Thursday, April 12, 2007

 

Sick as a Dog

Do not lick your computer, or you might catch it.

posted by Dan 3:22 PM
|

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

 

More Class

Class has been the big theatre meme theme this week. For the spine of the discussion and links to varied opinions in the posts and comments sections, go

here,

here,

here, and

here.


I remember the first time I looked at a program and saw that the surnames of the executive producers matched the surnames of the playwright, the director, and one of the leads. My friend leaned over, crossed out the word “producers” and wrote in “parents.” It had never occurred to me that ones parents could finance a show. I had produced one show at that point, with my own money, under a split-door deal with a dark theatre. I had taken yellow paint from my dad’s garage to build the set, a double-yellow street line up the center of the stage (you’ll be pleased to know that I no longer design my productions). Staring at that program, I became aware of the disturbing possibility that only rich people could afford to do theatre.

I had always considered myself rich. Rich enough, meaning middle class. My dad’s mom was a single-mom waitress, and my mother was a Navy kid (she wouldn’t like “brat,” I don’t think). They had “made it,” as they say. My dad told me he worked hard so that I could be an artist. Not in the sense of “I will give you money to be an artist,” but in the sense of “You won’t feel like me, like the wolf’s always at the door.” That’s one thing he tried to instill in me, along with the twelve points of the boy scout law. Another truth my parents reminded me of was that we were lucky. And they were right. We were very, very lucky. So I considered theatre a safe venture, in a way, because I was lucky.

I think this is the confidence that growing up economically stable gives you. But it was also foolhardiness. Completely innocent of financial realities, I selected a University that drove me and my dad into deeply into debt. But I went because, as far as I understood, you had to go to a top theatre school if you wanted to be in theatre (this is of course not true but we’ll get to that in a moment). Here was the first price to pay: school. Most professionals will say of course you don’t need to go to school, you just need to be talented, but I have to say I find that statement often accompanied with a wink and a nod: these same people will then turn around, look at a resume and say, “Oh, he/she went to fancy school X! Let’s look at them!” It’s not right or fair. There are many exceptions. But it is a trend, let's say.

The second price is production. Even in places where real-estate matters are not as ridiculous as NY, production is expensive. If an artist doesn’t wish to shoulder that burden alone, then the artist needs to seek a few coins from many, or a few big checks from a few. In either case, it helps to know people, wherever you are. And if you don’t know anybody (like me) then you have to self-produce. The one big show I self-produced drove me deeply into debt.

I’m not complaining about the debt, by the way. I was probably better able to withstand these blows than some, precisely because of my economic background. I give this run-down because I think these hurdles I encountered exist for most would-be theatricalizers. Given these hurdles, how do we arrange so people who aren’t middle-class or wealthy can clear them?

I have some half-formed ideas that I’ll throw out to be ripped apart, like steaks to tigers.

Idea one: start a theatre company that is committed to hiring actors, writers and directors from low-income backgrounds, much like theatre companies that are devoted to work by non-white ethnic groups, by women, and by gays and lesbians. Here one obvious problem: how does the company confirm someone grew up poor? I don’t know. But there’s that.

Idea two: companies, even the penniless ones, need to develop audiences that aren’t currently in the theatre. This is screamingly obvious, of course, and something that many institutional theatres claim to be doing, except they’re not. Audience development for them is about developing audiences that will plunk down for a subscribership. My friend Adrienne reached out to various groups that are not part of the American theatergoing public with her improvisation workshops. Because she deals in improvisation (rather than a more typical type of outreach like, say, Scenes from Shakespeare), the material the participants generate is instantly relevant to their lives. Her most successful work continues to be with kids. Get ‘em while they’re young.

Idea three: Major theaters need to start giving out real apprenticeships again. Not unpaid internships that can only be taken by people with money to live on, but apprenticeships where the organization provides the necessities of life through a wage or a paying part-time job. And these apprenticeships should favor financial need.

Idea four: Universities with theatre programs need to seriously reconsider what their responsibility is to the students they graduate in terms of job placement. It does no good to give kids need-based scholarships, and then toss them into the sea at the end, as if that scholarship reset everything to zero. Providing financial or logistical support for some first self-productions would be a way to start.

Any other ideas?

Labels: theatre

posted by Dan 4:59 PM
|

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

 

Dear My In-Laws,

I’ve had a delightful time over these past few years, learning about your ancient, mysterious culture. You had taught me that joy and family can be found in Judaisim, in spite of your foreignishly oriental customs. I even believed that we had arrived at an understanding, a trust, between us.

But then I discovered that you kept your best custom a secret from me.


Why, why, why do we not do chicken-swinging?! Why do we not perform this important ritual? When you told me about Yom Kippur, sure it sounded interesting philosophically, if a bit on the dull side. But you never said anything about chicken-swinging! Lighting candles and Hebrew prayers are nice, and recounting the plagues appeals to my morbid side, but a good chicken-swing outclasses all of these rituals by far. It is the friggin Satisfaction of rituals. It’s got animal cruelty, symbolic sin-foisting, dinner. I mean…it’s friggin chicken-swinging! I can barely contain my enthusiasm!

Gurpphl! Molnt! Zmoink!

Okay, enthusiasm contained. I’m trying to give you benefit of the doubt. Maybe you thought I wouldn’t go for it. Some might misunderstand your intentions if they saw you toss poultry around like a rodeo star on ESPN 3. So I’ll simply ask, can we pretty-please do this next Yom Kippur? I’ll bring a baby chick for your grandkid to juggle. Photo op!

Nota bene: Amateur Gourmet did cover this a while ago, but somehow I missed it.

Labels: religion

posted by Dan 12:36 PM
|

Monday, April 09, 2007

 

Late to the Party

You probably already know this, but here’s two theatre-company blogs to check out: Working Group Theatre and Stolen Chair Theatre Company. Check ‘em out.

Labels: linkage, theatre

posted by Dan 3:51 PM
|

 

Maybe Real Lives Aren't Interesting

I find biopics unsatisfying. I watched The Notorious Bettie Page and, in spite of good performances and an interesting directorial conceit, it didn’t work for me. I really wanted it to. I always want them to. I like stories about crazy people in crazy times. But biopics time and again disappoint me. Some (Walk the Line) are okay and some are terrible (Ray). Only a few (Ed Wood) are what I would call a movie. Most of them make me feel like I’ve spent two hours in a fairly decent wax museum. “Wow, she looks just like Bettie! Oh, but Bunny Yeager had more of a square face…”

I think it’s in part because the Behind-the-Music structure is predictable as well as unfocussed. We start with the Childhood Traumas, perhaps making a stop at Failed First Marriage, then we hit the Innocent Beginning, where the veteran Takes Them Under His/Her Wing. We have The Heady Thrill of Success, The Descent into Drug Abuse, The Career Collapse, topped of with the Redemption or Tragic Destruction. It feels heavy at the top and bottom. It feels like a truncated, inaccurate biography, and a shapeless drama.

I really should stop watching them. But I keep buying in, hoping that the next one won’t disappoint me. Like Twinkies.

Labels: movies

posted by Dan 1:25 PM
|