theatre sometimes where that audience is. That being said, why couldn’t a theatre send a bus to pick up poor kids and bring them to a show? Many productions have spent their budget dollars on less important things, and they would be creating new potential audience members in the process. I don’t want to waste any more of Leah’s blog space in defense of my statements, but I stand by them. I want the theatre to survive and to flourish, and I firmly believe that a better attention to the business end of theatre puts us in the best possible position to continue this important art form. Thanks for your comments, and best of luck in the work you are doing. I wish you, and all theatre artists success, despite the differences in our philosophy.

Since I help run Tenement Street (an art collective) I thought I might reply as if what Kevin said had been brought up in one of our weekly board meetings and the issues he raises have to be resolved.

Issue:
“Obviously, theatre cannot provide the level of effects or production values of movies, but we can tell stories that are just as young and exciting, and we can fill them with sexy, fit actors with strong voices and minds”

The Board Resolves:
To recast our next production with people from David Barton’s gym and rescind membership status to anyone bigger than a peanut. We will also revise Chekhov’s “Three Sisters” into Chekhov’s “Three Hot Lesbian Sisters.”

Issue:
“We cannot see the theatre as the dumping ground for all things too “arty” for the cinema, and we cannot give ourselves a pass as “theatre actors” to be shlubby, out of shape, nerds. This is not an argument against character actors, but an argument for theatre actors holding themselves to the same high standards as movie stars. (Stay in shape, eat right, be flexible and limber, keep stylish) ”

The Board Resolves:
To become movie stars…

Issue:
“Yes we have to do stories we are passionate about, but you still gotta “give-em-what-they-want” so to speak”

The Board Resolves:
To understand exactly what they want and how to give it to em’ while continuing to be sexy ass movie stars. (we’re lookin at you Brad Pitt…The Curious Case of Benjamin Button? Really?! HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT WOULD DO WELL?! Damn you Brad.)

Issue:
“Not many 17 year old black kids from the inner city Bronx are coming out there to the Lorimer stop on a Friday night, get real”

The Board Resolves:
To send a bus every Friday night to Mosholu Parkway and pick up 17 year old black teenagers and drop them off on Lorimer.

Send hate or love to thankyou@tenementstreet.org

Ha ha ha ha!

I’d also love to see this grant should exclude MFAs. can’t there be at least ONE grant for underprivileged writers?

1. I think the mission of your company, and the message of your show are important ones. There is certainly and undeniably a huge percentage of the population of New York City that cannot afford or properly gain access to theatre of any level. That would certainly include $200 Broadway performances of Book of Mormon (Not gonna see many inner city kids in that theatre on a nightly basis) but would also include practically any show right down to the $18 off-off performances. However, I think you ignore an issue that is far bigger than the cost. I think the real issue here is that there is a perception among many many people, even those who have money to burn, that the theatre no longer offers a good return for your entertainment dollar. You can’t possibly deny that at least 75% of shows that are put up in this city (even on Broadway) are pretty much garbage. Either they are pure vanity projects (Ugh, another 50 year old Hamlet) misguided attempts at socio-political commentary (Glengarry Glenn Ross with an all female cast!) or just poorly and nepotistically cast (Broadway is particularly guilty of this.) People who are looking for a night out see the movies as a better bet. Yeah, a lot of movies are bad too, but even a bad movie like Transformers offers people high entertainment value. It undersells even the cheapest play by 4 bucks a ticket, and at it’s worst offers good production values, audible dialogue, a clear story, sexy actors, and themes young people can identify with. I would say that most theatrical productions I have seen (hundreds) offer two or less of these five things.
If we want to get young, “underprivileged,” and non-traditional audiences into the theatre, we need to provide them with stories they want to see, told in ways they want to see them. We cannot see the theatre as the dumping ground for all things too “arty” for the cinema, and we cannot give ourselves a pass as “theatre actors” to be shlubby, out of shape, nerds. This is not an argument against character actors, but an argument for theatre actors holding themselves to the same high standards as movie stars. (Stay in shape, eat right, be flexible and limber, keep stylish) You ever see Steve Buchemi do an interview in cargo shorts and a t-shirt? No, he always looks classy and put together, even as a pretty “ugly” man. We have to accept that if we want to go on stage and have people look at us for three hours, they need to have something dynamic to look at. Obviously, theatre cannot provide the level of effects or production values of movies, but we can tell stories that are just as young and exciting, and we can fill them with sexy, fit actors with strong voices and minds. We can do stories about sports, sex, and zombies. We can do wild comedies like the films of Judd Apatow. We can do romantic comedies and why couldn’t a script like Bridesmaids be a theatrical production. Yes we have to do stories we are passionate about, but you still gotta “give-em-what-they-want” so to speak. Lets not let ourselves off the hook by saying people just can’t afford it. I think that is a pretty small part of it.

2. I think it pretty unfair to criticize the reviewer of your show for the cost of his education, especially as at least one of you went to Butler University where tuition is currently $15,555 a semester, not including room and board. Sure, the cost of education in this country is a problem, but I don’t think that a person’s education expenses correlate directly to their views on art. I mean, look, your school was expensive, but you care about inclusive theatre. I never got the sense in his review that he was elitist or that his perspective was particularly upper-class. He just didn’t much like the show, and that’s his right and also his obligation as a reviewer; to provide his honest response. He is not supposed to review your “reasons” for doing the show, only if he found it enjoyable, thought-provoking, and entertaining. The real problem is not that only rich college educated kids are writing about and for the theatre, but our State and Local governments don’t care about theatre, so it is the first thing to get cut from middle school and high school budgets. If you want to flip the script on theatre’s upper class white bias, get your show out of The Brick (located smack in the middle of white upper middle class Williamsburg,) and get it into some high schools and community centers in the Bronx where you stand a chance of affecting some real change. In other words, if your gonna bitch about the crisp white linnens of the white man, you better have some mud on your clothes. (And not artfully arranged, hipster Williamsburg mud either. I know you guys are giving out freebies, props, but not many 17 year old black kids from the inner city Bronx are coming out there to the Lorimer stop on a Friday night, get real.)

3. Keep up the good work. I love that you guys are so vocal and contrary, and I love that you don’t take shit lying down. No doubt there are a lot of dumb-ass critics out there ( once a guy reviewed a play I was in, and he left at intermission. In his review, he said my monologue was great. The only problem…it was in act two after he left) I would just caution that you don’t let your antipathy towards the critical reaction to your work inflate your sense of self-righteousness. Keep yourselves focused on the real problems and on finding solutions to them and don’t get bogged down in petty bickering about reviews and the morons who mostly write them. Believe me, those “under-represented” audiences you are trying to reach, they don’t read NY Theater reviews, so don’t sweat the small stuff. Turn that energy into action, and push harder. That’s my two cents, hope you know I love you guys, even though I am white, male, upper middle class (thanks to my day job) and went to an expensive school (Yeah, it was Butler.)

You know what, we have every right to be mad and call people out on their shit when it’s obviously shit. What I love about your play is that it makes a very clear and defined stance on something – and sacrifices all those things holy to our reviewers’ idea of theatre in the process. He got that, but he didn’t realize THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT. Everyone wants us to shut the fuck up and entertain, but if we want to make a piece about injustice we cannot shut up about it- we’re going to be making people uncomfortable and we’re going to fail at the things we’re expected to excel at, but if you pay closer attention you realize our work is about something.

This brings us into the whole fucked-up ness of what critics are in this day and age – surely there’s a viable argument against this work, but it takes a lot more than just telling us to shut up.

thanks again –

J