a poor player

Dunkirk NY – According to The Broadway League 2010-11 Demographic Report, the Great White Way is whiter than ever. And then some.  To save you the trouble of clicking the link, here are the bullet points from the Broadway League website:

From the Executive Summary

• In the 2010-2011 season, approximately 62% of all Broadway tickets were purchased by tourists.
• Sixty-five percent of the audiences were female.  
• The average age of the Broadway theatregoer was 44 years, older than in the past few seasons.
• Eighty-three percent of all tickets were purchased by Caucasian theatregoers.
• Broadway theatregoers were a very well-educated group.  Of theatregoers over 25 years old, 78% had completed college and 39% had earned a graduate degree.
• The average Broadway theatregoer reported attending 5 shows in the previous 12 months.
• Playgoers tended to be more frequent theatregoers than musical attendees.  The typical straight play attendee saw eight shows in the past year; the musical attendee, five.
• Fourty-four percent of respondents said they bought their tickets online.
• Bullet about the female audience deleted. (sic)
• In general, advertisements were not reported to have been influential in making the purchasing decision.
• The average Broadway theatregoer reported attending 5 shows in the previous 12 months. The group of devoted fans who attended 15 or more performances comprised only 6% of the audience, but accounted for 33% of all tickets (4.1 million admissions). 

Source: www.broadwayleague.com

Given all the demographics we know about theatre in the US and westernized countries today, I think it’s safe to make the following conclusion: Theatre is primarily for white people, as both audience members and practitioners. Continue Reading »

Dunkirk NY – In reading up on this article (another variant here), and after a very quick and instructive Twitter chat with Travis Bedard at Cambiare Productions in Austin TX, I began to ruminate on this question of the “iron curtain” that exists between university theatres and working theatres across the country. This particular incident, where the American Voices New Play Institute is splitting into two entities, with the research arm moving from Arena Stage in DC (along with blog Howlround) to Arts Emerson in Boston, seems to be symptomatic of this problem. Why does this research institute feel the need to move to an academic climate, and why does Arena Stage seem to be so blasé about letting them go? Why can’t the two co-exist?

David Dower, who has been the mojo behind the institute along with Polly Carl, has his explanation here on the New Play Blog. Molly Smith, the AD of Arena Stage, has her say here. The words are encouraging, the conversation polite and gracious, the ideas high-minded – and yet something just seems off in the whole deal. Arena Stage gets to keep the production aspects of the enterprise (AVNPI and its funding), including the playwright residencies, while the research wing now moves to Emerson as The Center for the Theater Commons. Howlround will become the new portal and voice for this institute once the move to Emerson is completed in April.

The only way I think something better can come out of this is if the Center for the Theatre Commons, from its new location at an academic institution, now becomes an advocacy center for encouraging academic theatre departments to produce new plays. Why do I think this is a good direction to go in? Because basically what the Center for the Theater Commons has lost in all this is the ability to get new plays actually staged. They can be a clearinghouse network all they want, and dedicate themselves to providing information about new play production to us all (which is good!), but if they cannot muster the means to help either financially or in terms of putting together playwrights with producers, they lose a lot of influence and effectiveness, it seems to me. Continue Reading »

Dunkirk NY - In my previous post, I took a look at the 2010-11 financial report for Actors’ Equity and offered the numbers and a few observations on those numbers. But the one question I did not tackle, because it did not come to me until after I had re-read the post a few times (to correct a few inaccuracies) is the big question – is it worthwhile to join AEA? So I will give that question some thought now.

For the sake of context, I thought I would start by stating the reasons I joined AEA when I had the chance for full disclosure. My opportunity came in 2006, at the conclusion of my year-long residency with the American Shakespeare Center in Staunton VA. The ASC was a great theatre to work for. It produces high-energy Shakespeare utilizing “original practices,” and has a touring arm as well as a resident company. Contracts are for one year, and some actors do get re-hired year after year. The Resident Company hires a mix of union and non-union actors, while the touring company is non-union. It was by pure luck, however, that when I arrived to begin my year, the theatre offered Equity Membership Candidacy points to the touring company members. I did not know this when I originally signed on. Since the contract was a 50-week contract, by the end of the tour I had the requisite 50 points to join AEA. Continue Reading »

Dunkirk NY - The day after Christmas is usually filled with one central question – what to do? It’s particularly true today, since this Monday is a legal holiday and many offices and such are closed. I have nothing to return, so no need to go to the stores, and I am not Canadian, so no Boxing Day rituals for me.

So it seemed like the perfect day to sit down and attempt to analyze the latest Theatrical Season Report from Actors’ Equity Association. As far as I can tell, the report is not yet available online, so I cannot link you to it. It appeared in print in the latest edition of Equity News (Dec. 2011), and covers the 2010-11 theatrical season. AEA’s fiscal year runs from April 1-March 31 of any given year. So I am assuming these statistics run across the same time period. The report is compiled and written by Mr. Steven DiPaola, Assistant Executive Director for Finance and Administration at AEA. In general, I think he does a pretty good job of calling the shots as he sees them. He is not overly enthusiastic when presenting positive numbers, nor is he overly negative when reporting bad news. Of course, he does try to put the numbers in the best possible light, but I give him credit for not being overly rah-rah about them.

Here are the statistical highlights:

• AEA reported 42,549 members as of April 1, 2011. This figure includes stage managers who are AEA members. There is no breakdown between how many stage managers there are vrs. how many actors there are in AEA, so keep that in mind as you read other statistics. Since about 16% of all work weeks are generated by Stage Manager weeks, you would be on fairly safe grounds statistically if you reduced every number presented here by 15% to determine what the number would be for actors only. So it’s feasible to assume that only 36,167 members of AEA are actors.
• AEA reports a total of 290,410 member work weeks. A work week is defined as one member working one week on an AEA contract of any sort. This makes the average number of work weeks for every member of AEA 6.82 work weeks (Total members/total work weeks). However, only 17,089 members reported having at least one work week, so Equity reports the average weeks worked as 17 (16.993). Only 41.7% of members saw at least one work week in the past year. The remainder had no work at all, for a yearly unemployment rate of all members of slightly under 60%. Of the members who had earnings, 40% made between $1-5,000, 29% made $5000-15,000, 10% made $15-25,000, and 11% made $25-50,000. In other words, 90% of all AEA members made $50,000 or less. 4% made $50-75,000, and 7% made over $75K (total of 101% probably due to averaging upwards). Continue Reading »

"Fisherman and The Siren" - Knut Ekwall

Dunkirk NY – Over the past three days I have been in Houston, TX on something of a fund-raising event for the university. The “big idea” being discussed involves the participation of the Alley Theatre in Houston, and so this past Wednesday I got a tour of the facility and saw a production of Horton Foote’s Dividing The Estate. It was all very wonderful. And therein lies the rub.

The actual show itself is sort of besides the point. It was just being in the atmosphere of a working theatre that got to me. The Alley is probably an exception to the state of LORT theatre in the US at this point. It is financially sound, and embarking on an $80 million renovation of its facility. It is one of only three LORT theatres in the US that employs a resident ensemble of actors and designers. Some of the Alley’s resident actors have been there for 20+ years. They have an in-house scene shop, costume shop, props shop, etc. They have a 60+ year history. They produce 11 shows in 2 spaces. They do new work – two this season. They are, in many ways, exactly what the LORT theatre movement intended a regional theatre to be.

Of course, the demographic picture of the audience is the same as it is everywhere: upper middle class educated whites. That in and of itself is part of the rub. So is the $80 million campaign for a new space – can anyone else think of better uses for $80 million than a new theatre space for UMCEW theatregoers? But the real nub of the rub was its seductive attractiveness. At heart, the Alley represents and embodies everything I always dreamed theatre could be when I was a young, aspiring theatre artist. Continue Reading »

Dunkirk NY – In all this “Occupy This and That” fervor, I assume that one thing theatre people will not want to hear is any talk about Occupy Broadway. Given the logic of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it would seem to be a natural, as probably 1% of the people on Broadway control 99% of its income. Theatre in this country is as big a business as any other big business, such as a bank, and if theatre artists are going to think of occupying anything, why not Broadway?

Frank Bruni has this column in today’s New York TImes, and in it he chastises those Hollywood stars who have come out in support of the Occupy Wall Street participants in Zucotti Park. But he doesn’t go far enough – he merely suggests those stars named should just avoid being seen down on Wall Street lest they appear to be merely looking for a good photo or publicity op. So I will go further – if they want to do some good then they should get out in front of an “Occupy Broadway/Hollywood” movement that protests the incredible concentration of money, power and profits in the hands of a few and robs all Americans of their chance to enjoy and participate in the arts. Continue Reading »

Dunkirk NY – Entry #2 in the ad hoc “poorplayer & son” series.

Eric: you again

so here’s my next problem with the stage – why is it that every play I read people just come on and seem to have a scene for almost no reason

me: because the whole thing is artificial to begin with

Eric: wait waaaaaaaaaait you can’t say that

me: I just did

Eric: theatre’s whole big schtick is that its LIVE AND REAAAL

me: hey i just walked into this conversation for no reason. So?

Eric: yeah but I wouldn’t charge people $25 for us to do it again in front of them. I’ve just read 4 plays that were all written within the last 5 years at least and they are all so PAINFULLY similar – characters come in, they make awkward small talk because SOMETHING LARGER IS AFOOT, they talk about stuff and talk, and the drama builds and builds, and then there’s a climax and you’re like OMGGGGGG, and then they end, leaving you wondering SOMETHING DEEP. And granted many films also work in such a broad context

me: Precisely. It’s an artificial construct. it’s realISM not realISTIC. There’s a difference.

Continue Reading »

Dunkirk NY – I have come to believe that data should play an important part in any discussion of the state of theatre and theatre education today. So it comes as a welcome treat that Broadway producer Ken Davenport has posted some really interesting statistics on the state of musical theatre on Broadway, as well on plays. His blog posts detail the decline in how much theatre Broadway actually produces, and by inference how many fewer jobs there actually are. The numbers are here, here, and here. The statistical reality (no surprise here) is that there is far less of anything being produced today. Size of musical casts went from 69% of musicals with casts over 30 in the 1950s to 27% today. In the 1940s, the number of new plays on Broadway averaged 49.4. In the 2000s, it’s now 11.7 (10.9 in the 1990s). New musicals? In the 1940s the number of new musicals each season was 14.9. In the 2000s, 9.3, an uptick from the 1990s (7.5). Broadly speaking (pun intended), Broadway is about half the size it was in the 1940s.

I came upon these statistics almost at the same time I had a typical visit from a young high school senior-to-be who was out shopping for colleges and musical theatre programs. I took her and her parents on my usual tour and then we spent time chatting in my office and they asked the usual questions. Of course, the topic of future employment came up, as it always does, and I always try to be honest with parents and students on this issue – future employment in the theatre is a slim proposition if you think of trying to make your living full-time in musical theatre. But I went a little beyond that this day, in that I began to mention that, when you really stop to think about it, there is not much work in musical theatre beyond NYC or tours. Regional theatres do not regularly do musicals because of the costs involved, and outside of Florida and a few other isolated regions like Boston or perhaps Chicago there is not much musical theatre being done in this country, especially at levels where one can reasonably make a living doing it. So why spend four years of your young life, as well as the dollars involved, to study musical theatre exclusively as a specialty, when the market is so bad and has been in decline for years?

Continue Reading »

Dunkirk NY – I simply can’t let this one pass. By no means am I either one of America’s formost classical actors nor one of its premiere Shakespeare authorities, but I have been acting in Shakespeare’s plays since my undergraduate days, and have worked for three Shakespeare companies in my time. I know something about Shakespeare, and perhaps the single most important thing I know is this: his works do not need to be presented in a $47.5 million building. But that’s apparently what’s about to happen in Brooklyn. The NYC company Theatre for a New Audience has broken ground on a site in Brooklyn that will open in the spring of 2013. It will have 27,500 square feet of space to maintain, a completely trapped stage floor, 299 seats, and a 35-foot stage house. The City of New York is investing $34.4 million of the cost, will own the land and the building, and lease the space for 30 years to TFANA. I don’t even know where to begin to express how outrageous this entire idea is to those of us outside the insular cultural sphere of New York City.

The first thing you have to ask yourself is “What could $47.5 million do if it were invested in people rather than a building?” For one thing, it could provide 95 theatre companies in this country a working budget of $500,000. Assuming that there would be a return on investment for the regions in which those companies operated, an investment of that proportion would provide artistic and economic assistance for a wider cross-section of the nation, rather than for one small region alone (NYC) that is already oversaturated with theatre, Shakespeare included. This would help strengthen theatre nationally, particularly at the grassroots community level. Heck, let’s not even talk $500K; let’s talk $100K. Then we’re talking, what, 475 theatre companies each getting a $100K infusion of cash? How much Shakespeare could we have nationally for this amount of money? The mind boggles. Continue Reading »

Fredonia NY – No doubt many of you have read about the troubles surrounding Shakespeare & Company. If not, you can read about it here and here. And should you be so inclined, you can watch their “call to action” here (I found their slogan “non-profit theatre is for everyone” a bit disingenuous. It’s for everyone “who can afford it.”)

There’s a lot that can be said about this event, not the least of which is the evident mismanagement that went along with trying to become large and “important.” But I do want to say that, at this point, any money spent to rescue this company will be further evidence that those who are concerned about “the arts” are really only concerned about the “high arts” and about making sure that the arts and theatre remain an exclusive activity for the well-off. When you read the dollar figures involved, which run within the $2-4 million range, just think at the same time what kind of funding that could provide for small regional companies across the country to help spread theatre at the grassroots level. And remember, these are dollars for one company alone, whose ticket prices are out of reach to mainstream, recession-wounded people.

Now you should understand why I so enjoy and appreciate my own humble Shakespeare festival, Shakespeare in Delaware Park (full disclosure – I am not a full-time member of the staff, but am occasionally employed as an actor during the summer performances). Our festival performs two shows every summer in Delaware Park, the “Central Park” of Buffalo. It is free to anyone who wishes to come. We ask for donations at intermission, and whether we get a penny or a $20 bill from someone, we are grateful for their donation. We work on a weatherbeaten stage now close to 20 years old, which we try to dress up each year with a set budget probably under $5,000 (I am guessing that’s the amount; I am not privy to the budgets). We costume all the actors for about three grand (again, a guess). Equity actors, of which there are maybe two per show, make the Buffalo/Rochester minimum – $426/week. Non-union actors make less, and some of the younger actors make far less. The backstage area consists of a worn construction-style trailer with a dressing room for the women, one for the men, and a space in between for storage. We sit outdoors as we await entrances. There is no running water; our water supply is a ten-gallon cooler, and we use port-a-potties, just like our patrons. The actors are all “home grown;” seldom is someone hired from out of town. And we’ve been doing it this way for 34 years, playing to as many as 40,000 people per summer, all seeing Shakespeare for whatever they can afford, even if it’s nothing.

In Buffalo NY, we can only dream of what $4,000,000 would be like to have. So I have little sympathy for the Berkshire-ites who are in danger of losing their festival. To them, I offer up the Buffalo NY model of doing Shakespeare. We’re going into our 35th year, and due to the hard work, dedication and diligence of a skeleton staff and our local theatre community, we’re still going strong. But of course, should Shakespeare and Company go under, we’ll be glad to have them donate their leftover assets to us. We’ll put them to good use. And shameless promotion time -  should you like to support us, you can become a Facebook fan of SDP by looking on my sidebar and doing the click thing. The setting is wonderful, the plays are fun, the company is terrific. We’d be glad to have you!  -twl