Comments

1
Brendan,

Your comments on "provincial" coverage of NY theater in general is right on, but what do you expect? NY theater coverage has ALWAYS been provincial, the same with its visual arts coverage.

But, the "NY is played out" line of reasoning doesn't help the PNW, nor any region for that matter. It's just wishful schadenfreude and it's not really integral to the kind of great recommendations that you posit. NY is what it is and Seattle is what it is; that doesn't have to mean superiority nor impossibility.

And generalizing by saying, "friends and colleagues are leaving (New York)," is like saying film actors and crew are leaving LA. For every 1 that leaves there are 3 more that show up the next day.

The points are good, just leave behind the "NY is crumbling" angle. It only undermines the legitimacy of ANY region's arts when they must be constantly compared to someone's estimation of NY's dominance or ruin.
2
@ 1: I'm not arguing NYC is crumbling to ruins, just that it's losing dominance as the go-to city for young artists. The central idea: The landscape is flattening. But "New York is played" is more fun to say.
3
But do you really, really believe that NYC is losing its "dominance as the go-to city for young artists"? That's much different than simply saying the landscape is flattening. The former still has that sense of wish-fantasy that I find inhibitive when discussing a non-NY region's arts. Does it also mean that people aren't moving to LA or Chicago, or just NYC?
4
If New York were really played, then all these little cities wouldn't be trying their damnedest to imitate it, particularly Seattle. If I go to another art event that is based on or derived from something that originated in NY (And, I'm not just talking theater, Brendan; I'm talking about the arts in general.), I may just move back to Queens. It's actually not that much more expensive than Seattle and the pizza is way freaking better.
5
If New York were really played, then all these little cities wouldn't be trying their damnedest to imitate it, particularly Seattle. If I go to another art event that is based on or derived from something that originated in NY (And, I'm not just talking theater, Brendan; I'm talking about the arts in general.), I may just move back to Queens. It's actually not that much more expensive than Seattle and the pizza is way freaking better.
6
As far as NYC being a go-to city for young artists, walk around Brooklyn. It ain't Spike Lee's BK no more. Nor is it Arthur Miller's. Or even Jay-Z's.
7
This is interesting to me even though I'm a non-theater, non-theatre type. I'm curious just how big these audiences are though. How many Americans have seen just one production in the last year? How many Americans have seen 5 or more productions in that time?

Just how popular is theater? Who goes to it? Does anyone do this research?
8
NY is played? I suppose Seattle or Minneapolis or Austin has 300 theatrical performances a night?

There are plenty of problems in the NY theatre scene but it is still--hands down--the most prolific place in the US for theatre.
9
I've been saying Manhattan is over for years. Thats why I left it and moved to Brooklyn.
10
I loved the Norman Conquests back when they were broadcast on CBC and PBS.

Man, NYC is so out of it. They even keep paying financial firms execs too much for negative return, they're that out of it.
11
@9. You sound like a Sex and the City episode.
12
@ 3: LA is a different story, since film has a much different system of distribution/magnetism. Chicago is also different, but my sense is that people are still moving there at the same or maybe an accelerated rate.

(Of course, this is all anecdotal—I'm throwing an idea against the interwebs. But I think NYC is losing its dominance. It might still be #1, but not by nearly as wide a margin as it did 10 or 20 years ago, and that margin is eroding.)
13
You're basing this on what? Terry Teachout? The critic that hates everything, including your little podunk shows out in who-ha-ville? Get a grip. There's no reason for you not to be proud of your local theatre, but it wouldn't get played if it didn't play New York first. You have to have a brand to market. I'm sure you're love for theatre is of the finest calibre - but you really need to learn something about the business or you'll remain in obscurity. And as for New York being played! HA! You'd love it, but it just isn't true. Come visit and find out.
14
"Seattleite calls NYC provincial" --

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

15
In contrast, I do prefer when movies are based in NYC instead of Socal- case in point: Die Hard 3
16
13 & 14 - Your sun is setting and you don't even know it.
17
for being so cosmopolitan, New Yorkers get awfully touchy if you dare to suggest they aren't the Center of the Universe...and theater-wise, they aren't and haven't been for a long time.

Ayckbourn is a more talented Neil Simon.

But, The Norman Conquests IS a very entertaining trio of plays and the British TV production from many, many years ago with Tom Conti and the wonderful Penelope Keith, WAS very, very good.

Sadly, I saw the divine Strange Genius Amy Thone in a production, many years ago and she wasn't quite as affective in Penelope Keith's role...of course she was a 22 year old playing a part written for a 40 year old woman...
18
that should be "Stranger Genius"

obviously.
19
A more interesting question: is theatre played out? With the ascendency of web distribution and affordable recording as editing, isn't film (or even YOUTUBE) the new "boards?"
20
@19: that's an argument that gets brought up every time a new entertainment medium comes along, and while it's certainly true that theatre no longer holds the position of being the predominant performance medium (and hasn't really since the invention of celluloid), it is also far from being "played out".

In fact, a case could be made that, as consumption of mass media becomes more and more a solitary experience, the inherent need for individuals to congregate and share an experience found only in the ephemerality of real-time becomes more important.

Which is not to say that shared experience is going to necessarily adhere to the same structure as actors performing a scripted play; in fact, we've seen all sorts of revivals or reinterpretations of live spectacle: neo-vaudeville and circus arts, burlesque, multi-media presentation, etc., etc., return to the consciousness of the mass-market.

But in any case, the general notion that live performers doing their thing in front of an equally live audience is something that, isn't ever going to disappear, even if it may seem to be in a perpetual state of decline.

Which is the reason theatre has been called "the fabulous invalid" for the better part of a century...
21
I'm not sure if theatre is dead. But those dance performances by grads from a certain local college sure are.
22
@20: I know you're right -- there's just something funny to me about using a city's theater scene as a barometer of its cultural currency. I've probably seen 10-15 shows in the last year and have seen two basic types of audience: 1.) Friends and family of the theater company (this has been true across the country) or 2.) REALLY OLD PEOPLE, generally for shows that are revivals, in nice theaters, or are more "high art."

I do think a group experience is meaningful, but most theater I've seen has drifted into self-indulgent, experimental, navel-gazing or fun but empty pandering. On the other hand, I have seen some really incredible dance, but I think that may have even less of a place in modern America...

As for New York being played: Many people I know who lived there have left in the last few years, including myself. I don't know how much of this is cultural zeitgeist and how much it is my group of friends reaching our early thirties. I would guess a bit of both. I have heard anecdotal reports that a lot of the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed artists who arrive by the busload every day have been packing up and turning around a lot faster. Having said that I think New York still plays too large a role in our cultural imaginary to die a quick death -- I'm hoping this is a time of change and not decay.
23
It's just time to light a fire under Seattle's ass.
24
You're right, Brenden. I have been saying the same thing for a long time. My whole company moved to Seattle for this exact reason.

Seattle needs (and deserves) an arts festival like Fusebox, and if people with influence, like you, continue to rally the troops in this way it will only be a matter of time.
25
I have to say, as a New York based musical theatre actor (and perhaps a myopic one, but still), I do have to point out a couple things. First, you say that New York is losing its monopoly on musicals, citing the fact that cities like Seattle are getting more and more pre- and post-Broadway runs of musicals. The logic there is false. Nearly all pre- and post-Broadway runs (to use Seattle examples, shows like Young Frankenstein and Catch Me If You Can) are cast out of New York. The directors are from New York. The production companies are based in New York. The show may not physically be in New York, but the center of focus (and most of the money generated) certainly is.

Not to mention, no theatre actor with any sense moves to New York planning to work only in New York. Hundreds of regional companies hold auditions in NYC every year. People move to the city because it's still the best place to find consistent, decent paying, professional acting work all over the nation.
26
I haven't seen the TBA of Fusebox festivals...but isn't Northwest New Works at On the Boards that sort of festival?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.