Visible Soul, The Mirror Up to Nature, Theatre Ideas, Theatre Ideas, Marsha Norman, An Angry White Guy in Chicago, Rat Sass, Mike Daisey, DevilVet, Jonathan West, The Clyde Fitch Report, Mike Daisey
I often consider it my niche to condense discussions like this for those who haven't the time or energy to read everything that encompasses such an impassioned, complex look at the state of our art. But, I'm not doing that this time. It seems that what's needed most here, from us as writers, and you as readers, is engagement. So, please, pick a few of the above, read them throughly and get involved.
As for my part. I'm sad about regional theatre. I do think it's broken. No doubt about it. I think my theatre is broken. Our priorities are out of whack. In fact, I kind of think that everything about the theatre, except for the theatre itself kind of sucks.
No one can make a living. "Nice" spaces are way too expensive. Most ticket prices are too high. Young people don't come to the theatre. The audiences we do get are too small. Broadway is pretty much void of art. New plays don't get done enough. Play development is broken. Big theatres get the lion's share of public funding. The government doesn't care about the arts. No one cares about theatre. The biggest critics in the country are assholes. Bloggers can be assholes too. The regionals all do the same plays. Theatre is anachronistic. Competition from home entertainment is too great. Artistic directors are risk-averse. The declining quality of arts education will ruin the theatre eventually. Arts coverage in the media gets worse and less everyday. We're losing an enormous amount of talent to film and TV.
Go ahead, I'm sure you can think of a few more. So what is good about theatre these days? Why bother? And is making a list like that a waste of time?
For the answer, you'll have to come back.
Comments (2)
I agree with much of your rant. But you left out that theatre is to blame for much of what's wrong with theater. Theatre needs to change with the times and so do plays. Two hour long talk-fests simply BORE younger audiences who have shorter attention spans. Look at the popularity of short play fests. Folks don't want to sit and listen to some marathon talk fest where the playwright thinks she has "all the answers" to the problems that society faces. As someone who has had a number of plays produced in short play fests, they are highly successful at bringing in young, hip audiences. Young people don't sit in their houses watching TV, they want to be out and they want to be where it's cool to be. Hamlet doesn't resonate with young folks. Change your theater and you'll change your audience. The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Posted by M.D. | March 6, 2008 2:43 PM
Posted on March 6, 2008 14:43
I write two hour talk fests, and the average age of my audience is probably 25, but i don't waste enough time with arts administration to actually count that.
The content of the plays is irrelevant, there's no accounting for taste, and the aesthetic opinions of 20 somethings are as varied as can be. The focus shoule be on the delivery system. Young people see no value in spending an extra $20 on tickets just so they can be uncomfortable in a highly formal setting.
Posted by Rex Winsome | March 14, 2008 1:44 PM
Posted on March 14, 2008 13:44