Comments

107
i read the stranger almost every week and it's pretty blatantly obvious that its a snotty, free, ad-rag that's good for late breaking happy hour updates and little else. (i know that is its raison d'etre). however, i like to laugh at the amateur agenda of its critics who mostly write like polemicists who've had a few too many happy hour libations. it's simple to get your show reviewed in the stranger...#1.Drink with Brendan, #2 rant about how everyone is so sold-out and stupid except you (and he) #3 Repeat as often as you need to UNTIL you get real work from having played him for those reviews.
108
Brendan:
I find your opinions so infuriatingly simplistic that I wonder if you can also see Russia from your house.
Martin Dinn
109
Brendan, what a tsimmis you've cooked up. Bravo. I have to say that if I didn't agree with much you say, I wouldn't have worked to make ArtsWest actually utilize the applicable portions of your list.

· As of this season, we do pay actors, no less than minimum wage, including rehearsals. Not a living wage, but not the AG's accepted "They're volunteers being reimbursed for expenses" crap.

· I hate talkbacks in the theater (how self-indulgent can you get?). Our "talkbacks" are at Elliott Bay Brewery across the street or West 5 down the street. They do alcohol better than we do and we do better as a neighborhood playhouse when they do good business. Obviously, if you want a beer at ArtsWest, please go ahead and buy one. You can even bring it into the theater.

· We are producing 4 Seattle premieres in a 6 play season, one a world premiere that opens on the 22nd ("Black Gold"). I hope you'll come and write about it; it's one of the best plays I've read in years. But I won't force you to come, nor will I tell you what to write (that's not my job). I just think you'll like "Black Gold." By the way, all of our plays are contemporary, and have been for a couple of years now.

· We have a playwrights program in house and Mavis Lamb, who runs it, constantly is getting the writers to sh*t or get off the pot when submission time comes.

· Look, we're not a fringe theater (any more), but we're not a big theater, either. We'd love to use union performers more, but at $300/week for 10 weeks, it's hard to afford. (We're forced to rehearse 6 weeks for a 4-week run because the non-union actors have other jobs that pay them. We can't overtax them by rehearsing them for 40 hours in a week, which is what the union assumes you're doing -- they only think of pay on a weekly basis, not an hourly basis.)

Oh, and to Will who said that "you don't have to pay royalties for any theater under 400 people, and usually not at all because it's for educational purposes": that's crap. EVERY company, including educational groups, must pay royalties unless the piece (and its translation/adaptation) is in the public domain. Everyone has to pay. Even on free productions. There's no such law about not paying because of your building's size or how many performances you give. When you use someone's intellectual property, you have to pay for it, no matter what you charge. They deserve it. Ask an attorney or look it up.

Brendan, we agonize with the issues of the day and how to require conversation by producing plays about them, which is our mission. I write about them in my own blog...

http://test.artswest.org/?q=blog

...so you can get more insight into the ugly, sausage-making part of the process.

Thanks for caring enough to write this...
110
What evidence is being used here to back up the assertion that theater is "dying?" The number of producing theaters in this country has grown every single year since the '60s. The trends say more people are attending theater today than at any other point in American history. Seattle may have had a boom, and may be experiencing a bit of a contraction right now, but I don't see any fat ladies on the horizon gearing up for a big syonara aria.

True regional theater (work that reflects the unique culture of the place and time the play is born in) is only just now in its adolescence, particularly in the Northwest.

And maybe adolescence is the right time for the "lets take $500 bucks and put on a play" ethos. I've seen it create great work. AND I've seen artists get stuck in the trap, after 20 years of exhaustive bootstrapping, of thinking that's the only kind of work they are ever going to be able to produce.

Everyone starts there. And as a clarion call to new playmakers to get out there and try something, I think what you have to say is great.

But over the long haul, idealizing rapidly produced, under-trained, zero budget garage-band theater subsidized by Starbucks barista paychecks is not supporting the best and brightest new work. It's telling the best and the brightest that their work has no future, no chance to be relevant to the broader culture, no right to be compensated for their talent. It turns playwrights into screenwriters and account executives and lord knows the world doesn't need more of those.

You want new work to get more play? Awesome. Don't you want that new work to get the kind of play it deserves? With committed professional actors focused on the project (and not how they're going to make rent), theater companies who have honed their skills and been selective about their workloads so they can provide the new work with the attention and resources it deserves, and a press corps that acts as true advocates for that work to their readers?

I love great fringe theater. I'm passionate about new work. I love it enough to support both with a NEW WORK-only citywide festival down here in Portland in January.

But I want that new work to be well covered, well funded,well attended and brought to life by trained professionals working at the top of their craft. And making that happen, as some of the other commenters have so astutely pointed out, is as much about inspiring audiences through impassioned media and audience engagement as it is about cutting down budgets and lowering the expectations of artists to get paid for their work.

So lower the barrier to audience participation with booze and daycare, by all means.

But don't tell the people working at the very forefront of our culture that they shouldn't expect to be compensated for their work. And do consider how you can use what you do best (impassioned prose) to stop heralding the premature death of local art and start inspiring people to take more risks, consume more theater (instead of Starbucks), and invest in local artists rather than spend another weekend buying some Hollywood producer another mani-pedi.

Make it a manifesto. We'll help you make it into a movement. But only if you treat our profession with the same respect that you treat your own.

-Trisha Pancio
Festival Director
Fertile Ground: Portland's city-wide festival of new work
www.fertilegroundpdx.com



111
Theater isn't the only type of performance in Seattle, people... and there are only so many pages in the paper.

We've got very active music, fine arts, theater, sketch and stand-up comedy scenes throughout this city... which ones should have their coverage cut back to accommodate the theater community?

You want space in the paper? EARN IT. Your shitty multi-racial version of Romeo and Juliet does not warrant 2 inches simply by virtue of being theater.

Or, hows about starting your own zine, detailing all 150 plays in town? Or even just a blog? Pass out the url on cards for audiences as they're leaving and treat if like Yelp.

Or you could, you know... bitch that no one is taking you seriously. That will really endear you to the rest of the art community.


112
Circle Rep used to produce 52 shows a year in the Lab space. We got a budget of $100. (which no one ever actually collected from the management although you could if you needed it)Here is how it worked. There was no charge for shows and the theater seated less than 99 and it was within the company never publicly advertised and critics didn't come, so AEA was cool with it. We used a large room with a lighting grid in the offices so costs (rent + electricity) were budgeted in with ongoing cost of doing business. What really made it work is that Michael Warren Powell was a staunch defender of it. He selected plays and facilitated the discussion of the work with the playwright at the following weekly company meeting. We all knew each other's work and the discussions were critical but not what these discussions have become in recent years because they were critique among peers who knew each other's body of work. As you know many of these playwrights (Paula Vogel Lanford Wilson) Actors (Anthony Rapp) and directors (Joe Mantello)are now famous. We had a real home and a safe place to develop the work and show it to audiences, not TALK about doing it.
113
Also, one of the things you fail to recognize is the need for good designers and technicians...I think a theatre is only as good as the respect it has for those of us who do the grunt work. Yes, we chose it, but it's amazing how expendable the higher-ups seem to think we are...until things go wrong, and then we get the blame.

Most LORT theatre Artistic Directors make six-figure incomes. And those of us down the line who are working 60-80 hour weeks, abusing our bodies, so tired that we're making stupid, dangerous mistakes, make a laughable fraction of that. When I sit outside on lunch figuring out how I'm going to pay bills this month and the Big Boss drives up in his brand new Mercedes to begin his day(he chose to leave the Beamer at home), it doesn't make me want to stay. And in theatre, where collaboration is essential, you abslutely cannot have a new face at the production meeting every single season. It would be like a major corporation having a new VP every fiscal year. Theatres need to remember that the important people aren't just the ones on the stage - they're backstage, they're in the shops, they're covering everyone's ass in rehearsal. Hire more staff, pay them better, and see how it goes.

Also, Shakespeare is great. It gets people in the seats. And some of the more recent Shakespeare productions are some of the most relevant pieces in theatre history. Don't get the guy in tights talking to the skull - get the man in battle dress talking to a body in a morgue. Don't settle for Romeo and Juliet on a balcony in moonlight, get them on a fire escape in the streetlight with gunfire echoing down the alley. I agree that doing the same tired stuff is pointless, but in the same vein, the classics are as relevant as we make them.
114
As a Chicagoan:

The Reader is certainly important to the theatre community, but in many ways it was Richard Chritiansen and Essie Kupcinet who made the theatre revolution of the 70's possible in Chicago. Their support and Christiansen's willingness to embrace, review and champion the fringe theatres that popped up all over the place is what made the difference. What any community needs is champions and supporters ready to make the difference.

As to the grad school argument, it sounds more like the author ran out of items for his list. Either that or he hasn't really learned much about the faculty he so blithely defames.
115
Dear everybody: Just to clear up a few points.

1. I do like theater. I want it to be higher quality, richer, more popular, better funded. That's why I offer this advice.

2. Of course I wish everyone could have a living wage. But artists of all kinds choose to enter a very risky, very popular profession. Anyone who takes such a risk cannot expect (and demand) a guaranteed reward. That's not the way risk works. (Or it shouldn't, anyway. Which is why the partial nationalization of our banking industry—when we haven't even managed to nationalize health care—is so maddening.)

I want you all to have the resources you need. But you've no right to expect them, just as I've no right to expect them just because I've chosen to work in a dying corner (arts criticism) of a dying industry (newspapers).

These are the risks we take for doing things we care about. I'm not trying to take something away from you—I'm just asking you to face facts.
116
Greetings,

#11, Solicit and listen to feedback from the audience. What they like about this choice of material to perform and its performance. About what they might like to see coming up (existing plays, new work from living playwrights or local playwrights, looked for topics in new plays.)

And existing plays can be worthwhile. Note the recent performances of Eurydice, as one example.

-- from David Olson, Tukwila
117
Good advice, tell the Seattle theater community this. I have been shopping my below-the-belt farce around town and doors aren't quit opening up as I thought they would be. I know it's funny, edgy, if only Seattle would be interested in taking a chance. We need to develop late night theater in Seattle which would bring younger folks back to theater instead of just going to the movies. Look for "House of the Falling Sun" by Dylan J. Rosen.
118
I am a director/actor from Chicago- you may be over praising our press. The Main newspapers cover little, but the big theaters. The Reader seems to be dying. I agree with getting rid of Shakespeare.

I would add one more idea: Big theaters need to develop new work by having small theaters be their experimental labs.
119
Will -- What you said about Samuel French: totally false. Samuel French is all about amateur rights, and that damn well includes educational institutions. They make a large portion of their income from schools. And places like Tams-Witmark and Music Theatre International are particularly adept at soaking high schools and colleges for huge royalties. The Greeks are the same: unless you are using a translation in the public domain, be ready to fork out a royalty. That said, all theatre people -- not just high school and college drama profs -- would do well to seek out new work, unproduced work, obscure published work. The problem: that would involve doing lots of reading, and theatre people are notoriously uninterested in doing that kind of work. Furthermore, most have no idea how to even go about locating new work to read. It is a failure all the way up and down the educational chain.
120
This is going to be a reaction to both the article and the posted comments from COMTE. First, the article makes several strong points but I will agree with several replys in that some of the very lofty goals are unachievalve. My biggest disagreement is with point #9. While I am not an actor myself I make my living in tech theatre. Right now I live and work in Colorado Springs a city with no unions. However if I were to move 50 miles north to Denver joining the union would provide better working opportunities and wages. While yes I may be excluded from the the "fringe" the fact of enjoying eating once in awhile cancels that out. I don't agree with the statement "no one deserves a living wage for having talent..." I know the sentence continues but thats where I stopped reading. Brendan I feel that your article is like a mouse trying to yell at a group of giants. Great that you have found success in you systems but thats what they are YOUR systems. I work for a very succesful regional theatre, which hires both union and non-union talent, that built its reputation on Shakespeare.

Lastly I just want to comment on COMTE post that non-union acotrs and technicians are forgoing "professional status". That is true arroggance and ignorance. Go to a show being done by professional non-union theatres and tell them their not true professionals and see what happens.
121
#7 and #8 RIGHT ON THE MONEY

hello, theater is entertainment. IMHO, give the audience a drink and some popcorn and you might have a 3/4 of full house EVERY night. Theater Companies need to think outside of the (black) box once and while.


122
The only people who don't like Shakespeare are the ones who can't understand it.
123
We all like Shakespeare, you fucking dolt. Kiley's "five-year moratorium" isn't a lifelong ban.
124
Theatre companies DO have to pay royalties to produce a work, even if you have a house of 30 people. That 400 thing is simply not true.

And don't congratulate Chicago too much. All publications have cut their theatre reviews. They DO NOT review every play, but only handful. There are, however, listings for every play.

Reviewers are often times unqualified. They are paid very little and a fair amount of them seem to be grad students who hate the theatre, but want to write and get paid to be pretentious and to perfect their zingers. Unless, of course, they're reviewing Steppenwolf. The ad revenue there is probably a bit too large.

I very much appreciate this article. I do think there needs to be more new work and it shouldn't be such a risk for a company to produce new work. I also think there needs to be more money spent on commissioning and workshopping new plays, so we disagree there. It is hard to find great new work, though not impossible. The main problem: WHAT ARTIST HAS THE TIME AND MONEY TO DEVOTE TO THE THEATRE FULLY AND WITH RECKLESS ABANDON?

Answer: none. Because we don't fund the arts the way we should. We don't run them like businesses (at least not most of them-- the ones that are doing new work). Why? Because there's not enough money in it. And we're too busy working three other jobs.
125
How about taking a look at your pricing or at least your ticketing policies. Just paid $14 for a ticket, $6.50 Ticketmaster fee, $1.50 service change and $2.00 theatre renovation fee (and they wanted more money for me to print my own ticket online). I don't have a problem in the world with a great $14 ticket price, heck I wouldn't even mind a $25 ticket price but I don't expect to pay everyone else in the pipeline too. Fool me and include EVERYTHING in the published price of the ticket and dole it out to those other parties if need be - it won't be nearly as painful to the customer if they don't see where their money goes and there would be no surprises when they log on or call for tickets. Steer clear of Ticketmaster and other selling venues that charges such obscene fees for such a small amount of work or at least offer the options of an open box office so that the customer has at least the option of avoiding those additional charges. Just got a great deal on a new small local company - 4 shows for $36 general admission seating any performance and absolutely no hidden or additional charges. And in addition to the two season tickets I previously planned to purchase I bought two more so that we could invite another couple to join us.
126
Obviously Mr.Kiley has never run a theatre, been involved as a managing director of a theatre, or had producing experience, otherwise he would never had suggested such ill-conceived, scatter brained notions for theatres to "save themselves".

A few of his ideas are old hat and have been tried (and failed), others are just so off the wall, that any theatre practioner applying them would be considered candidates for the loony bin, and shut up shop soon thereafter. As provocative as Mr. Kiley likes to be, a few of his suggestions are certainly valid. However, I think you'll find that theatres have already identified them and have already successfully incorporated them into their strategic planning.

Mr. Kiley's time would be better spent encouraging newspapers to review every professional show possible, print weekly profiles on theatres, actors and directors, employ intelligent and qualified theatre critics, quickly replace a theatre critic if they leave the job, and provide theatres with low cost display advertising. These are a few things that newspapers need do right now to save theatres.

John Neville-Andrews
127
Brendan --

I'd find your comments more convincing if you demanded of yourself the same standards you demand of us.

What, you can't even be bothered to read the play you're going to review before you come to the theater? You can't be bothered to stay the whole time?

signed, "the brown-haired woman wearing fake black side curls"
128
Sean:

As a 23 year veteran of the Seattle Theatre Community, I have and DO continue to call them as I sees them; and the people around here who know me, know my history, my credentials, and my experience, while they may not LIKE hearing this, and in many cases certainly don't AGREE with it, respect it nevertheless.

A person can call themselves "professional", but self-selecting for that particular appellation doesn't mean it's true. The simple fact of the matter is that, unless you're being paid some semblance of a living wage, one sufficient to entail you to perform a particular task, job, endeavor, what-you-will, to the exclusion of any other form of employment - even if only for a few weeks out of the year, then you really AREN'T a working professional, and have no right to call yourself one, no matter how much you may BELIEVE it to be true.

Artists, and particularly performing artists, have an infuriating tendency to bandy about the term "professional" willy-nilly, to the point that the meaning of the word has been almost completely devalued in our medium. In many cases they do so without EVER doing ANYTHING that, in any other field or profession would acknowledge they've actually EARNED the right to call themselves such.

We don't have "amateur" doctors, lawyers, or accountants - and nobody in their right mind would put their trust in someone who advertised themselves as such. Furthermore, in order to be considered worthing of being called a professional, practitioners in these fields must undergo rigorous training, successfully complete exhausting testing regimens, and frequently be vetted by their peers. Yet, any actor (or technician) feels they have a RIGHT to call themselves a professional, if they've ever cashed a $50 stipend check. That's an insult to the very concept of professionalism, and denigrates those who HAVE trained, worked, and achieved actual professional status in our industry.

I don't have any problem with anyone who cultivates within themselves an attitude that strives to achieve professional standards of conduct and behavior; that's a laudable goal. But, as a card-carrying union member, and as someone who HAS, if only briefly in a 25 year career, been a working professional, I am not about to grant that title to any Tom, Dick, or Shirley who thinks they deserve it simply because they say so, when they have never achieved even the minimal level of accomplishment to indicate they've earned it.
129
"Obviously Mr.Kiley has never run a theatre, been involved as a managing director of a theatre, or had producing experience, otherwise he would never had suggested such ill-conceived, scatter brained notions for theatres to "save themselves"."

Which is why at least one of the small fringe theatres I'm involved with (with a HUGE audience) is considering each and everyone of his ideas.

Don't agree with everything in the original article and certainly don't agree with every implementation, but there's a hell of a lot of truth there.

And I sure as hell ain't bagging on the Stranger. Yeah, LIST every show---that's what media is there for, as a reference. But reviews? Psh. The best and the worst reviews I ever got were from the Stranger, and the resulting box offices for the shows were exactly the same.
130
C'mon, Comte...there's a bit of a distance between an amateur doctor and an amateur actor. Hyperbolize much?

No, I wouldn't want an amateur dentist pulling my teeth, but I'd be glad to watch an amateur actor perform a play. Sometimes (don't tell anyone) I prefer it. And sometimes (again, don't tell anyone) I'd rather work with the amateur...they're nicer to work with, a lot of the time. They aren't as prone to be divas.

We all know that there are a lot of us 'amateurs' who make a partial living acting. But simply purchasing an AEA membership does not a 'professional' make. AEA membership is about wages and safety. There is no inherent 'professionalism,' no talent edge, no guarantee of talent...it's not really even a union. A union helps out its members when they are out of work. AEA cares very little about assistance, or it would be concerned about the ecology of a theater community like Puget Sound.

Same goes for the Stranger's record. Comte's nailed you on that one, Kiley. Like the rest of your so-called newspaper, it's (not to put too fine a point on it) a load of crap. Poor writing, inexperienced or ignorant reviews and reviewers...why bother? The newspapaer either cares or it doesn't care about its reading constituency. Yours does not. And I don't mean the theater community...I mean the readers you ought to care about in order to keep from dying. The ones to attract. Who care about theater. Who pick up your paper to see what's really happening but can't find a decent damn thing about the theater scene, and stop picking it up.

Hmmm. Now I see the comparison. The Stranger doesn't care about the theater community, and it loses readers (other than the sex clubs and hipsters) and it eventually folds. AEA doesn't care about the theater community, and eventually all the good actors leave and the theater community folds.
131
There is a theater troupe in seattle that is trying to do all you espouse.

Maybe it's time to take a second look at this hard working and original troupe, that has grown far beyond your first impressions long ago. They create new work almost every single time they open the doors and, while not all of it is ACT or The Rep caliber, there is some good stuff happening there -- every single show.

Hint: it's located on Dexter and Harrison.
132
For all of you still reading this thread, the Seattle Rep has invited me to host a forum regarding this article on Monday Oct 27 at 7:30 pm.

I'll talk a little, but mostly it will be an open discussion, with you all talking to each other.

Booze will be plentiful and cheap.
133
Wow. That was fantastic.

What I learned: Pour liquor on it.
135
Jenner, are you talking about Open Circle? FWIW, they've moved to Belltown. The same building Freehold is now in.
136
So Chris, what would you call me? I don't fit your definition of a "professional" as either a playwright or an actor. I believe you saw my work as both in Annex's production of TUESDAY. I stand by its quality, wearing both hats, at the highest of levels, but if I'm not a "professional" by your standards, or anyone else's, then I have to shake my head and walk away from such empty distinctions.

I'm surprised at you, my friend, driving this dichotomy when it's obviously the last thing we need in our efforts to raise the game in this good, but not yet great, theatre town.
138
Brendan,
Yes, the Rep is hosting this event and THANK GOD you'll be talking very little -- I think we've all heard enough from you at this point.

The fact that you say you can't list every play because it wouldn't leave enough space for your articles is laughable. Your articles are worthless, pretentious, uninformed, completely masturbatory and damaging to the arts community. Why do you even do the job you do? You're not good at it, you seems to despise art by your shear lack of respect in that you don't spend nearly enough time educating yourself. How many times do you read the play before you go review it? How often do you interview a development staffer or fundraiser of a theatre? How often do you sit down with the head of corporate giving at a company? How often have you put a production budget together? How many times have you fallen in love with a new work and poured your heart and bank account in it only to look at empty seats every night because some asshole at The Stranger was so busy patting himself on the back for his latest one-liner that he couldn't find space or time to print the schedule of the show or give it some preview press that is informed and enticing?

We all want great art. We all want great artists. We all want to be innovators but butts in seats only pay part of the bills. We need as many seats filled as possible and in the meantime, we all raise as much money for our art as we possibly can. That's where you could help -- list everything that's going on in the city -- from basement fringe to ACT. Let people know there's a wealth of stuff going on in this city at any given moment. Run preview articles that tell people why the play is important. We chose it for a reason -- help us tell the people why. Publish the dicounts and special deals that theatres offer regularly. There are student discounts, under 25 discounts, under 40 discounts -- there are plenty of way to see theatre cheap in this city. Help us spread the word.

We're OVER you Brendan -- and we're over The Stranger. You want to help? -- stop writing asshole articles, get informed and try to say something positive once in awhile.

And maybe you could take the garbage home in your car once in awhile...
139
*Sigh!* I guess, if people want to continue to argue the point, without apparently bothering to READ anything I've written regarding the issue, then I'll just have to keep repeating myself ad nauseum.

So, just to make things absolutely clear: One does NOT confer "professional status" upon oneself; that flies against the entire purpose of distinguishing between a professional and an amateur in EVERY field of endeavor that embraces the concept. And as I also stated previously, this is something quite different from developing and maintaining an ATTITUDE of professionalism; there are a myriad of talented individuals in our community, who, while they may not have earned professional status, nevertheless conduct themselves in a manner that bespeaks of having a sense of professional demeanor. That, in and of itself, does not MAKE them "professional" in terms of certification, but it does indicate an aspiration toward such, and I heartily support the continued cultivation of that kind of attitude in our industry.

You know, there once was a time, not so many years ago, when people in many endeavors embraced the term "amateur" in its original meaning, "one who does for the love of". It was worn, not as a mark of shame, but rather, as a badge of honor, because it conferred the idea that the person so designated possessed a purity of intent that elevated them above such base considerations as financial remuneration for example.

Now granted, the word has been denigrated over time to be perceived as a pejorative to the point that now people view the word as being synonymous with "ineptitude" or "of low quality", but I don't think that SHOULD be the case at all. Most of us do what we do out of true love for the medium, for the work, for our fellow performers - and under those circumstances, I can't imagine why someone would be ashamed to be called an "amateur" IF the word is used in its purest, truest sense.

And Paul, if you truly wish to have the distinction of "professional playwright" bestowed upon you, I would think applying for membership in the Dramatists Guild (www.dramatistsguild.com) would be an excellent place to start.

On the other hand, if you want instead to simply "walk away from such empty distinctions" that's perfectly fine by me. I simply take umbrage at people bestowing appellations upon themselves which they haven't earned, and therefore don't deserve. If you, or anyone else for that matter, feels they HAVE earned the distinction of being called a "professional" in their chosen field, well, there's always a sanctioning body to vet that process; you just have to seek it out.

Or, quit bitching because you either haven't made the effort, or, they didn't approve your application.
140
Oh, and Paul, how does letting every Tom, Dick and Shirley call themselves a "professional" without some sort of vetting process "raise the game"? That's just a recipe for allowing things to degenerate into a state of abject mediocrity, with the end result of diluting the very concept of professionalism until it becomes essentially meaningless, and therefore completely irrelevant.

If anyone can become a "professional" simply by virtue of self-proclamation, then eventually NOBODY will be, because there's no longer any demonstrable distinction between what a professional is and is not.
141
I turned Equity at 19. I walked away from it. I was offered membership in the Dramatists Guild at 23. I declined. I suppose that makes me an amateur, and I will most certainly give your email address to anyone who seeks further clarification the non-pejorative connotation of that word.

The day I seek accreditation from a sanctioning body for my standing as an artist is the day I choke on my own bile.

And you know me well enough, Chris, to know I pit my chops, professional or otherwise, in acting or writing for the stage, against the best in the business.

To an some (perhaps arcane) extent you're right: being a "professional" theatre artist is like being a professional poet or professional philosopher. As soon as you join the words together they become mutually absurd.
142
From Comte: ". . .the end result of diluting the very concept of professionalism until it becomes essentially meaningless, and therefore completely irrelevant.

If anyone can become a "professional" simply by virtue of self-proclamation, then eventually NOBODY will be, because there's no longer any demonstrable distinction between what a professional is and is not."

Sounds perfect. Where do I sign up?
143
Sounds to me like you already have, Paul.

Keep that in mind the next time you're looking for a doctor, dentist, lawyer or accountant - I'm sure the self-proclaimed "professionals" in those fields will be just as good as those hoity-toity, elitist "board certified professionals" - and a lot cheaper too!
144
Okay, Mullin, COMTE . . . You're both pretty. And you've both got some good points.

When you make the comparison to a doctor, dentist, lawyer, or accountant, you fail to acknowledge that art, by its very nature, deals in the subjective (often the radically subjective). It also ignores that musical history, for the last 50 years or so, has been largely driven by people who only know (or knew) three chords, who coasted on a vain hope that someone might buy a "product" that was invented while its hopeful inventors were probably slaving away at day jobs.

I think we need to first agree that education, professional status, and legitimacy (whatever that is) are all very different things, that an educated artist simply doesn't differ, necessarily, from the autodidact in the way that an accredited physician differs from an inspired amateur because the human body, at least on the surface and in principle, is a fixed system that operates according to consistent rules. One might posit that the human condition, truth, beauty, or any of those abstractions on which artists hang their respective hats are also fixed systems, but such an assertion is fundamentally untestable. To call study of the human condition a soft science is to greatly flatter its empirical veracity.

To be "professional" is a matter between you and your landlord, or to ponder when determining how much longer you can take the cycle of working during the week and making art with the rest of your time. There's nothing either ignoble or, truth be told, PARTICULARLY noble about being professional, though it's always a laudable goal. A band that plays covers of the Eagles for weddings is "professional," and so is Nick Cave (though one suspects he had to toil for years as an "amateur" before his experiments created a marketable product). Professionalism produces mediocrity as surely as does amateurism; I won't mark my career any more than I already have by listing the successful, mainstream, professional playwrights I consider mediocre, but I'm sure I'm not the only one here who could name a few.

Sometimes, I'm paid a nice wage for my acting work; sometimes I'm not. If I'm professional in one capacity and not in the other, well . . . fine. But I submit, in that case, that the word "professional" is the one that speaks least to my legitimacy (again, whatever that is) as an artist.
145
You've gone off the rails, Chris. Should I throw out my volumes of William Carlos Williams because he made his living as a physician?

What does art have to do with board certification anyway? If I wanted plumbing I'd hire a plumber. If I wanted someone to act like a plumber, I'd hire an actor. I'd either audition them or cast them based on my knowledge of their work. I sure as hell wouldn't call Equity and ask them to recommend someone.

I actually sit on that side of the casting table, remember? The "AEA" at the top of an auditioner's resume is usually only of interest in that it means that I probably can't work with them in Seattle. It sure DOESN'T mean they're automatically qualified for a role.

It's a club, Chris. You know it. I know it. And it's time the folks who aren't, like us, on the inside knew it, too, so maybe we can talk about changing a an unworkable system. Unless, of course, as seems to be the case, Seattle members of the union have little or no say in how they govern themselves.

It's time to throw the tea the harbor.
146
This "amateur dentist and lawyer" argument is totally specious. Those regulations are about consumer protection. If Equity successfully protected regional-theater audiences from bad acting, you might have a case, but...

A closer analogy would be a professional league of painters or sculptors—which, of course, doesn't exist.

Imagine this: A bureaucracy of gatekeepers between artists and galleries that tell curators who they can and can't show in their galleries. Sounds totally counterproductive, doesn't it?

Equity was founded in the early 1900s, back when rapacious producers and theater owners really fucked actors over.

We don't live in that world any more, especially not after the rise of the nonprofit model. So what's Equity for today? And how's it helping? And if your union is so goddamned great, why are so many "professional" actors still migrant workers who can't afford houses?

The system is broken.
147
Geez, it looks like I picked on COMTE the whole time, but the later portion also speaks a bit to Mullin. I guess what I wonder is, Mullin, if you and I both agree (and I think we do) that the term "professional" doesn't speak to the quality of our work, why do we covet (and I think we do) that appellation? I mean, I KNOW why we want the money, but that's sort of a different topic. I'd love to be paid, but as to how I'm known, I'd rather people say that I'm good than that I'm professional.
148
Brendan - "A closer analogy would be a professional league of painters or sculptors—which, of course, doesn't exist."

Mmmmmmmaybe . . . Or maybe a closer analogy would be a workers' union like any other--Teamsters, AFL-CIO, whatever. Only, you know, without the money.

I think there's a legitimate use for such a union for performers, because I think there are performers (and other artists) who function like workers. Some people really are artists the way other people are doctors or plumbers.

Some of the rest of us are artists the way other people are epileptics: it seizes us, it wrecks us, and it's just possible that you won't get us to stop unless you cut into our brains.
149
To thelyamhound: You speak as if you know me. Do you? I'll respond only this one to an essentially anonymous poster.

I could give a shit if anyone ever calls me professional. "Professional playwright"? Hah! Why not "professional cooper" or "professional candledipper"? Our art form is so far from the exigencies of the marketplace that to speak in terms of protection for the workers is quickly moving from the absurd to the obscene.
150
Sorry to have been overly familiar; it's possible we've met, but I don't think so. If I did, well, it was my honor, and sorry I've forgotten about it; I'll blame drink.

I was only addressing "you" (or rather, the "author function" of your comments) because I sympathized with some--hell, most--of what you said, and because I know COMTE (in the meat world, even!), and, since I was directly addressing him, it seemed only fair to do so to you.

Agreed on our distance from the exigencies of the marketplace and such; otherwise, sorry if I crossed some line or other in addressing your arguments.
151
No line crossed. Just like to know who I'm tussling with. We seem for the most part to be vehemently agreeing.

And for the record to all: Chris Comte is a gentleman AND a professional (in whatever sense one could mean it). He certainly has the standing to speak on any subject regarding the theatre he chooses, but I humbly submit this is because of his body of work and immense dedication, and not because he's got three letters at the top of his resume.

(I do love and admire you, Chris. You're just caught defending the wrong approach for our art at this time.)
152
Brendan, consumer protection is just one small facet of why these professions have vetting bodies; another is to maintain standards of ethical and professional conduct; to help ensure their members maintain up-to-date skill-sets; and to act as advocates for the profession and its members, among the many other functions. And I would have to say, based on my experience as a union member and a representative of union members, Equity, AFTRA, SAG and the other performers unions fulfill these functions admirably - you may not like HOW they do this, but then, nobody's twisting your arm and forcing you to join, are they?

And just like any other similar professional association, Equity cannot guarantee 100% of the time that the actor you see on stage at The Rep or 5th Ave is going to be "better" than some inexperienced amateur, but your definition of what "better" is just as subjective as the qualities you're criticizing to some extent. That being said, there ARE nevertheless quantifiable measures of ability: you can tell when the singer doesn't hit the note, or when the dancer stumbles, and even usually when the actor drops a line, and given a choice between an Equity actor and a non-union actor, you have much better odds of the former having the education, training, and experience needed to successfully achieve those objectives than you do with the latter. That's one reason why audiences are willing to pay more for a production at an Equity theatre, because there is an expectation on their part that they will be seeing professionals engaged in a higher-quality of performance. Yes, it is somewhat subjective, but not completely so, and to argue otherwise is simply ignoring the obvious.

And while there may not be a "professional league of painters and sculptors" NOW, there have been such associations in the past, and even today there ARE numerous professional associations of writers, singers, dancers, musicians, photographers, composers, choreographers - and many other artistic pursuits that recognize and adhere to standards set down by their governing agencies. So, the argument that just because SOME artistic disciplines aren't governed under any sort of adjudicating authority, therefore acting (which DOES in fact already have such agencies) is somehow exempt from such vetting - simply doesn't wash.

Paul, the more pertinent question is NOT whether someone can be a "professional something" while at the same time they engage in artistic pursuits; the issue is would that artist (and we'll take WCW as the example, since you bring him up) would consider themselves a "professional" in both arenas? Williams continued his medical practice during his entire tenure as a writer, and in fact, even drew inspiration from it; he most certainly didn't abandon it when people started buying his poetry. But, so far as I'm aware at least, he never considered himself to be, nor did he ever identify himself as a "professional poet". So, really, what's your point?

Ah, but here's the rub: you wouldn't "call Equity and ask for someone" to play a plumber, but if you can GET an Equity actor to play a plumber, and NOT have to pay them a living wage, then everything's cool, right? So, you'll take the "professional", but only when the terms suit your own needs and purposes, that is, when you can get them on-the-cheap.

Really, you've got a bit of nerve calling the union you QUIT a "club", then criticizing it from the outside because it doesn't allow you to exploit its members in exactly the manner the union was created to prevent! The system you describe as "unworkable" is only so - IN YOUR OPINION - because it doesn't let you get away with paying union actors next-to-nothing in exchange for their labor, which is really all you seem to care about. If you want to cast actors who are more concerned about "doing the art" than "making a living doing the art", then you've got a sufficiently large pool of volunteer labor already at your disposal. But, apparently even you yourself don't consider them "good enough", because you keep harping back to the notion that "if only the UNION would let me use their members at fringe theatre rates of compensation, THEN everything would be hunky-dory!"

You can call Equity a "club" Paul, but that's a statement of opinion, not of fact. Actors Equity Association is a LABOR UNION, recognized as such by the National Labor Relations Board, the Associated Actors and Artistes of America, and the AFL-CIO; none of which are in the business of sanctioning "clubs". Just because YOU happen to think of it in such a manner, don't make it so. You got a problem with labor unions, again, that's your opinion to express, but I don't have to watch you sit at your computer and INSULT the tens of thousands of actors who have chosen to associate themselves with AEA, who recognize the collective benefits of union solidarity, and who actively strive to improve the lot of working actors across the country, especially when, by your own admission, you'd prefer to use UNION ACTORS in your shows, IF ONLY they wouldn't be so uppity as to demand things like living wages and safe working conditions!

So far as I can tell, you seem to be suggesting the system is "unworkable" because it doesn't let you do what you want, which apparently is to have the union roll, over, play dead, and get out of your way. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen, regardless of how much you kvetch.

Lyam, I don't for a moment believe in the idea that ALL an actor does falls into the "subjective" category. There are plenty of quantifiable criteria that come into play when casting: can the actor do the dialect? How do they handle a rapier or quarter-staff? How quickly can they memorize dialogue? Do they take direction? Can they perform certain specific physical actions required by the script such as: dance choreography, hitting that high "C", or doing that back-flip, or landing that punch? Whether Paul wants to admit it or not, he, just like any director worth their salt, is going to cast an actor in a role based as much on these measurable quantifiers as for the subjective ones. And the more of these demonstrable, quantifiable skills an actor has, the better their chances of landing a role and successfully portraying it.
153
I've read the first 100 or so of these comments and i've noticed a couple of interesting threads weaving through here. There seems to be one group (we'll call them The Establishment) saying: "We CAN'T do these things, Brendan! Give up The Bard? Published works? Equity? Our aging donors? Oh no, that's IMPOSSIBLE!" and another group (we'll call them The Fringe) saying "damn it Brendan, we're already doing a bunch of these things, but we're losing our asses anyway!"

These two groups clearly have conflicting interests. As much as it's nice to all get along and be friendly with each other, there comes a time when we need to recognize when we're at cross purposes. When the relationship between two groups naturally OUGHT to be antagonistic.

By antagonistic, i mean The Fringe needs to start pushing The Establishment out of the way. We have to stop letting them define what "theatre" is, need to stop supporting artists who sell out, betraying theatre for a shitty but paying (and poorly at that) role with The Establishment, and need to stop kissing ass whenever The Establishment takes a dump.

The reason The Stranger and the majority of young people are more excited about (and give more press to) the music scene is that independent musicians are independent. They have thoroughly distanced themselves from radio friendly pop, and from old folks who shit their pants when they hear Sinatra or Bach.

It's becoming increasingly clear that this is the model Fringe Theatre needs to follow, and it starts at the artist level. Have you ever listened to indie rockers or punks rip each other up for even listening to radio friendly schmaltz? It's devastating, and it indicates a real passion for the kind of music they play. If you compare that to theatre, where we're expected to congratulate an artist who aquires immense debt in an MFA program just to be groomed for the equivalent of an opportunity to play in Celine Dion's back up band (or worse, actually, at least Celine Dion didn't die hundreds of years ago).

I hate to say it, but it's begining to look like time for a war.
154
I get all that, Chris, but I don't really see where MFA or AEA in any way assures an auditor that an actor can do all (or in fact any) of these things. This is more a culture-wide problem than a specific theatrical one: we use education and accreditation as shorthand for things that we can't be bothered to measure for ourselves, but for which, in fact, the accrediting institutions cannot really account. Which means that a lot of that is taken on faith, even at an Equity casting call.

I've never heard anyone complain (too much, anyway) about my "quantifiable skills," but there are no letters with which they can be confirmed. If there are specific skills required of me for a given show, I assume I'll be auditioned on that basis.

The point isn't that ALL an actor does falls into the subjective category, but the question as to whether an actor is "good" or not certainly does (and we're not even touching upon actor-writers, generative theater artists, etc., categories of theatrical artist that lie outside the audition mills and contingencies of regional theater).

I don't necessarily buy that Equity is a club; I recognize its legitimacy as a union, and that it's more than an "anvil" when it comes to making theater a viable pursuit. But just as the future of music is often written in basements and garages by people whose technique only emerges over time in direct response to content, theater might not have the room to evolve at houses where houses need to be filled to pay the (well-deserved! and still paltry!) wages of its artists. And it's a shame, I think--maybe not a big shame, but a little shame--that you have to take yourself entirely out of the one kind of art in order to practice the other. No one tells a "professional" musician who's following the work that he can't have his art-punk band on the side; this seems like the functional equivalent. A lot of that is because of the commercially cumbersome nature of live theater, and the contingent nature of acting, in particular (how do you act when no one has a project for you?), so I don't blame the union for it. I'm just sayin' . . .
155
But, Rex, who's going to be on which side in the coming war?

Many of the people I know who do fringe theatre at night, spend most of their days earning their livings in the very "establishment" theatres, unions, and organizations you'd see destroyed! They may not be actors (although in some cases they are), but rather administrators, teachers, technicians, designers. They work in the establishment theatres because they prefer that to working shitty temp or corporate jobs elsewhere, and at least it's in the same field as their undergrad or MFA degrees.

These day jobs provide them with the financial stability that in turn allows them to spend most of their "leisure time" creating work about which they feel passionate, if in fact they don't share the same passion for the mainstream product as the organizations for which they toil during the day.

Also, in my experience theatre tends to be much more collaborative than music; three, or four, or seven people at most are needed to form a band, but in some cases the CAST for a show is going to exceed that number. Plus, there's a fairly limited pool of good stage managers, designers and technicians, and it's essential to the health of the community that they circulate between companies. And then there's all the barter that goes on: your company loans me some costumes, and I loan you some props in return, yadda-yadda.

The environment in which fringe-level theatre takes place simply couldn't support a purely competitive, Darwinian model; without some level of self-serving altruistic symbiosis, none of the fringe would survive. We may just be the scrappy little mammals scurrying beneath the feet of the giant, plodding dinosaurs, but at least those dinosaurs will provide much needed cover when the Big One hits, not to mention a few tasty morsel that occasionally fall to ground from their ravenous, gaping maws.

So, really, don't knock the dinos too much; they come in handy sometimes.

Another thing to consider: the fringe has always shared the DIY ethic of the punk and later grunge scenes; it's really no surprise to anyone who's been around for any length of time, that Seattle simultaneously developed a rep as a hot fringe-theatre town at the same time the music scene was garnering similar attention. There was in fact a fair amount of cross-pollenization going on between the two in the late '80's and early '90's. And that "punk" ethic still drives much of the fringe to this day.

Annex, the theatre of which I've been a company member for more than 20 years operates as an anarcho-collectivist ensemble: the people who show up to the meetings make the decisions, and everything, from selection of programming, to who will be artistic director, to who's going to dump the garbage that week are made on a consensus basis. We operate on the narrowest of margins: the production budget for the show I just directed was a whopping $300, but I had an incredibly talented team of young, eager, creative designers and technicians who have done some truly incredible things with that small amount of cash - and in fact, I don't think we even spent it all.

So, the real problem with your "up against the wall, mutherfucker!" attitude is simply that, for a lot of theatre practitioners in this town there is no "us versus them"; it's all "we": we work in those "establishment organizations", and while we may not always think what they do is great, or noble, or inspiring, or whatever, being there is what makes it possible to do all the punk-assed crazy shit we do at night.

And who knows? Maybe having a few of the punks running around the Halls of Establishment might even have a beneficial effect on them - there IS something to be said for "changing the system from the inside."

It's really only selling-out if you give in to the establishment ethic, and stop doing the radical shit on-the-side. After all, biting the hand that feeds you is a time-honored revolutionary practice!
156
Well, in that respect Lyam, there are no assurances about ANYTHING - scores of people die on the operating table every year because a trained, experienced surgeon or anesthesiologist bollocks-up the procedure; nothing is 100% guaranteed.

BUT, there IS an expectation that, if one has put in the additional time and training to get the advanced degree, or if one has performed a sufficient body of work at the professional level to qualify for an Equity card, that they WILL be better than the fringe actor coming straight off a general studies undergrad program. If they're NOT, they're either not going to land the role in the first place, because someone better, or more experienced will invariably beat them out of it, or if by some chance they DO, their deficiencies will be come readily apparent to an experienced director. And believe it or not, if an actor in an Equity production isn't cutting the mustard, they CAN be replaced.

So, the problem with the whole issue of subjectivity we've been bandying about here is that it's just that; subjective. YOU may think that actor in that Rep production sucks donkey balls, but the person next to you may not. And more to the point, the person who hired them, for whatever reason, also clearly disagrees with your assessment. So, maybe you take issue with the director's choice, but that calls into question the qualifications of the person who hired THEM, and so-on and so-on. At what point does one have to at least tacitly acknowledge that, one's opinion regarding the relative merits of a particular actor, or director, or playwright, or whomever - is simply a matter of personal taste, of opinion, and perhaps one not shared by others who are equally qualified to judge (as much as one can ever be), and who therefore have the right to express equally valid, if not completely contrary opinions to your own?

There are certainly plenty of people just in this discussion thread, who have taken umbrage with MY opinions, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong; just as I have to grant to them, if I respect them as practitioners, that some of their points may turn out to be RIGHT.

But, they're going to have to do one heck of a job of convincing me first, just as I imagine I would have to do the same to get them to change their respective opinions.
157
Heh, heh . . . I liked the "up against the wall!" flavor, but yeah. The one difference worth noting is that music, like cinema, can create a distributable product--a CD, cinema--whereas theater requires that the personnel in question (at least the actors, stage manager, and running technicians) to show up every night their product is to be consumed.

Also, I happen to like playing around in the canon. Shakespeare, Beckett, Brecht, and Artaud are, for me, proof that people have been COOL throughout history, that they understood that big ideas + sex + blood + whatever else you can come up with to fuck with the audience's collective senses = slam-bang entertainment AND enduring art years before we had a continuum from Throbbing Gristle to Sleepytime Gorilla Museum to re-acquaint us with that fact.
158
Chris, I don't think anyone "sucks balls"; what I find, rather, is that theater is theater, and the difference between shows at big houses and shows at little houses is usually a matter of special effects and tech support (the importance of which can't be underestimated).

Well, and patrons. Which is perhaps the MOST important thing of all.

Which, of course, is just my subjective opinion. But if we're admitting that the opinions we hold might just be our own, oughtn't we to admit that the vetting process is just a calcified, codified version of someone's subjective judgment? Yes, this is how canon is formed and traditions established; yes, this is how we build upon the knowledge of the past and avoid repeating mistakes. But I tend to think that having gone to school or put time in on equity productions says more about your capacity to deal with those systems than with your capacity to learn, the breadth or depth of your knowlege, and/or the quality of your work.

Do you think music professors decided that the Clash were worth remembering? Hell, did music professors OR the market canonize the Velvet Underground?

Which makes me think, if anything, that what fringe theater needs to do better is FIND its audience, and in THAT, we can learn from music. Because punk bands don't seem to have all that much trouble finding punk fans. There's an untapped audience for what we do, and we just need to figure out where they're hiding.
159
I'm really hoping to hear this same kind of spirited debate on Monday. This has certainly been one of the more interesting threads on the Stranger in quite some time.
160
"Calcified"? In what sense? The only people I've heard complaining about the vetting process, I mean REALLY complaining, are those who express frustration because the process doesn't grant them license to do the very thing the process is in-place to prevent, namely to exploit people who, by virtue of going through that process, have expressed the desire to NOT be exploited.

I certainly can't argue with the quest to find ones audience; that's the dilemma EVERY theatre, regardless of size, has to confront and overcome if they're going to be successful. And yeah, the punk shows do seem to fill up - at least so I hear, having not been to one in ages (live punk shows being a young person's millieu - I'm just too old to slam in the pit, or even stand in the back nowadays) but - and someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this - I don't think the "scene" is so large that it could support more than the two or three clubs and score of local bands who perform in them on a regular basis (out-town-touring bands factor into this of course, I'm well aware). After all, that's one of the advantages the music/club scene has over the theatre scene; there's always a new show the next night, so it's a lot easier to get the same people to show up two or three times a week.

*Sigh!* Things were sooooo much easier in the "olden times", when theatre's only real competition was bear-baiting or the occasional beheading, and all you had to worry about was The Plague, or a radical change in the religious beliefs of your rulers, or trying not to burn your theatre to the ground!

:)
161
I'm with Comte. I'm not down for a war. As much as he's simply wrong about the very small and simple point I've been trying to make, and as much as he can blather on and on and on with countless red herrings about "professional" versus "amateur" carefully avoiding it (it being that sometimes AEA folks WANT to work with for free to develop new work but can't here, but can in LA and New York, and not by asking ad hoc permission of some choke point local union don either) as much as all those things, if you come gunning for Comte, figuratively, literally, whatever, assume you're gonna have to go through me. And I won't be the only one either.
162
Yeah, and despite Paul failing to recognize the critical point that, the only reason AEA members in L.A. GET to "work for free" in theatre is because those same members have determined it MIGHT get them a SAG or AFTRA call from the TV & film casting agents who troll the 99-seat waiver houses like Johans on the Reeperbahn,
I'll be watching his six o'clock just the same.

I may vehemently disagree with him, but that doesn't mean I don't TRUST and RESPECT him.
163
So, Paul, why did you decline membership in Dramatists Guild? I just joined.
164
Granted, yet another web site won't solve everything, but anybody have an example of a site that does theater listings and community reviews well?

Seems like that would be more useful than a shitty little blurb buried in the hooker ads in the Stranger.

I'll let you theat-re types figure the rest out.
165
www.seattleperforms.com
166
Kurt is coming back wheither you produce new plays or not.
167
Just for the record, I'm not "gunning" for anyone, and I came out against "war," if you'll recall. I will continue to see everyone's shows here, big house or little junk shop, as I can afford. I like the push and pull between canon and iconoclasm, large and small, mainstream (for lack of a less tiresome and reductive word) and fringe (ditto).

I say "calcified" simply because I mistrust institutions reflexively, and so use "codified" and "calcified" almost interchangeably. My concern is that, as currently run, the vetting process in question keeps actors who seek professional status as defined away from the junk-shop aesthetics that, for me (lest I be accused of laying down maxims) are simply more interesting. And again, I'm not against it happening or existing; I'm only suggesting that we not take it too seriously. I'm hard-pressed to think of an art-form where the "vetted" are responsible for innovation (though, to be fair, it is often the vetted who finally bring those innovations to a mainstream audience). I can't speak for anyone else, but for my part, it's not so much that I wish I could "exploit" those actors who have taken that path; it's usually just a desire to work with actors I already know, trust, and have worked with, only to discover that they've become unavailable.

There may not be a practical fix, but then, I'm not making a practical point. I don't think its possible (or even desirable) to make every play a premier, either, but if we're talking about points of departure for what we'd like to fix, well . . . here we are.

I don't really go to punk shows per se; it's easier to type "punk" than bore you with the hyphens and hybrids that make up my CD collection. But here, in my 30s, I do still like music that makes my fillings rattle. I don't know if that means I'm young, arrested in my development, or simply suffering from some sort of pathology. Ask me in another 10 years. :) But a quick thought on that--yes, having a different band playing every night makes a difference, and having a distributable product like a CD helps you shore up that audience. But then, an audience for any one night at Neumos could fill a whole run at most fringe houses in town. I'd like to know how we find people with THAT level of specialized interest. Is that something the press facilitates? Or our marketing departments?

168
Also for the record - This has been fun, and fun is the only reason I jumped in to begin with. I'm actually quite pleased that we in the theater are all doing what we're doing, and I hope we remember that the REAL goal is to do it more, do it better, and do it for more people.
169
COMTE - independent artists of all types have slacker jobs. Working administration at a big dinosaur of a theatre can be a perfectly legit slacker job, but it oughta be treated as a slacker job.

The dinosaurs are not gonna sheltering us from "the big one" that might hit someday, they ARE "the big one" slowly sapping the life out of our art. If we're passionate about this art, then we oughta be PISSED to see it sucked dry and fucked up by dinosaurs.

We need to start looking at this as an "us or them" relationship. We need to forgo borrowing the scraps from their props department in favor of retaining the actors they lure out of our companies with empty promises of "hitting it big".

Thelymhound - That difference between music and theatre is becoming less and less relevant. We've left the age of mechanical reproduction, and in the age of virtual reproduction (where recordings can be mass produced by anyone at no cost) CD's aren't going to be profitable anymore. If you look at the indie rock community, the emphasis is shifting to live performance.

This is an oportunity for saavy theatre artists to drop our association with dinosaurs and dead playwrights and build associations with these other much more exciting and growing communities.

And COMTE, you're wrong about selling out. "It's really only selling-out if you give in to the establishment ethic, and stop doing the radical shit on-the-side."

Our future lies in making our radical work our focus and center and relegating our slacker jobs with the dinosaurs to "shit on-the-side". Anything less than that is selling out.
170
Well, for everyone using a pseudonym, I can only take what you say so seriously. In a recent private email to Kiley, I pointed out that contrary to the literary world there is no strong tradition of acting/writing anonymously or even pseudonymously in the theatre. (AND do NOT start in on the Shakespeare/Bacon thing.) Comte, Kiley and I have all been going at it hammer and tongs here, and staking our names on it. If you can't bring your name and reputation to the table, I'm not sure how far you're going to be able to take your "revolution."
171
My psydonym is Rex Winsome, google it and you'll find all my shit's on the table. My blog is rwinsome.blogspot.com, my theatre company is Insurgent Theatre, our website is insurgenttheatre.org my real name is Ben Turk. We're currently based out of Milwaukee Wisconsin, but are hoping to be performing in a basement, blackbox, or dive bar in your neck of the woods (every neck of every woods) within the next 12 months.

Now, let's stop talking about me, and start talking about a revolution.
172
Well, everyone has their own definition of "selling out", Rex; some of the people who've been involved in this discussion would probably consider attaining professional status as "selling out"; others would probably suggest compromising ones values - whatever they may be - in exchange for "filthy lucre" as such.

But regardless, at some point EVERYBODY becomes a sell-out in somebody else's eyes, as the line that proscribes ones beliefs is tightened by attempting to achieve an ever-restrictive adherence to some increasingly unattainable definition of "ideological purity".

So, really, it's not wrong, it's just different, keep that in mind.
173
Yes, we can't really know if ANYTHING is ever 'wrong' or 'right' our lives are frought with inescapable uncertainty, blah blah blah. But, we (not just me, everyone) use words like "wrong" as shorthand for "i have a different understanding than you about the concept of ____" See how "wrong" is shorter and more direct? More practical and useful?

I'm not interested ideological purity. But if we consider every assessment as equally valid because we can't know anything FOR SURE, then there's no point in ever speaking at all.

I'm interested in getting something done. if radical theatre is only something that we piddle around with on the side, or read about in class and romanticize, or occasionally visit like a tourist at an exotic locale, then shit isn't going to get done, and your more inclusive understanding of "selling out" is not valid or useful.
174
Funny, in my dictionary, "wrong" is shorthand for "factually incorrect"...
175
My name's actually in my moniker--Lyam is short for "lyam-hound" in the original Welsh. I'm not hiding anything; I just like the tag.

Also, I'm not concerned with revolution; I'm interested in EVolution, and I don't think anything needs to be left out of it or behind it for not being "radical" enough. What concerns me is audiences who reflexively cringe at the first whiff of transgression, the willingness of (some) larger organizations to cater to such audiences, and OUR failure to find that other audience, and/or to find mechanisms for expanding that audience, and/or to find ways for growing our endeavors into something bigger.

I don't see much utility in the concept of "selling out"; presumably, we all want to SELL, even if we insist on doing so on our own terms. What interests me is that musicians operating on the cheap and outside the mainstream appear to have SOME avenues for experiencing mainstream success, while one can only "graduate" from fringe theater by refusing to, well, do fringe theater anymore (or radically changing the capacity in which they do so, i.e., going Equity as an actor and directing or producing on the fringe). It's not that I think there's something immoral about this, or that it isn't a valid lifesyle choice (or even a valid aesthetic choice, since, by all means, people who want to see Neil Simon should be able to, and the people who want to do it for them should feel similarly at liberty). What bothers me is that when we get defensive about words like "professional", when we place too much faith in processes of "vetting", we essentially imply (and please correct me if I'm wrong; I'd actually LOVE to be wrong on this) that giving up the freedom to do non-mainstream theater is a sign of maturity and/or an indication of "seriousness" as an artist.

I'd really just love for there to be a market for crashing, dissonant theater the way there's a market for crashing, dissonant music. Maybe it's a fantasy. Or . . . Maybe there's something WE can do to make that happen, and maybe this discussion is part of that.
176
Hello. I was excited to pull up this page and find that the discussion is still going on. I have read everything you’ve said. You* amaze me with your passion, your dedication and your intellect. Having said that, I am writing to represent some groups that haven’t had much play in this blog – I am the audience. Without me, you have no theatre. I am an essential part of the equation. In the best theatre I feel like I am part of the production and I love every magical minute of it. In the worst theatre, I feel ignored, put upon and dismissed.
I also represent another group – I am one of the last of the baby boomers. For better or worse, (not the best time to be bringing this up) we are running the country and we are the “pockets” for which you are competing. You need to make theatre that is relevant to me and my tribe. How many shows here in Seattle have characters 40 and older? Are you talking about issues that are relevant to me? I like my theatre like I like my music – golden oldies mixed in with new stuff.
Theatre in Seattle during my stay (15 blessed years) has taken me to great highs and lows. I have seen some of the most amazing theatre here. However you have hurt me deeply when you made me love you and then you dissolve into nothingness when the money runs out.
I am attending on Monday night because you need our help and support. If we are not part of the solution, the problems will continue. You must let us in. You cannot continue to treat your theatre groups and troupes like special clubs that require hazing and special handshakes. You must stop treating us like we don’t “get” you. Theatre belongs to all of us. You need us. We need you. Let us help.
I too will use my real name. I am the director that gave Paul Mullin his first acting role as the drummer boy in the family Christmas pageant.

P.S. Can we stop the character assassinations, especially on Brendan? I would like to think that we are all playing on the same team.
*please note that “you” in this context refers to all of you who have written in the blog.
177
Margaret brings up some great points. Theatre's strength relative to film and television is in it's visceral connection with the audience. Most Establishment theatre acts like we're still living in a pre-film world, ignoring this audience interaction advantage. Pre-film theatre traditions are designed to keep the audience passive, uninvolved, even captive, silenced and invisible.

These traditions also serve a demographic that is older than margaret (in terms of age or mentality) people who want theatre to be the status symbol of an exclusive club. These people have to be let go, immediately, because they demand the exclusion of everyone else.

The future of theatre needs to reject the traditions that enforce the old style and purposes. There are a few very simple things to do on a night of performance to make this happen. Mingle with the audience before, during intermission, and after the show. Perform on the same level as the audience. Keep the house lights on. Look at the audience and subtly react to them when performing (preferably without derailing the show). Let people unwrap candies and crack beers during the show. Let people come and go as they please. If you're doing compelling theatre, giving the audience these freedoms will not result in side conversations, cell phone chatting or other disrespectful behavoir (at least not amung the 16-25 year olds we typically perform for). It'll take some actors a little while to get used to these distractions, but performing under such circumstances is not impossible. I just did it last night.

Having a crowd of over 50 to 100 people (depending on the show and the venue) at this kind of show might be impossible, but far as i'm concerned, if our costs are low enough, we don't need more than that on any given night.
178
on the subject of number 4) Get 'em Young: Seattle Children's Theatre works their butts off to bring new young audiences to the Theatre and consistently produces many wonderful original works for younger audiences. On top of that they also do shows such as last years High School Musical to attract new audiences to live theater that normally wouldn't come to see a show with out the Disney name. Audiences who then come back for this seasons "A Tale of Two Cities" or "Good Night Moon". Here is The Stranger's review of that show.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=439291
I mean, this is just silly. Lets be real here.
I like that with this "Ten Things" article you are provoking the Seattle Theater Community to be stronger and smarter and work harder, but it would be nice if The Strangers reviews echoed the same points and values you are making here.
179
I just moved to Seattle from Chicago, where I majored in theater at Northwestern (not as an actor, not that it matters). I'm currently not working in theater, for many reasons, primarily financial.

I never felt like learning about the range of Chicago theater was difficult, perhaps because I was in the loop as a professional-in-training. Now that I've stepped outside of that inner circle, I find myself in a new city where I have no idea where to start finding quality theater.

I agree with the posters who have said there needs to be some sort of a review outlet. If there is one, online or in print, it's certainly hard to find. Whoever said there should be a Yelp for Seattle theater was genius. I can find a good Vietnamese restaurant near my house WAY faster than I can find out if that intriguingly-titled play downtown is worth $30. Browsing listings is like browsing a used book store-- you might find something incredible in an unknown title, or it might be complete crap. Problem is, paperbacks cost under five bucks and do not require too much of a time investment if they're awful.

Besides reading company's websites, which always glow in adoration of their own work, where can someone trying to figure out the scene read reviews?

Not to mention-- if someone as interested in finding good theater as I am gets lost, what happens to the average person?

Here I am. I'm 22, prime target age. Hell, I have friends who trust me for theater recommendations. I want to give people my money but don't have enough of it to waste. Show me where I can learn about Seattle theater, so I can get my butt in a seat. Please.
180
here's a crazy idea for you to try, Brendan- stop recommending shows (W.E.T., Streetcar) before you actually see them.
181
YAY LIZ!
182
Run more theatrical reviews, Stranger! It's a dying art! I know that you are a Seattle paper, but theatre happens in colleges, in bars, in bedrooms, in the park, in big venues, and even in Kirkland! We in Seattle are known for our Fringe and for our theatre, but you wouldn't know that if you only read The Stranger.

That being said, I am forwarding this to every artist I work with...
183
Ionash- write reviews yourself, post em on a blog. Get your friends to start reading and writing them. Soon enough you'll start getting trustworthy reccomendations of shows to see. You might even get comps if you promise a review.

Don't like the media? become the media.
184
Childcare/theatre games at plays.. brillant.. and it would also make the world a better place full of happier children (or at least kids who enjoy a good improv). As a not nouveuriche adult with children, childcare can actually double the price of the tickets- making it more expensive to go, and less of that expense going to fund theatres.
186
I agree with the plucky spirit of this piece but question some of the advice. Many of the ideas sound good until you think them down to earth. For example, the child care idea sounds brilliant until you remember what a litigious world we live in. Any venue providing child care may open itself up to tremendous liability. No struggling arts organization barely keeping the lights on should beg for trouble with more bad advice as in Point #4 re: alcohol, "...liquor laws in your way? Change them or ignore them." Fortunately, it's not that hard to get a license to sell beer and wine and be legit. Also, an attitude like "Expect poverty" only perpetuates an innate lack of self-respect for artists. You might get some of the people some of the time to pledge their allegiance to the good work of a theater in a community, but good will also means consistently paying people for their time, even if you can only pay them a small stipend. Asking a whole company to drink this columnist's Kool-Aid with the self-loathing attitude of "expect poverty" sounds cultish to me.
187
w/r/t: cultish

Well-called, Auntie K
188
I'm a theater critic in Texas. This column has it 100 percent right on. You can't see me from there, but I'm giving this writer a standing O.

No. Mo. Shakespeare!
189
I think he has a point.... to a certain extent.
190
Shame on you. These are hardworking people, people with families and bills, just like everyone else. People who work 90+ hour weeks, and multiple jobs, to just make minimum wage. They deserve a living wage. They deserve to be treated as professionals. They deserve not to have their honest, hard work mocked and patronized by someone who thinks that the entertainment industry is comprised of people selfishly indulging in their hobbies or bloated senses of self-importance. How insulting. We all can't be doctors, lawyers, and administrative assistants. Get off your high horse and show some support your community.
191
First of all, to say that someone who has talent and should not have a living wage for it, regardless of whether or not it is a seemingly petty or common talent (cough*ranting writers*cough) goes against the entire idea of, um, working. Is it right for anyone to make a living wage for doing something that everyone else can easily do or be well compensated for a job that is done poorly? Hell no. There is a reason why people get fired or not hired back.

I honestly have no idea where you're getting your information from regarding quite a few items. For example, M.F.A. theatre programs (and yes, there are ones aside from acting, directing, and dramaturgy, did you know that?) these days, in order to be a professor for even undergraduate theatre programs, or at least the bigger-named players, one has to be a current contributing member of the theatrical community. That means even publishing a certain amount of items in a certain amount of years, going to conferences, having so many designs, accolades, accreditations (which have their own requirements, of course), etc. That's actually a complaint of some students – that the professors are off doing too many of their own shows and having their own careers so much so that they aren't teaching as frequently as would be preferred. On top of that, if students go to certain schools, professors have worked on Broadway and other top theatres and tours all over the world. Also, Equity actors can actually work in non-Equity houses -- it just takes some negotiating. A trip around the AEA website would have shown that. I'm not even an actor and I found that information within 5 minutes. With all due respect, Mr. Kiley, you do know how to report the news first and foremost, don't you? I thought they taught that in high school journalism classes, or at least they did in mine. No degree required.

What all cities need to do to in order to prevent the "haves" from taking over the trendy artist neighborhoods is to have rent-controlled areas, buildings, individual apartments – whatever -- for artists who are actually producing work. Tax deduction records will easily show whether Sally Sculptor really sells her work, thereby contributing to the community, or merely dabbles with it in her free time. Whatever hobbyist artist the income-earning artist chooses to have on her lease is then her own business.

The childcare idea isn't a bad one and some company should test the waters. However, also realize that perhaps some parents like the idea of going to the theatre so that they can have a nice child-free date night with a nice dinner prepared by someone else accompanied by a nice bottle of wine. And I've got news for you: if people really do want to do something, they'll find a way to do it and will splurge on a babysitter for an evening if they have to. The parents also need to step up and ask that theatres to have a babysitting service. If theatres see that they can make that much more money off of all of the parents, then why wouldn't the theatres comply? Money coming in = the theatre stays put. The theatres in turn could offer cheaper tickets to parents who enroll their child/ren in an evening with the theatre babysitter (less than the cost of the full-price ticket/s and the babsysitter's rate, obviously). It's a win-win for everyone involved. Or maybe theatres could have a Baby or Youngster Night. Whatever. There are plenty of options -- the goal is to find a realistic one. They do exist if you try to come up with them.

In general, please do not mislead the public with your own uninformed opinions and please also attempt to offer actual solutions. Saying things such as "produce dirty, fast, and often" would, for example, only saturate the market and lower the overall quality and standards of theatre. Who in their right minds and shrinking wallets would be willing to pay to see trainwreck after trainwreck after trainwreck after trainwreck? Instead, we all need to let theatre OWNERS and PRODUCERS know what you want (believe it or not, the actors don't pick which shows the theatres perform -- they just do what they enjoy and accept a paycheck like everyone else) and how badly you want it and they will have only one option: to comply.
192
Radically Realistic:
I just had to post [ Hulk. Smash. Stupidness]. I am a theatre producer, owner of a production company, and also one of those *ranting writer*s you’re insulting. While accusing Mr. Kiley of skipping journalism classes and somehow not offering solutions (uhm, check the title of his piece??), you forgot how to even read. Oops!
He does NOT say that AEA talent cannot work non-union houses. He said, in #2, "fringe theatres are … the place where new work happens—but most of them can't afford to go union, so union actors are stuck in the regional theaters, which are skittish about new work... ". Yeah- can't afford: no joke. Oh, and I’m not even an actor either, and I found THAT in 2 seconds – in the same article to which you were responding.
Epic. Fail.

The point is unions need to do more than arrange a 'possibility' of cross-mingling: they have to evolve to help not just their dues-payers, but help the industry that provides those dues/paychecks; allow more new work exposure to more union talent (and vice versa). ‘Separate but equal’ don't work. The increase Kiley suggests in shows/scripts = more good work out in the world = more work for all of us AND happy audiences. It's one of those 'win-win' things. And it was clear as day. Oy!

Ok, since I'm responding -next: Have you seen a fringe festival? THOUSANDS are willing, worldwide, to watch/pay for trainwreck after trainwreck. [ see also: Hollywood films, pulp publishing, post-Dark-Knight-Returns-works by Frank Miller, American politics… ] Because occasionally these things yield a few nuggets o' gold.
'Lower the overall quality and standards of theatre' is a separate function (usually of bad design, directing & acting), and has nearly nothing to do with the programming of a season. The standards of theatre, by the way, clearly need changing, otherwise natural selection will kill theatre where it stands. Saturating a market? That seems about as worrisome as pouring a gallon or two of water on the Sahara in this case. Saturate away. Plenty of theatres are shrinking seasons and they are also crap, so increasing programming is no proof of crap, lower standards, nor what will generate income. Kiley even gives an example: and Annex did not oversaturate the market nor die out from trainwrecks. Audiences are brave; they don’t fear the occasional trainwreck, just like some folks like a good rollercoaster or horror movie or Mariners game.
Those theatre folk stuck in old thinking, the 'realistic' or defensive "But we caaaaaann't... that's tooo harrrrrd" arguments, like yours and a dozen others here, are contributing to the momentum of the problem, not the solution. Grow legs and Evolve already. Be audacious & sanguine. Drop your excuses -pretend none of them exist (odds are you need to examine why you're making excuses). Pretend that theatre could be anything you want. Act like a grownup who wants success, not someone who fears change. Create a new paradigm.

I take Kiley's comment about MFA’s, (though unnecessarily acerbic toward a teaching community perhaps only half-dysfunctional), to really be directed to the fact that most celebrated theatre luminaries were no less shiny before grad school than after.. it isn't often skill or education that separates grad school theatre successes from non-schooled, it's 5-digit debt. But if you're lucky enough to have money to blow, have a fabulous time.
Learning from 'working' artists does not = able to learn to be great. In fact, some of us, when we were in school complaining about teachers always doing shows, were actually lamenting the fact that these accoladed 'professors' can be quite incompetent at the science/art of teaching, and would have made much better ‘guest artists’ than professors. American colleges could use more balance, and less ‘accredited, conference-going contributors to the field’ in theatre departments and replace their sorry parttime asses with better experimenters, innovators and educators.
One more thought about Brendan’s #10 & 9: Lending $40K of mid-to-high interest credit/debt for a degree (seriously, look into the list price for tuition at SPU, Cornish, and others) to then make $8 to $15/hour, part-time & seasonally, for the following several decades? Doesn’t seem any more ethical than sub-prime loans or kicking a sick puppy. We have enough theatres in town to offer plenty of hands-on education. I think loaning money for these pricey degrees should be criminalized.

Otherwise, yes; the free market should help determine if we get a living wage or not. Yes, a baby night, ala Reel Mom's is totally in order. A new business model for artist housing is overdue. Audience surveys must be utilized as often as possible (hell, even my car dealer calls me after a $20 oil change to make sure there isn't anything different he needs to do or any other way he can serve me). And there's at least a dozen other things that should change too.
But for fuck's sake, read the article and don't 'mislead the public with YOUR uninformed opinions'. Then read it again, between the lines - like designers, directors, actors, playwirghts, et al, do.
193
offs - SP: playwrights.
194
Educational institutions and houses that seat under 400 do indeed have to pay royalties. You're just incorrect about that, Will.

About theatre education: There are a large number of people who work unpaid in fringe theatres whose day jobs are teaching in university theatre departments-- myself included. We're not all has-beens or never-wases-- there are plenty of us doing the work right now. My own company specializes in new plays by emerging playwrights-- precisely what you think we should be doing-- yet you would have people believe that I'm a worthless prat because I teach at a university.
195
Unions are what have made professional theatre possible in the 20th Century in the US. Without them and the living wage and minimum benefits negotiated, we'd all be watching plays in Aunt Millie's front room, underscored by her piano accompaniment. The intermission cookies would be decent, though.
196
Wow, Kev. That's a fancy union card you have on that lanyard there.

Holy shit, it's laminated, too?
Dayum, fanboy!

a) some of us have left the 20th century behind - look into it.
b) Pro theatre existed way before unions, outside of unions, and will surivive well past
c) Millie plays a mean set of keys, no matter the venue. Respect.
d) perhaps 20th century american, union-possible, minimum-bennies theatre isn't what we should strive for? *horries!*
197
Two (very late) cents:

- Only one person (that I spotted) brought this up, but: most people working in theatre are terrible with money, accounting, finance, etc. They don't have to be I-Bankers, but if you have any competent experience with this, walking into production meetings and administrative offices as I have is mad frightening.

Ditto with other "simple skills" that aren't strictly necessary but debilitating in absence: technology (most theatre folks I worked with still struggle with Office) and organization. There are exceptions, obviously, but in my time as an actor it hurt to see us struggling for money and have it leaking out from so many efficiencies (and makes the entitlement arguments so much less credible).

- This has been beaten to death, but stop blaming critics. The Stranger is harsh, crude, and self-loving, but it is 30% of what most audiences are thinking in their heads watching the same performance. Don't blame them for publishing their honest opinion when you delude yourself into pretending "real people" are much kinder "in real life." No, they aren't.

- Everyone deserves a chance at a living wage, and that is exactly what standard jobs are for (the kind my illiterate great-grandfather did to get his first house shortly after immigrating). But if I drop my job at McDonalds to manufacture specialty costumes for emperor penguins, do I deserve a living wage? No, because there is no need in society for emperor penguin costumes. Society tells me this by not buying them.

Similarly, when you become an actor you risk society deeming you as worthy of its dollars and attention as a penguin-costumer. This isn't kindergarden, this isn't GWB presidency: you are rewarded for your RESULTS, not your effort or ideology.

Sadly, we don't go out and pay for theatre as much as we used to (and should). This is a risk theatre artists take.
198
um.some of you must have your heads up your asses or you don’t actually do any theatre in the professional world. brendan kiley’s comments are not researched and have no basis whatsoever in reality. get a clue. he doesn’t think people should be paid a living wage for their talent? WTF? okay, i will make sure to tell my plumber that the next time he fixes my kitchen sink.

Unions are going to bring theatre down???? yes, i am sure he’s right. I mean, Actor’s Equity has only been around since 1919. what a fuck wad.
199
couldn t agree more with all your aforementioned ideas about theater.
you forgot to mention overfocussing on Aristotle (who wrote as response not ant prescriptive dogma)
200
read read alot alot of the comments
all these souls need to put all this energy into theater productions and stage them
EVERYWHERE!
Protest all over
not just kvetch and not think about tired old plays written in cause to effect linear narrative ways
YOUNGER PEOPLE face a devalued languagethey communicate intuitively and instinctively withmany many interruptions
these are the post-cyber wellpost-mtv impatient ones
theater is not nor will it be even what it was 5 yeaRS AGO
IT S NOT WORTH BICKERING ABOUT
SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT
A third world psychehas infiltrated our sad superannuated economy
the Chines will disassemble our alphabet
201
"Find new, good, weird plays nobody has heard of. Teach your audiences to want surprises, not pacifiers."

Oh, really? You try doing new, good weird plays nobody has heard of in a community theater and see what kind of audience you get, zero!
202
SG: that reads alot like
a) your audience doesn't trust you / the producer [ evidence: several 'community theatres' have a faithful following that will put up with a little weird once/year because they are loyal to the talent/quality of the season].
or
b) you're being blind to your market/venue - if you need edgier theatre, get into the city (or away from community theatre) where there are edgier people.
203
As an actor, possibly one of the last things I want to happen is to be booed and jeered while on stage WORKING. Especially to an audience that showed up an hour earlier to get liquored up, as suggested. Most drunk audience members won't have the wherewithal to discern if the acting is bad, or if it's the directing or the writing, before they start throwing the veg like in the Bard's days.

Now, granted, SOME shows encourage such interaction, and so be it. But there's already too many instances of theatre audiences behaving like they're in their living rooms.

Something a playwright friend of mine suggested years ago that I actually think is quite brilliant and will encourage better work, is if audiences can leave, during the show at any time if the work doesn't draw them in. They go to the box office and get a refund based on when they leave. If the show's bad, you'll know RIGHT AWAY. (I do acknowledge that this idea is of a similar nature to booing and heckling, maybe just more passive-aggressive.)

Brendan, feel free to disagree, just know that I may show up at your office and boo you while you work should you write anything that sucks.
204
NY actor here. Ask me and I say there is a valid reason to be doing and re doing Shakespeare. Simply put, the work is the best. Not meaning to take anything away from contemporary playwrights but some of this new crap is sickening. Anything merit worthy should be produced over and over. Be it Mamet, Letts, Williams. August Wilson!!! If it's good it's good. Stop looking for ways to promote mediocrity. Some of these weird playwrights could use an 'MFA' to get some structure to their work! And we wonder why theater audiences are diminishing! But back to Shakespeare, any real actor will agree that remounting of a good production you happen to be involved in HELPS YOU. And 'that' you cannot say about every writer. I was sent this link and had to get in on this but I am not a recurring here so if you want to comment on my comment hit me at briandcoats@gmail.com, I ain't scare of y'all. Haha.
205
A lot of great ideas, but I disagree with #2. I'm from Chicago and see a lot of theater, and the very worst experiences I've had in the theater were new works. I've seen world premieres of stunningly bad scripts at the most respected theaters in this town (Steppenwolf, Goodman) and tiny storefronts too. I see no reason for theaters to put crap plays into the world, and I see no way that the push for new works that you recommend could help but lower the bar. Practically any play ever published has life left in it; unlike television or film, the audience who has already seen a certain play is too small to be worried about, the vast majority of people haven't seen it. The only plays that are truly "over" are the ones successfully adapted to film. I'm willing to call "Streetcar" dead.
206
Will,
Perhaps you should review copyright laws and the fair use criteria our theaters in our country and our educational institutions have to obey.

Number of seats has nothing to do with whether you have to pay a royalty. Also, it being for educational purposes also does not preclude your from paying for the Dramatic rights or Royalties. Non-musicals can be produced for $75 per performance musicals are in the 150 -300 range per show. High school theatres usually are in the 500 to 700 seat range because the student body has to be able to attend assemblies in one day, so they are usually have the size of the student body.

As for new plays and such and plays with the age range close to the students, I agree, but even with Playscripts.com that caters to the high school scene, finding a play that is not a one gimmick play or teaches the students how to act and grow as performers is very difficult to do. The new plays are usually more expensive, also.

As for Greek, you try putting The Orestia or Medea in front of a group of today's adolescents and see if they will want to perform it. At least with Romeo and Juliet they can sword fight and connect to raging hormones making them do things they shouldn't do.

Kiley makes good points, but must realize that the regional system was designed to model after the rep. system in Britain and Canada. The Federal Theatre Project helped get them started and now they are institutions. Institutions don't change overnight. That is why they last. They endure through the old, rich people donating money to them because they believe in the art they produce. To say theaters need to change and produce all new work, is to doom theatre to theatre that only caters to the iPod generation that would rather watch Hulu than be engaged with a real discussion of human desire and pathos.

Shakespeare is still valid, so is Miller, and with a few exceptions the reason why their plays are produced more than new playwrights by Regional Theatres, is because they are better playwrights and their plays reveal things about the human condition that other playwrights have copied and continue to copy, period.
207
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All grand advice! Here's some more: do your plays in places which make their living otherwise--cafes, coffeehouses, bars, art galleries, churches, schools--so that your show's success or failure is not crucial.
If you want to see 59 Picture Pages about the Caffe Cino, where it all began, they start at
http://caffecino.wordpress.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
208
Some valid points, but I'm sick of smack talk, and The Stranger is so bratty. You pooped your diaper-- congratulations. Number 9 upsets me. A society that pays artists a living wage is a goal to shoot for, however unrealistic at this time. #2 and #4 are right on the money. Again, overall, this is so soapbox-ey and random it makes me want to gag. Next time spend more than 20 minutes writing a piece like this. The world of theatre deserves more thoughtfulness and less petulance. From one attention whore to another.
209
Show me any fringe theatre that has a "rehearsal space" on site where they can hold babysitting/theatre games (and boy, does refereeing that mess sound like a riot!) during the show without ruining the show and I'll give up Shakespeare for 5 years. And if they DO have a rehearsal space besides the stage itself, don't you think it is probably being used for, um, REHEARSAL for the next exciting new
project--number 22 out of 27 this season! I am sure it is, since the actors don't deserve to get paid and they work during the day at Starbucks and they can only rehearse at night... unless they can't because of a conflict which you can't object to because you aren't paying them, after all. So let's see, we have 8 of our cast of 15 available tonight....which scene can we work on? What's that? The reheasal room is booked for babysitting? Oh yeah, I forgot. Let's go drink some alcohol cause that solves everything.

    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.