In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit burnt out on talking about theater - I'll be leading a panel on human rights, militarism, and "Plan Mexico" at the February 22 No Passport Conference at CUNY (no theater talk in sight), and I haven't even been able to muster my promised post on why I don't think Charles Isherwood is worth blogging about anymore. It's not that I'm not keeping busy, doing mostly performing-arts related things, even. I did an audition demo for a radio play show on WFMU with Karinne Keithley, Danny Manley, and Jenny Seastone-Stern, I'm still juggling three commissions, I'm going to the Colorado New Play Summit next week, and doing the Composer-Librettist Studio at New Dramatists the week after that. Yes, some things are frustrating, even infuriating, including career things that are too delicate to blog about, but some good stuff is on the horizon, and look: I've got bigger issues to be worried about at the moment, like both the planet and the economy fucking melting. Hopefully we'll come out of this crisis with some more arts funding and better journalism, but I'd like to just get through the next year or so first.
Oh, also, Lorraine finally agreed to cancel the NYT during the week, which spares me a lot of agita (I actually kind of look forward to the Magazine and the Book Review, but I've taken to just skimming the front page and avoiding the arts section altogether, a strategy that has probably added as many years to my life as quitting smoking).
So what was I talking about again? Oh, yes. So, in my relative absence, it is with apologies that I belatedly respond to Scott Walters' post responding to John Moore's Denver Post article on the Colorado New Play Summit. I'd encourage you to read both of their pieces, if for no other reason than I'm likely to dwell on the fact that 1001 outsold King Lear 85 percent capacity to 81 (Lear is tied with Maria Irene Fornes' Mud for my favorite play, but that fact still makes me feel like the New York Giants for a few fleeting seconds). But anyway, Scott points out that, given our relative success with 1001, producing new plays is a no-brainer; audiences in mid-sized but growing American cities like Denver are hungry for new work and more likely to see it than they are to see Shakespeare. Right?
Well, I hope that's the case, but unfortunately my experience hasn't borne that out. There are plenty of terrific people supporting new work (not least the nonprofit and commercial theaters and producers who have supported 1001 - thanks, P73), but generally speaking, the unraveling of arts funding and the regional theater system - combined with the ascendancy of the MFA program (which I half-think is a scam) and the explosion of new talent (which does in fact exist, whether because of MFA programs or in spite of them) has turned American theater generally into a sort of Hollywood without money and with a few weird leftover bureaucratic imperatives. It reminds me of Nora Ephron's quote that every movie should begin with a title card stating that everyone in Hollywood did everything they could to stop it from being made. That status quo makes little sense for a profit-driven but uncertain industry like Hollywood, and none at all for theater.
Lest I seem ungracious, I'm trying to say that the circumstances that made, and are making, Denver so successful at producing new plays are unique to that institution. Everyone in that city, from Kent Thompson and Bruce Sevy, to their brilliant publicist Chris Wiger, to the kids in the conservatory program, to the local papers, to the subscriber audience were rooting for 1001 and the New Play Summit generally. They have a ton of money and they wanted this to work, and these qualities together are a rare combination in this day and age; there are far more reasons to defer new play production than there are to actually produce. I'm not making excuses, but reporting on my own experience; the shifting explanations for why 1001 has been turned down are positively Bushian in their attempts to dodge reality. That is to say, I have been told (pre-Denver) that 1001 will never work because regional audiences will never get it, and then, post-Denver, told (by some of the same people) that it will never work in New York, and Denver audiences only liked it because they're so unsophisticated. I get it when a theater tells me that they don't like the play, or that they don't have the money to produce the play, but the rhetorical contortions are pretty aggravating and leave me scratching my head. Do they think that anyone believes them? Anyway, it sounds like I'm complaining, but I'm not; I have been lucky in that I've found plenty of people who believe in the play, in Denver, New York, and elsewhere. My point is, without healthy arts funding, or with the fate of an arts institution tied into sponsorship and underwriting, there are the same disincentives to take risks as one sees in the entertainment industry generally. I would love it if every theater in the USA had the combination of resources, intelligence, and courage that DCPA has, but until that day...
The other question I have is when, exactly, the New Play Summit is going to get the national recognition it deserves. It really should be held up as a model, but given the typically gelatinous pace of theater journalism (or, for that matter, theater), it probably won't be until a decade or two and a half a dozen hits have passed, and some 3-D video blogger is calling me an old fart and complaining about how it's ossified. Or I myself am complaining on a 3-D video blog about how I'm still "emerging" even though I'm 70 years old and a cyborg.
And speaking of exciting youngsters! Check out Toby Ring Thelin's Theater Knights & Days. He's an energetic and independent young man who sees everything and has great taste.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Hi, Jason! What's interesting about your post is that the focus shifts from the audience, which is what I was writing about by citing the attendance numbers, to the producers who fully committed to your play or, on the other hand, those who told you why your play can't be successful elsewhere. And for me, that shift tells the story. Those who produce theatre have many, many preconceptions (including the "unsophisticated" excuse about Denver, which is patently offensive) that are leading them to discount the evidence illustrated by your play's success: that audiences tend to like seeing something new.
Let's extend this scenario just a bit. What would happen if the Denver Center Theatre decided to commit to producing your work on a long-term basis? It seems to me that the next time they did a Jason Grote play, all those people who saw 1001 would think, "Hey, I liked this guys previous play -- let's check out what he's up to now." Result: excellent attendance again. Now you've got a fan base. So, play number three: let's say it just stinks. Now what? Will all those audience members be back for play #4? Most of them will, I predict, because you have earned their trust with the first two plays, and they know sometimes even Tom Brady has a bad game.
Does this seem totally counter-intuitive to you? Because to me, it seems really obvious!
Thanks, Scott-
Indeed, you've called it. I don't think it's possible to fully predict how audiences will respond, and because theater is local, they vary wildly from region to region. But the issue as I see it is not just that theaters don't produce new work, but that, when they do, they tend to drop the ball in one way or another, which reinforces the notion that new work is too risky. Denver did everything right. And of course, smaller companies in NYC and throughout the US (many of which I've worked with, like Soho Rep, P73, Clubbed Thumb, Salvage Vanguard, HERE, Circle X, Boston Court, and Rorschach) are continuing to do excellent new work , but obviously their resources are more limited.
To respond to your other point, Denver (both the city and the theater) and I indeed continue to have a great relationship - DCPA has commissioned a play from me, which I'm currently researching, and (unlike many large institutional theaters), they expect a draft and intend to include it in a future Summit at the very least, and have right of first refusal re. producing it. Additionally, their theater critics continue to make very kind mentions of 1001 and I still get email from locals out there.
As usual, I haven't made things easy for myself - I've chosen to write a play about the Beat writers, a loaded and Denver-centric subject about which I'm deeply ambivalent for various reasons. But hopefully I'll bring my a-game.
It's worth adding that I agree with you about making theater more local, though there are thorny logistical issues that might be impossible to get around - like the wildly various ethnic makeup in different cities, for example, and the fact that so many things are clustered in specific cities. I know some playwrights who make a good living in Minneapolis, SF, or LA, but really it's tough to live anywhere but NY, Chicago, or London without falling off the map to some degree. Believe me, the moment I'm successful enough to leave NYC, I'll probably move to Portland.
That's an interesting phrase: falling off the map. What is the map of?
Let me ask you a question: if a theatre somewhere would pay you a reasonable salary -- say, something similar to a professor's salary at a state school -- if you would be their resident playwright, and they guaranteed they would produce every play you write, but you might also have to help out with other aspects of the theatre (say, help them create press releases or program notes), would you accept that offer?
jason,
I just came across your blog and I'm really enjoying what I'm reading. I went back to 2005, because I was curious about your context and am constantly wondering what it is like to keep a blog going for some time-- how interests, tone, focus shifts et cetera... I love the photos and the comics and the variety. And I loved getting turned onto other items of interest. Thank you. [I've been at the blogging thing for about 10 months now, I'm just learning to walk in baby-metaphor terms I guess.]
I was in a reading of your play Moloch in LA at Son of Semele and I'm auditioning for 1001 at the Court next week. I really lvoe your language.
Anyway, I'm exctied to find this. Thanks for sharing.
best,
adrienne
www.ColtCoeur.blogspot.com
Scott, what you describe sounds like a playwright's dream to me. Where is this theater and are they taking submissions?
On the other hand, is it a large theater? Is it likely that the play will go on to other large theaters afterwards? Because it's a perfect situation if the theater you mention is high profile. Even if it's not high profile, it's good, but if it is, then a life can be made of it and a career too.
Adam -- You just disqualified yourself from being in my version of the theatre I described. *L* I want a playwright (and directors and actors and designers) whose number one commitment is to our theatre and our community, not to using our theatre and our community as a stepping stone to fame and fortune. See my post yesterday called "Fear of Falling Off the Map." Not that I would stand in the way of a playwright getting additional productions of his play, just that such considerations are not going to be in my mind at all. In this model, you can't have it all -- you can't have security AND play the New York slot machine at the same time. And if you can't see yourself in that framework, then no matter how talented you are I don't want you connected to my regional theatre.
"I want a playwright (and directors and actors and designers) whose number one commitment is to our theatre and our community, not to using our theatre and our community as a stepping stone to fame and fortune."
Does this mean that the play (and the playwright) is subserviant to the desires of the specific local theatre you're speaking of?
Because it seems, by using a play by a talented playwright (such as Adam) that you're using HIS work as a stepping stone to your own brand of fame and fortune, are you not?
What you're saying is that your goals need to be the playwright's goals . . . however, just as you demonstrate a mistrust in a playwright's overall path for fame and fortune, some of us scribes have a similar distrust that some institutions and organizations have our best interests in mind.
The best experiences I've had, from companies who've produced my plays, came when there was a mutual goal of doing good work for the work itself.
A mutual appreciation, in other words, and respect.
Some of the bad experiences came from companies who claimed that their overall artistic goals were somehow greater and more important than anything I could comprehend - as if there was an artistic language spoken above and beyond anyone else has ever done before in theatre. Such places usually also took pains to explain to me what my play "really meant" and how the "creative process works" regardless of the fact I've been doing this over a decade.
Does it matter that Shepard got fame and fortune after having new work developed at the Magic, was that somehow a slap at that local theatre's work?
I'm a bit mystified that Adam's overall artistic goals being a bit different from yours somehow means he wrote a play unworthy of being produced.
I've been feeling bad about not having time to respond to all of these thoughtful comments (no computer time), but I'm happy to see that there's such a lively conversation going on. Talk amongst yourselves, and I'll be back to respond to you all soon, I promise.
Joshua -- It isn't that Adam's play isn't worth being produced, it is that Adam's interest in productions beyond our theatre's makes him less attractive as a resident playwright / company member. My hypothetical offer was to pay Adam a middle-class salary to serve as a company member in my theatre and commit himself to my theatre rather than his own career. In order to understand my viewpoint, you have to move away from the free agent mindset necessary to have a freelance career and instead think in terms of an ensemble. Let me make an analogy: if you are interviewing for a job in my software business and you tell me that your primary goal is to work for Microsoft, I am probably going to be reluctant to hire you for my start-up. Now, you may end up jumping to Microsoft later, but I want you to commit to me now and then it will be my job to make working for me more satisfying than working for Microsoft. But when I hire you, I want your complete attention and devotion.
I think your analogy is deeply flawed.
Playwrights, as creators of their own work and property, are the owners of it, not employees . . . they own it, therefore they're part of the ownership, they have the copyright.
Putting us in a position as employees, under you, makes us unequal - it gives you the power as the employer and robs the playwright of power, as employee who can be fired by you at anytime for, say thinking about having a play done at some other theatre that you don't approve of.
Right now, when someone does one of my plays, it's a work of mutual agreement - I'm an equal partner in the creative endevour.
We're equals in terms of the process, which to me, seems how it should be.
By your analogy, if Jason's play is done elsewhere or especially in New York, Denver should be done with him because he's "sold out to Microsoft".
Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be the case, and he's gone back there for more work.
So i don't see how your thing works for a playwright, I don't. It makes us subserviant to your needs rather than equals.
I don't see why I or anyone would want to work for you when right now I work for myself and with others as a free person on equal footing.
Joshua -- You would want to work with "me" (by which I mean our collective, of which you are an equal member) because I offer you a commitment: you will receive a regular, livable salary as part of the company, and a commitment from the company to give every play you create a full production. That's no small deal. As part of the deal, you should be concerned with creating work for the company that is committed to you. Think of Shakespeare: he owned a piece of the Globe (as a company member, so would you), and so he wrote his plays for the Globe and didn't shop them around. Now, after we did the first production, if there was another theatre that is interested in the play, that's cool, as long as the company shares in its success (you are "extending the earning capability of the tribe"). If the benefits my company offers are unattractive to you, you are not compelled to become part of the company -- we'll find somebody who thinks in a more company-based way.
You're the one using the employee metaphor, now you've abandoned it for a "theatre collective", so it's easy to be confused . . . you rejected Adam's query on the basis he wasn't qualified, which means someone's qualifying the applicants, and therefore someone's in charge and it's not a true collective, to my eye.
I mean, Scott there is no such thing as a famous playwright. So fame and fortune are not achievable goals for a playwright. And your hypothetical theater might be good for the meantime, but what about the future? What about if your theater folds? Do you have some sort of retirement as well?
Or let's say you are completely taking care of the playwright. He/she has enough money. I don't know about other playwrights but I also want my work to get seen. I want my words to be heard and my characters to breathe in many different bodies.
I didn't get in this to have my play on a big stage. I got in it because I was an actor on a small stage and I fell in love with theater. And i wanted to make theater and I wanted my plays to be done all over the country on tiny stages. But eventually I figured out that the only way to get it to the tiny stages was to first get it on the big stages. I wish that weren't the way it is, but that's how it is. (Not to say anything bad about big stages because I bet it's pretty fucking great to have a show on a big stage)
In any case, what I'm saying is one theater is not enough. One town is not enough. Do I want a home? Yes, very much. But that home should introduce my work into the world, not keep the world from seeing it.
Joshua -- I'm not going to quibble with you about analogies. I'm not going to get sidetracked into talking about details. You get what I'm talking about.
Adam -- This is going to sound brutal, and I really don't mean it to be, but your response is why you're really not cut out to be part of a theatre collective that is trying to work outside the system. At the risk of getting Joshua exercised about analogies, it's like marriage: you commit to one person, not to one person as a backup when you can't get laid across the country. Right now, playwrights are free agents -- they negotiate with whoever is willing to pony up the biggest or most prestigious bank. OK, that's one model. An alternate model might be Shakespeare or Moliere, who wrote for a company that they were part owners in. The Globe might have folded, and so might Moliere's troupe, but while it was going these playwrights were focused on the health and welfare of that company. That's the relationship I want with a resident playwright. Retirement? Sure, if the company makes that part of the priorities. Same with health insurance, or child care, or any other benefit that the group would find important. And then the group would have to figure out how to make that happen.
I know, it is a very foreign way to think about things, and that's why I suspect that established playwrights like you or Joshua would never fit into such a system. You've already internalized the current model, and are winning at it. More power to you -- that's not an easy gig, and if you can pull it off you get my fervent admiration. And I'm not blowing smoke. But me, I'm interested in going back to the future -- back to the organization of the commedia troupes, to Shakespeare and Moliere, when theatre artists were part of a company and not freelancers.
I get it, Scott, I simply think it's fraudulent. And if you don't wish for people to quibble with your analogies, just stop using ridiculous ones that contradict each other and what you claim to be saying.
For the record, I find what you're saying about Adam and what he wishes to work for to be both elitist and hypocritical.
I'll step out, Jason, before this devolves. Thanks for the discussion.
Joshua -- I have tried to be very respectful of Adam and his work. Adam, have I offended you? We're just talking about ways of doing business, and my perception is that Adam prefers one way and I prefer another. Is it necessary that we agree? Is it an insult to disagree? Seems civil to me. If I wanted to open an organic co-op and Adam wanted to open a grocery megastore, we would probably decide we shouldn't go into partnership together. Same here. Doesn't make me elitist -- we just don't want the same things. And that's cool, and I respect his decision.
Well, I wouldn't say i'm not cut out. I mean honestly I'd love to find a group of people to work with over and over. In a lot of ways i have done that. But yeah, writing for a group would be great.
A playwright should not be limited to a single theater. that's just not what it is to be a playwright. I hope that I do find a home-- a theater that will premiere my plays--like the Vineyard for Silver or like Steppenwolf in the day. But that doesn't mean it should end there.
And I'm all for new models, but I don't see how ignoring the theater in the rest of the country will help your theater. I think we should be more connected, not less.
The shakespeare model is an interesting one. Although that worked in his day. would it work today? Maybe. It was before TV. There were fewer theaters. I wish you luck, but i do think that total isolation from other theaters would be harmful.
On a side note, you may be interested to read A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599 by James Shapiro.
Before wading into this locality debate, a quick welcome to Adrienne - I look forward to reading your blog.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into detail, but briefly, Scott, while I applaud your willingness to be utopian and think big, to a great extend what you're talking about already exits, whether in the form of fellowships like the Jerome or the NEA/TCG Grant (which are designed to be temporary), or in the form of tenure at a University. I haven't pursued those to any great extent, either, because I'm from New Jersey, and the most viable place to pursue a career in the theater happens to be in New York City. I may yet relocate to LA to pursue a career in film/TV, but for the moment I've chosen love over money. I might also go after a tenure-track job somewhere, or apply for a job like running the UT Austin program - however, for either of those I'd need to be mid-career, which gets at the core of the problem - in order to achieve the notoriety needed for one of those jobs, I'd need more productions, which are easier to get from NY than anywhere else.
Do playwrights in other cities have good careers? Sure. I know very successful playwrights who live in other cities. But whether it's due to prejudices we both agree are stupid and unfair, or logistical issues, which do actually exist, playwrights outside of NY, Chicago, or London can have a harder time of it. Take Victor Lodato - he's a member of New Dramatists and has been to places like the O'Neill, is one of the most brilliant playwrights I know, and his work should be done everywhere - but in part because he lives in Tuscon, AZ, he gets forgotten about. It's totally unfair, and I'm not arguing that it's a good system by any means, but I'm not about to make things harder for myself than they already are by relocating (let me also reiterate: I'm from this area, I like living here, and I have a good university job, so it's not like I'm hating my life, though I often fantasize about living in lower-key areas like Portland or Austin).
The other issue - this sort of permanent, company-person position is completely counter to how one exists in modern capitalism; we're all itinerant now. Now, I'm not even a capitalist - but again, if the project is to localize, wouldn't it be more in the spirit of things to cultivate local writers (etc.) rather than bringing in people like Adam or me?
Jason -- Absolutely it would be better to cultivate local writers -- that would be the best solution. Also, obviously this is not a require career choice -- the other routes will still exist, and still work better or worse for you and others according to your luck and abilities. And as I've said, I applaud that. Truly. But like you, who are interested in the NY scene and possibly LA, my interests lie elsewhere. And while Victor Lodato may be "forgotten," perhaps he is not forgotten in Tucson and that is satisfying. There may be people who do not long for national recognition, or at least not enough to give up a particular lifetsyle or region. And my interest is in creating a business model that will support that orientation. I'm not at all interested in importing NYC writers, for instance, any more than NYC actors, unless those writers and actors are more interested in Tucson (or wherever) than NYC. Several such people have already become a part of my Theatre Tribe website (see my blog) -- perhaps not a million, but a few. And the idea may spread, especially if a real-life model can be set up to show that it is possible to be happy on a regional basis. Your belief about capitalism, and that we're all free agents now, is indeed a reality that capitalism would like us all to believe is inevitable and unchangeable. I happen to think globalization is unhealthy and destructive of local communities worldwide, and I am working to find a way for the arts to unplug from the model.
Scott, that's great - far be it from me to defend the global and impersonal against the local and specific. And yes, Victor deserves and would like more notoriety, but he also likes living in Tuscon.
*But*, just to play devil's advocate, it's not just about wanting to conquer the theater world (such as it is). It makes logistical (if not economic sense) to live in NY, because this is where my community is. By the same token, I have relationships with theaters like Salvage Vanguard in Austin, which is entirely local and built on many of the principles you describe. They've done a great job of cultivating local writers and actors, and of inducing local talent from UT Austin to stay there, or for the many artists, filmmakers and musicians in the city to try theater. In fact, I'm one of the first non-local artists they're brought in without knowing first, and I don't think they're working with me because I'm "hot," but because they genuinely like my work, and I theirs. I don't like the venality of global capitalism any more than you do (and certainly don't see my relationships with theaters that way, because the money is bad even when it's good), but I do enjoy having friends and collaborators in different cities.
Jason -- I don't think I'm advocating complete isolation -- at least, I'm not trying to do so. But I am advocating focus on the resident theatre -- for instance, giving all the premieres of your work to that theatre. Now, an area that I have to think through involves royalty income. If you look at the "occupational tribe" model I am developing on my website, one might see the royalty income as something that was thrown into the post, as it were, as income contributed by the playwright. Of course, this goes against all the current models. On the other hand, one of the things that would make a resident playwright alienated from the tribe is to have additional income above and beyond the share. This is something I haven't thought through completely, so I won't offer an opinion. As far as your community, if you already have become part of a community in NYC, then that is where you should stay. There are others who either don't yet have a community, or who have a community outside of NYC, and like you they should be able to have their work done within their own community. What happens after that with additional productions is something that perhaps each tribe needs to determine before issues arise. There are variations on this. For instance, what if an actor gets a film or commercial as a result of being seen in a tribe production -- how does that work? There are many issues to be worked out, probably at the local level. But the general situation is that company members are focused primarily on the health of the hive rather than the individual bees...
Post a Comment