Laura Axelrod does well to point us to the cover story of Jet Magazine - Black Theater Grows Up. Laura has actually read the article, and I haven't, so please go to her site for the lowdown and commentary.
Jet's website offers the following:
Award-winning playwright David Talbert and actor Morris Chestnut have teamed up in Talbert’s new play, Love in the Nick of Tyme. Despite the fact that some critics may want to dismiss the legitimacy of Black theater, Talbert is one of the leading playwrights who are creating stage plays that are selling out across the nation. “I would stand up for its financial viability and artistic value,” Talbert told JET. “Now the same people still don’t respect the art of it, but they all want to get involved to make money.”Chestnut, who makes his stage debut in the production, said, “I wanted to elevate the image and profile of African-American theater. A lot of times people would associate doing a touring production with a decline in your career. My career is thriving, and the plays are profitable. People would be very surprised of the salary of those in movies,” he said.
Personally, I find some the terminology very interesting. The phrase "urban stage plays" keeps coming-up. What does that mean? Is that some sort of PC-term? What's wrong with calling it Black Theater? That's what Jet does (though they use USP sometimes as well). This terminology might be part of the problem the work is having in crossing the critical divide.
The Wikpedia entry for Tyler Perry says:
He is best known for producing popular melodramas for the stage and screen that feature African-American characters in moral quandaries."Popular melodrama" - now that's a term a critic should be able to know and love.
I was taught that critics should first and foremost ask three question - 1) What was the work trying to accomplish? 2) How well did it accomplish it? 3) Was it worth accomplishing in the first place? Well, if communicating with their community has anything to do with it, it seems they're doing pretty well.
As of March 2005, Perry's plays had grossed over $75 million in ticket and DVD sales.No, Tyler Perry and David Talbert's aesthetic and artistic goals might not be the same as mine, but I am trying to attract people to my shows, so could I please, please get a little bit of whatever they've got? Just a little?
Comments (1)
I think part of the divide is how what they have, most non-profit institutional theatres don't want -- or, if they get part of it, they get hammered by critics concerning professionalism and artistic content.
Black melodramas haven't changed much since the days of vaudeville and the chitlin' circuit: Songs, dances, thoughtful attention to black church traditions, balancing content between Saturday-night wildness and Sunday-morning contrition. The form works because it doesn't ask for anything more than what it gives: A few performances in a not-huge theatre, a solid run of shows, friendly performers, quality for value, plus a safe entertainment to share with friends and family.
Some critics don't like the bawdy, some don't like the funny, some don't like the maudlin morals, some don't like the combination of it all and the audience pandering, period. But we hold critical views to other melodramatic, popular forms, such as NASCAR, the WWF, monster truck rallies, and other 'lower-class' spectacles -- even though those events can put asses in seats for $50-100 a pop.
I think what USPs have what they have because they worked damned hard for it, and they did it the way we have to -- audience first, board of advisors/funders later, as demand is proven. Yeah, it's damn hard, but minstrelsy, Broadway and vaudeville did it the same way, as competitors, not fabulous invalids.
Posted by cgeye | May 15, 2007 5:09 PM
Posted on May 15, 2007 17:09