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.

When I first saw these statistics, I got those old familiar feelings of guilt and anguish, that it’s a “bad thing” that theatre isn’t shared or enjoyed by large numbers of non-whites. I would like it to be – I would like everyone to like and enjoy theatre. I would like more white people to enjoy theatre (those numbers, although large, represent only a small fraction of the population as a whole, maybe 2% according to the NEA research on arts participation). I would like to see audiences grow, witness theatre houses full with a diverse crowd of theatre-goers. Clearly, it ain’t happening.

But then the question came to me – is it so bad to admit that theatre is for white people? White western culture has, for better or worse, risen to a dominant position in this multicultural, heterogeneous society that has evolved in this country, and because of that fact alone it is subject to criticism and the push of upward mobility from cultural forces below (at times rightfully so). But perhaps it’s just worth the few seconds it takes to stop and  consider the idea that white people, like any other culture or race, deserve to have a culture and forms of art that they enjoy and that is reflective of their values and history. Theatre, as it has evolved from the Greeks, seems to be one of those cultural art forms that people of white European descent have enjoyed for a long time (and the majority of them enjoyed it until the advent of mass media). And that, in and of itself, is OK. Isn’t it?

This is not to say that other races or ethnic groups do not have theatre or do not enjoy it. But the particular form of the scripted written work as interpreted by actors in a linear story-telling fashion seems to be one that has interested western Caucasians for a long time, and apparently continues to do so for a certain demographic slice of white people as a whole.

Now am I not arguing that non-whites do not enjoy theatre and participate in it. Of course they do. But statistically speaking, on the whole, non-whites simply do not appear interested in the art form as defined above. No other race or ethnic group charts in double digit percentages either as audience members or practitioners of “legit” theatre. The question that really needs to be asked to probe these numbers more carefully is whether or not these low numbers are the result of institutional discrimination, or simply general disinterest in the art form. I suspect many people will want to believe the former, but the numbers seem to indicate that perhaps the latter is closer to reality. One aspect of this question that needs serious consideration is the economic inequality question, but even that may reveal that whites are more willing to sacrifice economic hardship to see and do theatre.

Perhaps an example will serve to illustrate the point. During the Negro League era of baseball, a sport created by Caucasians, the institution of Major League Baseball clearly discriminated against African-American players. But it was also pretty clear that African-Americans were interested in baseball – enough to form and maintain their own league as a viable business on a national level, and populate it with first-class talent.

By comparison, African-American theatre companies today are few and far between, and the non-white plays that make it to professional theatres in New York and regionally are mostly viewed by the same white patrons who like the art form. I found three different listings of African-American theatres, and none listed more that 100 theatres nationwide. Of the 20 theatres listed on the Theatre Alliance of Buffalo website, 2 (10%) are primarily African-American (Buffalo is 38.6% African-American); one exists in name only, and the other produces rarely. Nor have I seen any indication that African-Americans are dominating the audiences at The Motherfucker with the Hat, nor are Asian-Americans the majority audiences at Chinglish. All this is not by way of criticism, mind you – if the interest isn’t there, then there is nothing really to criticize. To each their own.

The thing about having a passion for something like theatre is that you really, really want to share that passion. It is difficult to accept that statistically many people out there simply don’t share your passion for or interest in theatre. They have other things they enjoy doing more. When we talk about audience development, isn’t that what we are trying to do? Get people who are fundamentally uninterested in our passion to share it with us? Statistically that doesn’t seem to be working so well, particularly among the young. Perhaps the time has come to say that theatre is what it is – an art form for older, well-off, educated white people. Nobody else is truly interested in it at the moment, because the numbers do not indicate any support for the art form beyond this small slice of the American demographic profile.

Discussions like these make people feel uneasy. Heck, I feel uneasy writing about it. I’m not even sure I am doing the right thing writing about it. But statistics, while not necessarily speaking anything one would label “the truth,” do carry a certain reality about them. For theatre, the current reality is that the art form is an art form for and about white people. This reality does not mean that crossover artists don’t exist; August Wilson is one of the most revered playwrights in modern theatre. And, just as many white people enjoy an art form like rap/hip-hop, which has its roots in African-American culture (as does jazz), many non-whites enjoy the art form of theatre. But I don’t think we should spend a lot of time wailing and gnashing our teeth anymore and feeling guilty over the constant barrage of data that indicates that theatre is a culturally Caucasian art form. We should just admit the obvious, say it’s OK, and move on – unless we can absolutely ascertain that these numbers are a result of institution discrimination. What is important is that theatre remain an open “big tent” art form, open and welcoming to all comers of whatever creed or race or nationality. -twl

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.

Sooner or later, someone in the theatre industry will come to realize that the best link between university theatres and working regional theatres is through new work development.  To illustrate this, let’s take my institution – SUNY Fredonia. I will be directing a new play this coming spring – High Plains Fandango by Red Shuttleworth. It’s our second collaboration. I have produced other new works in the past, both at the student and non-student level. I control a theatre facility that has a black box seating 180, a mainstage seating 385, and a full-scale School of Music if musicals are what you want to work on. I have a large population of young actors, designers and technicians at the undergraduate level, a full scene and costume shop, and supervisory faculty. I have a production budget that currently sits at $65K (but is subject to box office receipts) as well as access to other funding through the university foundation and grants. I have a track record that shows I am interested in new work. So why, you ask, wouldn’t some regional theatre somewhere, or some institute interesting in getting new works produced, be interested in partnering with me and making use of my resources?

I am not alone, of course. There are probably 2,000+ other institutions in this country in the same, or even better, positions. A great majority of our work is just the re-staging of plays already done. This is pretty much a waste of time and energy, in that it does not train the next generation of theatre artists on how to create theatre, merely how to re-produce it. I have no idea what the statistics are, but I am willing to bet that academic institutions in this country control the most actual physical theatre space (consider that the statistics I ripped off about my complex exist in a rural area where the population of the entire county is only 134,905). What would be so terribly difficult or hard about donating even as little as 15% of that space and energy to producing new works? Why won’t academic departments and working theatres collaborate on this?

The reason, I believe, is the “iron curtain” mentality. Both sides, naturally, have their vested self-interests and issues. Academic theatre, for the most part, seems to see itself as a training ground for actors, but in reality they serve mostly as “museum theatres” designed to keep up the appearance of producing the classics and “great art.” Working theatres see themselves as “professsional” entities and probably do not want to run the risk of working with students and faculty, whom they view as “non-professionals.” I am guessing that these are the (very broad and very generalized) reasons, but even if I am wrong about that, I certainly am not wrong about the notion that there is little collaboration between the two entities, especially in regard to new work.

So even though I remain puzzled about this split, I would encourage Mr. Dower and Ms. Carl to consider the idea of turning their new Center into more that an internet presence that just gathers information. While ArtsEmerson is not, strictly speaking, the academic theatre unit of Emerson College, but rather an arts presenting organization, the possibility exists that, using the information they gather, they could become a center where generative theatre artists and academic theatre departments can meet and generate more productions of new work. Perhaps we can do something about tearing down that iron curtain.

As an aside – a great place to get this started might be the National Association of Schools of Theatre annual meeting in late March 2012. Their program includes a final session about new plays. Here is the description

New Plays: Roles for Regional Theatres and Educational Institutions 

New plays contribute to the vitality and growth of theatre. Over the years a number of regional theatres have developed in-depth expertise in nurturing and producing new plays. Representatives from several of these theatres in the region will present their perspectives on new play development. Content will range from nuts-and-bolts to artistry and will be a foundation for group discussion about new play development in theatre schools and departments, either alone or in conjunction with a regional company. The goal is to move from what has been done, to what we have learned, to what possibilities seem present, to specifics for moving ahead. Naturally, most of these questions and issues have an administrative dimension. The session is intended in part to assist administrators as they consider the size and scope of potential or expanded engagement with new play development in their home situation, and then the various means for facilitating such engagement with the resources at their disposal. Another important topic is how regional theatres and institutions can assist each other in the new play arena. This session is intended to be highly interactive.

Sounds like the time is ripe.  -twl

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.

You have five years to convert the points to full AEA membership, but I decided to join right away. I had two reasons for doing so. The first had to do with my age, and looking at a lifetime of being an actor in the American theatre. There I was, after working for 33 years in the theatre as a non-union actor, being offered the opportunity to join the union. I found myself unable to resist the “prestige” of being able to say I was a member of AEA. It is damn near impossible to deny the feeling that you have somehow “arrived” as an actor when you have that card. When I got my card, one of the first things I did was travel to New York City, walk into the Equity building in midtown Manhattan, flash my card, and entered into the main lobby of AEA. I read all the casting notices posted, used the bathroom, saw some auditions taking place in one of the two audition rooms, sat reading for awhile, and then left. I still felt like an outsider, since I wasn’t really pursuing an active full-time acting career, but just the simple fact that they let me in was the verification I needed to be sure it all wasn’t a dream.

The second reason I took the card is that, as an academic, membership in Equity gives you additional standing and credibility. Many academic theatre programs boast of their faculty as being “professionals” because they have union membership, and so I thought I would take the AEA membership to boost the credibility of my own pre-professional BFA program. Equity membership probably carries more subliminal weight in the academic world than an MFA. There’s a sort of an unspoken “penis envy” mentality about union membership in academia. So I decided to swallow the Viagara pill of professionalism and gain a little more “street cred” as an acting teacher.

Two things to note about these reasons: neither is financial, and both are about perceptions. They are personal, and speak more to how AEA membership is perceived by others and, by extension, yourself. To be quite blunt about it, I took the card because it changed the perception of how I view myself and how I perceive others view me. I believe I have enough self-awareness to realize I am no better nor no worse an actor (or teacher) than I was before I took the card, nor am I any more or less “professional” in my approach to my work. Like most people who get a card, I was lucky – in the right place at the right time through no particular skill of my own. Having spent 33 years of being “unlucky,” I decided to pounce on this one bit of fortune in my career. That’s all I got.

Since then I have found one reason for taking the card that I feel is legitimate, and that is access to information. The ability to gain the information AEA has and then pass that information on to my students is helpful. I place my copies of Equity News in the student lounge where they can read it. I can see via the Callboard where auditions are happening and what shows are particularly popular at the moment. I can show them a breakdown. I can, in short, give them a look into what AEA can offer. This is the primary reason I keep my membership.

Financially, however, one has to question the value of Equity. All the numbers from its own report indicate that you cannot make a living strictly as an Equity actor. You must have some other form of income, whether it’s from the traditional “day job,” or a collection of other work such as commercials, TV or movie extra, voiceovers, etc. So the question becomes this; can you make as much money as a non-union actor as a union actor? Basically, all you have to do as a non-union actor is beat the median annual earnings of $7,382 for an AEA member and you’ve done that. The caveat is that you will probably have to work more weeks to do so, unless you can average $434/wk for 17 weeks. So fundamentally, I would say the answer is generally “yes” with one exception – getting a Broadway production contract. One former student of mine had a principal contract in Phantom for a few years, and it worked out OK for him. Even a production chorus contract can be doable. “Run of the play” contracts that are open-ended are of course more financially rewarding than limited engagements, but eventually most shows do close. So at that level, sure, perhaps AEA pays, as there is no other non-union equivalent.

But at every other level it’s questionable.  I will use myself as an example. When I arrived back in Buffalo in the fall of 2006 as an Equity actor, things clearly changed for me. There are no Equity theatres in Buffalo with the demise of Studio Arena Theatre (not that it ever hired local actors anyway, union or not), and so the theatres in Buffalo hire AEA members under a Special Agreement contract called the Buffalo-Rochester Agreement (BRA). AEA has been completely unable to turn any of the remaining Buffalo theatres into an Equity contract theatre at any level. While theatres do hire AEA members, they can hire no more than three in any one show, otherwise they also have to hire an AEA stage manager. Given that there is a large pool of good actors in the city who are non-union, the trend of course is to hire non-union people.

In my case, I have to balance what I make as a union actor against what I might be able to make as a non-union actor. I know of at least two clear instances where I was not hired because I was in the union, so I extrapolate from that and make the assumption that there were other opportunities I have missed for the same reason. It becomes a matter of quantity. Since I have made $300/wk as a non-union actor in the past, I will use that as a figure for comparison.

The BRA is tiered, so at the top tier the most I can earn as a union actor is $476/wk. The low in that scale is $165. One 7-week AEA contract at the top tier yields $3332 (numbers are gross, of course). At $300/wk non-union you end up with $2100. At $250/wk you end up with $1750. Given these numbers, if I were to maintain a 2:1 ratio of shows (2 non-union shows for every one union show), I would make more as a non-union actor. 2 non-union contracts @$300/wk would yield $4200, and @$250/wk would yield $3500. And of course, there are no union dues taken out of a non-union contract. At 2.2%, that comes to about $73 out of the $3332, making the salary $3259 before taxes. Over 5 years, such a ratio would yield $16,295 in earnings from union work (after dues, before taxes), $21,000 @$300/wk, and $17,500 @$250/wk. Could I maintain a 2:1 ration of shows? If I actively pursued it I think so. Could I negotiate more than $300/wk? In some cases, probably. In short, by the numbers, for me in the city of Buffalo, union membership clearly does not pay. And even if you make the argument that I am working twice as much to make this pay, well – don’t actors want to work? More work means more experience and more exposure, leading to more work. In either case, I want to be working as many weeks as I can. Being a non-union actor gives me that opportunity to work more often.

But what about someplace like Chicago? I was pretty surprised to find out that Chicago is in one way a worse city that Buffalo as far as paying non-union actors is concern. My son is working in Chicago as a non-AEA actor, and according to him, apparently there is an incredibly wide income gap between union and non-union actors. In Chicago it appears that non-union actors working in non-union theatres are more likely paid a flat fee that a weekly wage (smaller theatres in Buffalo do the same). The Chicago Area Theatre contract (CAT) has a 6-tier scale running from $200-721/wk. The CAT Tier 4 rate is $477/wk, one dollar more than the top tier for the BRA. I do not really have any information in terms of what non-union actors can make as a “top rate” in Chicago, but apparently it is not much. So one assumes that if you are AEA in Chicago, you are probably shooting to earn that Tier 4 salary at a minimum. And interestingly enough, your real competition is actors from outside Chicago. So one would assume that you can earn more money as an AEA member in Chicago than as non-union, but your competition is far greater, since you are competing not at a local level, but at a national level. If you are a local Chicago actor, are you better off getting a $1500 flat fee for a 7-week show than $1400 as AEA on a $200/week contract before dues, the bottom tier? Which kind of work will you get more of? I don’t have enough information to answer that question precisely, but it may be that if you are a well-regarded local union actor and can get regular work, you should be better off in the long run as a union member. And of course, the usual caveat applies – don’t quit your day job.

As an interesting comparison, my son had made two regional commercials for a restaurant chain called On The Border. He is now a member of SAG because of it. In total, the work in those two commercials earned him enough money to hit his goal of having $10K savings in the bank in one year. AEA has absolutely no ability to do that for any stage actor who isn’t already a major star and can negotiate a salary far above AEA minimums. So which union would you rather get into first?

Other cities? I can’t say, but if you’re in another city, here are some numbers to help you try to make sense of your situation. These are average AEA earnings per work week in other cities and for other contracts (these are averages, not contract minimums):

• Off Broadway NYC – $661
• NYC Letter of Agreement – $340
• Mini-NYC – $$320
• New England – $368
• Disney World – $774
• Orlando – $224
• New Orleans – $243
• Chicago – $572
• Hollywood – $619
• San Francisco Bay Area – $500
• Modified Bay Area – $195
• Small Professional Theatre (SPT, generally <100 seats) – $393 East/$395 Central/$371 West
• Letter of Agreement (LOA) – $523 East/$565 Central/$459 West
• LORT Repertory – $653 East/$0 Central/$$1,161 West
• LORT Non-rep – $843 East/$848 Central/$886 West
• Special Agreements (such as BRA or Pittsburgh) – $497 East/$729 Central/$309 West
• Theatre for Young Audiences – $515 East/$445 Central/$460 West
• Guest Artist – $497 East/$595 Central/$484 West
• Special Appearance – $302 East/$266 Central/$271 West

(Source – EQUITYNEWS, December 2011, p. 16)

Conclusions? I would offer the following:

• AEA is in most aspects a vanity union, and is more about perception than purpose. Being able to say “I belong to Equity” conjures up dreams of getting on Broadway and every myth that goes along with those dreams. It offers the promise of access, but cannot truly deliver on that promise for all its members. AEA has done a great job of publicly spinning itself as a great union achieving great things for its members and as portraying itself as having “the best of the best” as its members (exclusivity), and to some extent that is true and cannot be denied. But on the whole, neither the numbers nor the general quality of American Theatre taken as a whole bears this out. Generally speaking, its members are vastly underpaid when compared to total theatrical gross revenues, and there is plenty of high-quality non-union theatre to be seen in this country.
• AEA offers no financial security at all, merely regulates some working conditions and minimum salaries at some theatres. These minimums are not enough on average to take care of daily expenses of most people. This union even restricts access to health care to its members by requiring a minimum number of weeks worked before you can get health insurance through the union (and you have to keep getting those same numer of weeks each year otherwise you lose health care). The only situation in which AEA clearly pays is to get a production contract in a long-running Broadway show.
• AEA is essentially a union of part-time independent contractors. Again, don’t quit your day job.
• My students are constantly asking me when is the right time to join AEA. If pressed to give a straight-up answer, I would have to say only when you are offered a Broadway or National Tour Production contract. Or you plan to make a career at Disneyworld. Being an AEA member means you can only work under an AEA contract, and in a lot of instances, from a financial as well as career perspective, you may be losing opportunities that can cost you money or the chance at a quality artistic experience.

As for me, I remain conflicted about my own membership. Since I have a pretty good day job, the finances do not overly concern me. For the time being I will probably retain membership because it does my department more good than it does me personally, and my current responsibilities at Fredonia preclude my looking for extensive work in Buffalo for the moment. I imagine I will have to re-think that position when I retire, so I am also preserving my membership for that moment. Will I remain a local Buffalo actor, or will I test myself at NYC auditions at the regional level? Or will I give up the theatre game altogether?  Time will tell. -twl

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).
• The average weekly total was 5,585 work weeks, which represents 13.6% of members. So in any given week about 5,531 members were working.
• The total seasonal earnings for all AEA members was $334,559,463. The median member earnings in that time was $7,382. Interestingly, although total seasonal earnings were up slightly (one-tenth of 1%) from last year, median earnings decreased by 1% from last year – from $7,475 in 09-10 to $7,382 in 10-11.
• There are three regions in AEA: Eastern, Central and Western. The Eastern region dominates in all categories. This region accounts for 64.7% of total work weeks, 65.8% of weekly work weeks, and 73.9% of seasonal earnings. That is somewhat in line with the percentage of members who live in the Eastern region – 63%.
• NYLACHI accounts for 25,430 members. That’s 59% of the total membership. Close to 39% of all AEA members live in NYC. The raw numbers are 16,521 in NYC; 7,476 in LA; 1,433 in Chicago. Regionally, the Eastern region has 26,792 members (63%); Central has 3,982 (9.4%); and Western has 11,775 (27.7%).
• The Production Contract, the one that governs Broadway and tours, accounted for 54.8% of all earnings in 10-11 against 25.3% of all work weeks generated. That’s $183,184,564. The so-called “Point of Organization” heading of that contract, which governs those shows “sitting” in a Broadway house, accounted for 39.9% of total seasonal earnings ($133,388,028) against 17.3% work weeks. The LORT contracts accounted for 15.7% of all earnings but 20.7% of all work weeks, Developing Theatre contracts (LOA, SPT) 4.8% earnings/15.9% work weeks, and Stock contracts 2.3% earnings/2.9% work weeks. The Disney Contract generates 3.77% of all earnings ($12,597,371) against 5.6% of all work weeks. You’ll work more in the regions and developing theatres but get paid far less.
• The average earning per work week of a production contract was $2,492. Assuming that, as an AEA member, you could work 50 weeks at that average, you could make $124,600 per year. The average salary per week at a LORT theatre was $877. That comes out to $43,850 per year.
• Finally, gender and ethnic breakdowns. AEA is statistically even in terms of gender: 50.1% male to 49.9% female. There is, however, no breakdown in terms of how genders compare on an earnings basis. Fully 20% of all AEA members (9,027) did not identify an ethnicity or race. AEA is dominated by Caucasians – 84.6% (30,639). African-Americans come in at 7.3% (2,658), Hispanics at 2.9% (1,033), mixed race at 2.8% (1,031), Asian American at 2.3% (820), and American Indian at 0.1% (38).

Can any conclusions or inferences be made from these numbers? I suppose so.

• As an AEA member, you have only a 40% chance of getting any work at all in a given year. This statistic, however, is a bit misleading, because it does not account for those members who are not actively looking for work. Many people who are retired, discouraged, or otherwise have taken themselves out of the market are not accounted for, even though they keep their Equity membership up. Once you’re a member, Equity dues, at about $120 per year, are fairly easy to keep up, thus allowing people not seriously looking for work to maintain appearances (and Equity to maintain higher membership statistics). Perhaps one should be required to attend at least one Equity audition to be considered a “member in good standing” if one doesn’t work in a given year. That would make the percentages a little more accurate.
• If you’re AEA, you’re probably white.
• You cannot make a living solely as an Equity actor. You must have other sources of income. All Equity actors should be considered part-time workers/independent contractors in the current economy.
• To make AEA membership pay at all, you need to live on the East coast, preferably in NYC, and you need to score a production contract. Everything else is pretty much peanuts when you take into account expenses.
• Interestingly enough, Chicago, which is thought of as a hot theatre town in most circles, is not so hot for AEA members. It only generated 7,438 work weeks, an average of 5.2 work weeks per member (1,433 in the Chicago area). Average earnings per work week in the Chicago area were $572. That’s $2,974.40 annually for the average member under the Chicago Area Theatre contract. And of course, you have to ask yourself how many of the actors working under the CAT contract are actually residents of Chicago.
• The report tracks some trends over a ten-year period. Perhaps the most interesting of these trends is that, despite the fact that LORT theatres are supposedly dying, they have generated a consistent amount of work weeks over the ten-year period, neither markedly growing nor shrinking. In the 1990-91 season, LORT theatres generated 58,369 work weeks total. In 10-11, that number was 59,982.
• Finally, when we talk about this question of paying artists a living wage and all that, we should take this concept into account. I cannot recall that I have ever seen what percentage of the total revenue of a Broadway show goes to AEA members. So I have created this potential scenario to try to get some sort of ballpark idea of what this could be about. This particular scenario is not factual, but uses some facts and figures to arrive at a hypothetical conclusion. Here are the assumptions:
• As of today on the website BroadwayWorld.com, the total gross revenue for all the Broadway shows listed comes out to $1,499,084,323. Since the year is ending this can be considered the calendar year 2011 total gross earnings.
• The total seasonal earnings for AEA members under a “sitting” (non-touring) Production Contract in the 10-11 season were $133,388,028 (39.87% of all AEA earnings nationwide). The assumption is that every one of the shows listed on BroadwayWorld is working under a Production Contract.
• The total annual grosses from BroadwayWorld and the 10-11 AEA seasonal earnings do not line up precisely in terms of when the data were compiled, but they are as close as I can come at the moment for the sake of this particular argument.
• Under these assumptions, as a percentage, the $133.3 million dollars of season earnings of AEA members from a production contract represents 8.9% of the $1.5 billion gross revenue from all of Broadway’s shows. Of course, a Broadway show has many more expenses than just AEA salaries, but still – only 8.9%?
• This hypothesis brings us to the area once again of equity and economic justice (or lack thereof) in the theatrical marketplace. The money that is being made in the world of the theatre – whether profit or non-profit – is being made on the backs of the actors, not to mention the playwrights, directors, composers, etc. etc.
• It should also bring into clearer focus the wide gap between administrators and working artists of all stripes. André Bishop will regularly pull down his $400K salary year after year as long as he remains AD of LCT. There is no actor working for any of his shows who will make that much from AEA earnings in any one year. Given the averages involved, it would take an AEA actor about 4 years on average under a Production Contract to make that amount of money from AEA earnings.
• One might argue that AEA is doing a pretty piss-poor job of getting decent-paying contracts for its members by these standards. What else can you say about a union that can only gain a median income of $7,382 annually for its members when one considers the total number of entertainment dollars out there?

Well, so much for today’s analysis. I’ve got to get to my AEA job in a few hours. It looks like in this 11-12 season I may pull in about $5,000. I’m one of the lucky ones.  -twl

"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.

If I were to be brutally honest with myself, I would have to admit that in touring the Alley I became enchanted. I cannot resist the seductive power of a complete evening in the theatre. The space was terrific; nice modified thrust stage with about 500 seats. The set, while flat, just screamed of attention to detail. The lighting was subtle and elegant. Costumes were all accurate and yet spoke specifically to each character. The acting was a tad uneven but not one actor was horrifically bad, and the general flow of the play was engaging. It could easily have been a night on Broadway in 1958.

It is during experiences like these that I tend to think that most people more often than not have to make do with what life gives them. You never made enough money to buy that Cadillac you always dreamed of and maybe even sat in, so you make do with a Chrysler 300. The head cheerleader won’t give you the time of day, so you date the head of the prom committee. You’re never going to quite make it to Broadway or even a LORT theatre, so you head to academia, about the next best thing, since it follows that same model.

The Alley Theatre sings a siren’s song to me. The beauty is undeniable; the attraction strong. But mythology tells us that following a siren’s song leads to bad things, even death. The Cadillac will bankrupt you; the cheerleader becomes an obnoxious self-centered harpie; Broadway becomes about nothing but dollars and cents, and plays only to the elite.

There are many good, sound, fundamental reasons why the LORT theatre model should be re-thought and re-imagined. But perhaps when you look at how the Alley Theatre is run and has developed over all the years, you are made aware of the fact that this is how a theatre can and should be run, no matter what the scale of the theatre’s production capabilities. Creating an ensemble of artists – check. Fiscally sound – check. Paying people and talking about them like they were human beings deserving of health care, homes and schools for their families – check. A decent space to produce work – check. A mix of classics with opportunity for new work – check. Community involvement – check. You can produce this kind of entity almost anywhere, it seems to me, and come pretty close to meeting these ideals. I can’t think of anyone in the community arts movement who wouldn’t want these items for its own organization. Perhaps the trick to all this is finding a way to synergize the beauty of the siren’s appeal with the realities of what you have at hand.

I would not wish the Alley to go away, nor would I wish the values and traditions it upholds to disappear. Rather, I would love to be able to scale down all that it embodies into a form that would make theatre accessible and enjoyable – and important – to everyone in our culture and society. Interestingly enough, the siren’s song generally appeals to the spirit, and not the flesh. It is the spirit of the Alley that ultimately appeals to me, and I do believe that that spirit can be created anywhere a theatre exists. -twl

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.

You know how much these entertainment moguls give back to the community? Relatively speaking, zilch. Nada. Zero. Nothing. When was the last time you ever heard of a private entertainment corporation giving to some struggling theatre enough money that they wouldn’t have to worry about rent or utilities for five years? I am sure there might be one or two, but the exceptions only proves the rule. Most institutions, in these “hard times,” of course cut their giving to the arts. I myself recently lost one sponsor for one of my shows at Fredonia, a local real estate organization, because of a lull in housing, and another one has threatened to withdraw sponsorship. These people are the 1% of Fredonia. Up in Buffalo, Rich Products, the 161st largest corporation in the US according to Forbes, could probably fund Shakespeare in Delaware Park with the loose change that falls from the couch every year, but prefers to own baseball teams instead.

It is not the norm in terms of human behavior to believe that the organization or business you work in or aspire to is part of the problem. You can clearly see this phenomenon at work in terms of the banks, Wall Street employees and employers, and conservative commentators and politicians routinely criticize the occupiers. Nothing is wrong on Wall St., according to Wall St. So I presume if I suggested that the entertainment field, including Broadway and Hollywood, is a pretty corrupt business that financially strangulates the broader category of the arts at every turn, people within the arts would probably look askance at such a suggestion and, because people in the arts tend to be overwhelmingly liberal, they will defend the entertainment field from looking every bit as corrupt as the conservative banks and brokers. Also, this sort of idea suggests that people who aspire to a career in the arts or entertainment field are aspiring to a career where greed and corruption reign, and they’d rather not think about that. Too bad, because that’s what they are doing. Work at the top of the industry, and you’re a player (a pawn, most likely) in the financial machinations of the 1%.

Let’s look at the macrocosm first. Hollywood makes many films a year, populated by actors. The films coming out of Hollywood today are by and large trash. Formulas about, and almost no one deviates from the formulas because profit is the sole reason Hollywood makes films today. They long ago gave up making films as artistic expression. These films, which play mostly on sex, violence, action, dumb comedy, sit-com romance, or some combination of the above, make a lot of money for a few people. Reel Steel, released October 7, has already done a worldwide gross of  $116, 536,00 on a production budget of $110,000,000. The remake of Footloose is not far behind. Hugh Jackman, the star of Reel Steel, probably is making in excess of $20,000,000 for this picture (he made that salary as Wolverine). So let it be noted that all these people involved in Hollywood are in the 1%, including, as Bruni points out, the stars supporting the Occupy Wall St. movement.

Broadway? You can see the grosses yourself. It is hard to determine profits, since there is no reliable source available other than what’s reported from time to time in the newspapers, concerning a Broadway show’s budget or expenses. Billy Elliot , which opened in 2008 and is closing January 8, 2012, reportedly had an original investment of $18 million and made back its investment within 14 month of opening. So far this year it has grossed $35,416,918. Broadway is obviously not quite as lucrative as Hollywood, but there is still big money and power in that neck of the woods (Sir Elton John?). So giving Broadway a break, perhaps it’s in the 3%.

As you go down into the microcosm of this type of analysis, every major city has its own behemoth theatre that financially dominates the cultural landscape. Minneapolis has the Guthrie, LA has the Mark Taper, Chicago has the Goodman, Cleveland has the Playhouse, and so on. There are usually one or two theatres in every city that dominate the local market. I am not suggesting that these theatres are in the national 1%, but from a microcosmic point of view it can appear that way. In Buffalo, for example, there are only three theatres at which an actor can make anything resembling a salary. The rest limp along and survive on the sheer desire of those involved to be in a show, wishing they had the means of the other three.

At this point it’s ridiculous to pretend that actors, directors and other creative people who rise up in the world of arts and entertainment are not being co-opted by corporate America for its own purposes. Celebrities shill for corporations making billions of dollars, push products and services on consumers that we don’t need, and feed the never-ending cycle of rampant consumerism that is America in 2011. They make “art” that panders to the lowest common denominator. They profit handsomely from this activity. They give back nothing to the arts. Government funding for the arts? Absolute bullshit. The arts should be funded by the millions and millions of dollars being made by the 1% in the industry. They should want to do this voluntarily. The unions should set up a fund whereby those in the industry who make a boatload of money should be asked to contribute to that fund to help support regional and local community arts organizations across the country. That’s one of my specific demand to the 1% in the arts.

What are my other demands in the Occupy Broadway/Hollywood movement? For starters:

• Every actor that walks on a stage over 99 seats, or works on a film/TV/Web project with a budget over $100,000 in this country should automatically be a union actor. It should be no harder in this country to join an actors’ union than it is to join a plumbers’ union, a teachers’ union, or an auto workers’ union. Good health benefits should be included in a union package, as well as wages equalling at least the minimum wage for a 40-hour work week in this country. This is easily financed through the massive profits generated by Hollywood and Broadway. Entertainment corporations such as SONY, Jujamcyn and Disney should be the ones paying into this system to make it work.
• A corporate entertainment tax to fund the National Endowment for the Arts. Any corporation that makes a television commercial to sell its product using human talent should pay a 10% tax on their total budget for that commercial to be used specifically to fund the endowment. Residuals for talent that run over $10,000 annually should be subject to a 2% tax for the NEA. If actors can pay agents and managers (and sometimes both) 10-15% of their earnings to get these gigs, they can pay 2% to the NEA as a “thank you” for their good fortune. It should be illegal to pass this cost on to the consumer.
• If such a tax were implemented, then there would be a requirement for the NEA to spend 70% of that money in areas of the country outside the NYLACHI metropolitan areas. There are many good arts organizations in NYLACHI that deserve some of that money, but as has been demonstrated time and again in analyzing where NEA money goes, it is still concentrated in propping up already powerful urban institutions. This money should go to serve the grossly underfunded areas of the country where they arts suffer due to underfunding or no funding at all.
• If the money generated from this concept is sufficient, then the NEA should open at least one branch office in every state in the union for reasonable access to artists across the country. If the states can’t fund an arts agency, then the federal government should use this money to step in and take the state’s place.
• A requirement that 50% of all legitimate Broadway houses be running a non-musical drama, and that at least 15% of that 50% be dedicated to presenting new plays.

You can add more to this list, I am sure. My ultimate point is that we should clean our own house before we start looking at accusing others. It is not enough to sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street movement ,or even join it, until we begin to demand from “show business” that they cease their greedy ways and corrupt practices. The average working person in this country is right to look at the banks and Wall St. as their potential target, because these people are literally being robbed of their livelihood (and of course there are artists out there living as “average people” who are feeling the brunt of this corporate assault on American citizens). But as artists, we have to realize that large entertainment corporations in this country are siphoning off millions and billions of dollars in profit from their shoddy goods, and giving back nothing in return. We, the 99%, should be standing against the 1% in Hollywood and on Broadway, and demanding from them that they stop robbing the citizens of this country and from the artists of this country the opportunity to experience art and art making.  -twl

Postscript – The same applies to higher education, which is my own immediate house. The profits being reaped by student loans, the fact that graduates can’t get jobs that earn them enough money to pay off their loans, the vast amount of unproductive and useless “research” being done by university faculty, the ossification of the tenure system – all this and more means we also need an “Occupy Higher Education” movement as well. Bring it on.

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.

Eric: yeah but I mean if you’re gonna make that argument why spend $5000 on a set it’s realism not realistic so just put a table a set dinner table or a fridge or just a stove why make the kitchen? why spend that money that you’re not gonna get back?  but it’s more than that I think because I feel like a big problem with theatre is the way plays are paced playwrights take 15 pages to do what films do in 2

me: oh god i need coffee

ok now first of all theatre is an artistic form of expression as such it has particular conventions these conventions are generally accepted by the audience so the art can be experienced and enjoyed.If you do not want to accept the conventions OK fair enough but questioning the conventions is an absurd proposal. all you’re doing here is comparing apples to oranges and theatre has a much longer history of conventions because it’s been around for 2,500 years

Eric: ok here’s my major issue with that argument. Saying “it’s been around forever and we do it a specific way and it can’t change” hasn’t done any institution good. You can’t say theatre is the same now that the videocamera exists because theatre especially since the 1920s has attempted to portray real life under different sets of given circumstances and film cameras just do that way better more efficiently cheaper and with a larger market I agree that they are different mediums and that they have different difficulties and bonuses but at THIS point in time they are after the same thing and theatre just can’t compete economically

me: You know when I dabbled in the art world a few years back no artist ever seriously made the argument that because photography captured an image more realistically than painting that painting should change or go away. Why do we do that as theatre artists?

Eric: because I don’t see the same crowd of people at a Van Gough exhibit every time. I’m talking about the market of theatre. I’m saying young people aren’t interested in it.

me: are you saying art has no market?

Eric: no absolutely not but I’m saying theatre really has no market. This play I’ve done I’ve asked every member of the house why they came to see it 85-90% said it was because they knew someone in the cast. A painting doesn’t take 2 and a half hours on average to appreciate. You can go to your computer and look at it online and then buy a print of it – it has a wider market. I mean every other art form I feel got a boost from the technology boom except for theatre. Why is that? music is now MORE accessible – one person can compose multiple instruments with one keyboard, college hipster can order a print of Starry Night in the comfort of their homes, but no one is streaming plays because it’s not the same. No one is recording them and making them more accessible.No one has managed to integrate the internet with theatre in ANY way and yet Rebecca Black is famous thanks to the internet AND I daresay that improv comedy HAS adapted and is more popular now than ever before, so much so that TV shows are barely scripted sometimes.

me: I get all your points but I still think what you are essentially asking is for a circle to become a square. There are certain components about theatre that make it difficult to change such as its live component its collaborative component its language component and other things about it that give it a unique style and identity. It may indeed become a niche art thrust to the side by other art forms or it may simply die out but how you change those essential components I have no idea because if you do, theatre loses the unique qualities that make it theatre and not something else.

Eric: but I think that when we talk about what is ESSENTIAL to theatre LOTS can change. For example I disagree that theatre must be about language. I saw plenty of plays in Russia that were compelling that I could not understand. Two, I really want to know what you think are the ESSENTIALS of theatre i.e. must it be done “on a stage” and if so what consitutes a stage? I dont think a stage is essential, I think it’s a convention – does a play necessarily need “actors” and if so do we have them too specifically defined? for example, in Virginia one part of the play that the kids loved the most was when we would pick out kids from the school and make them cluck like chickens or other animals. They loved it – best part – so why does everyone have to be an “actor”? Is a script necessary? I just think we have the “essentials” too narrowly defined, and that’s why the audience is so niche.

me: Well let’s go to baseball for an analogy.

Eric: YESSS

me: Is “the diamond” essential to the game?

Eric: yes

me: Do the bases HAVE to be 90′ apart?

Eric: yes

me: must the “players” play and the audience watch?

Eric: no. Haven’t you been to Wrigley Field? BOOOM

me: To my knowledge as bad as Wrigley Field and the Cubs are no one has ever been called out of the stands to pitch or hit for the Cubs.

Eric: ok. but if baseball were drawing 20 people or for a better ratio 5,000 per game in a 20K stadium do you think at some point maybe they’d say “Hay, people don’t like something about this product so lets do “random fan day.” Because I’ll tell you one thing it’s never happened but if they said they were gonna do it? I’d be AT that motherfucking baseball game to watch one random fan PLAY AT SOME POSITION FOR EVERY HALF INNING. Maybe I wouldn’t want it everyday but yeah if I were the commissioner as Bud Selig has done I’d look at the rules as time goes by and see what really needs to be changed because baseball too has changed as its gone along and lost/gained fan base. Nobody gave a shit about steroids because it was good for business

me: but your question had to do with the “essentials” not with other things. Essentials like the diamond, the distance, bat, ball, etc. Theatre HAS changed.It used to be done in verse; it used to have nothing to do with realism for most of its history; people used to get up on stage and “participate.”

Eric: I’m saying!  I’m saying theatre has MORE room to change than baseball does because baseball actually has written rules theatre doesn’t. You need a “stage” you need “actors” you need “drama” I mean I think Aristotle got it – all that stuff works.

me: and those are the “rules”

Eric: yeah well I mean you’ll get me on the “essentials” argument because I do believe that everything has unique “essesntials” that make them whatever they are

me: So it’s really a marketing problem more than anything else

Eric:  yes it is. It’s that theatre has done nothing to embrace a new generation. It has just said “we exist as we exist, take it or leave it.” And actors will always support this incarnation of the theatre because they understand and appreciate it. But I wish it could also somehow be enjoyed by the common man not by forcing him to read about it in school and saying “you should appreciate this”

me: Your generation needs its own “Stanislavski.” It will not get that by complaining about how my generation’s Stanislavski no longer works. And that would be a good thing in my opinion.

Eric: yes haha a youtube stanislavski. you know its funny you should say that cause that’s exactly what Stanislavski did – he said the way its being done is atrocious and no longer works. all good theatre movements had a teacher/writer.

me: yes sir he did

Eric: but he was a lot richer than I am ……. Dad can I have like $5 mil to start a theatre revolution?

me: better you should have a “writer/creator” like Chekov at the same time

Eric:  hahaha boom ok I gotta go and read plays

me: Blog Post 2?

Eric: sure

me: OK

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?

It’s interesting to note that the rise of the BFA Musical Theatre and interest in the degree came at exactly the same time as size of casts and number of musicals was decreasing (if you charted this on a graph I believe you’d get a big “X”). It is a perfect example of McLuhan’s so-called “rear view mirror” effect, where society tends to see in its media not its future or its present, but its past. In other words, the very thing you’re watching on TV is probably in cultural decline at that very moment (which may account for the fact that TV shows generally have less than a three-year life span). The popularity of the “high school musical” rose as a reflection of the popularity of musicals in general, but even as high school musicals grew in popularity, musicals on Broadway were declining.

The musical theatre degree gained popularity as kids wanted to continually re-create the thrill of being in their high school musical. When you’re 16 or 17 and get a lot of attention and notariety because you are the local HS musical star, it’s a heady thing, and the encouragement you receive to continue your “career” in college can be overwhelming. But nobody at the high school level points out the actual reality of the business to these budding stars, and of course nobody really knows the statistics. So when they show up in my office or any other theatre program wanting a BFA in musical theatre, they no doubt believe they are good enough to succeed and there is opportunity out there.

There isn’t really, beyond a chosen and lucky few. The “failure rate” of students with BFA degrees in Musical Theatre is extraordinarily high if you define “success” as being in musicals a majority of the time. Musical theatre students who survive in theatre generally end up doing a lot more non-musical than musical theatre in their careers. They end up being “actors who can sing and dance” as opposed to bona fide musical theatre actors. And PS – how many musicals these days require high-level dancing? Most dancers on Broadway today are probably exclusively dancers, not actors or singers. A student who has trained himself or herself with the intent of being a “triple threat” does not have a grasp on the realities of the business these days. No one is writing material for “triple threat” actors, scores on the whole do not contain “musical breaks” allowing for big dance numbers (viz. Oklahoma or West Side Story), and if you can’t truly Dance, it’s probably a sure bet you won’t make the cut, because the people out there who can Dance can really Dance.

Any rationally-based corporation spends a lot of time trying to analyze their market and adjust their practices accordingly. But theatre, it appears, is not a rationally-based enterprise, and the same and more can be said for educational theatre. It is an enterprise based on nostalgia and past practice, not data. The fact is that employment opportunities in musical theatre, not to mention other theatrical trends, seems to escape the notice of theatre departments altogether, or they willfully ignore the data because they fear the time, effort and work it would take to change their curricula (not to mention the loss they’d suffer in enrollments). It’s time for theatre departments to begin to cut their BFA Musical Degree programs from their curricular offers, because given the realities of the business today these degrees are disingenuous at the very least and outright lies at the worst.

Theatre students are better off if they spend their time studying how to create and devise theatre, and if they have the interest and the talent, take vocal lessons and/or dancing lessons as a supplement to the primary study of how to create quality theatre. Having those skills are an asset in any situation. It’s not that I am against learning to sing and dance, but I am opposed to branding and marketing a degree program to students when that market hardly exists. A BFA degree program in musical theatre should exist in only a few schools at best, and as educators we ought to be honest enough to know that we are selling snake oil to most of the students who dream of doing Broadway-style musical theatre. -twl

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.

But it’s NYC resident’s taxpayers money, you say, so they alone should reap the benefits of this taxation. Well, which NYers are really going to reap those benefits? All NYers? Or only those who can afford the price of a ticket? A cultural diversity of NYers, or the upper-middle-class white NYer and tourists that make up the bulk of NYC’s theatre audiences? Gentrified NYers, or neighborhood NYers? Wouldn’t NYers reap far, far more if this money were used to create localized Shakespeare troupes scattered across the deep cultural breadth of NY’s many distinct neighborhoods, playing in locations like local schools and churches, and perhaps even (heaven forfend) using a mix of NYC’s deep pool of theatre talent and neighborhood residents? Wouldn’t NYers benefit more by having an African-American Shakespeare troupe, an Asian-American Shakespeare troupe, an all-female Shakespeare company, an Hispanic Shakespeare company, a (insert your own descriptor here) Shakespeare troupe, all fully-funded and all fully sustainable? Could the $34.4 million tax-dollar investment that the Big Apple has to invest handle that?

The site is in the so-called “BAM Cultural District,” a gentrified area surrounded by African-American neighborhoods. So a white westernized cultural mecca is being built in a city where people of color are now the majority. The article points to the fact that the nearby Paul Robeson Theatre, housed in a church, needs roof repairs. Any money for that? Not likely. I’ll let you judge for yourself the pitiful response from NYC cultural affairs commissioner Kate D. Levin concerning this question (John Douglas Thompson + Julie Taymor = cultural diversity). Anyone who swallows her line of bullshit is either naive or stupid.

I’ve met a lot of theatre people in my day who hate Shakespeare. Interesting fact about that – they tend to be playwrights. I wonder why that it. Is it perhaps because we spend $47.5 million to build a state-of-the-art building to produce Shakespeare’s canon and we give diddlyshit to the production of new work by American playwrights? What could an outlay of $47.5 million reap in terms of new, exciting plays if it were invested and managed as a fund for supporting playwrights in the US?

This building is not being built so that we can all enjoy Shakespeare even more. It is not being built so that Shakespeare can be done better. It is being built to satisfy the egos and the dreams of the artists, so that they can have the space they want to produce the kind of Shakespeare they like, put a capital “A” on the Art they create, sell it as a high-priced commodity, and give themselves a self-serving pat on the back for making New York City the capital of the American classical theatre world. It is being built so that the wealthy elites of the city and this country can feel cultured and sophisticated and enjoy “high-class entertainment.” Oh sure, they will trot out the requisite “educational outreach programs” as a cover for their elaborate productions designed for the educated well-off; and they will also underfund that effort, staff it with interns in an attempt to save on the budget somewhere, and offer some token cheap ticket price to sell the notion that their prices create accessibility. None of this will mask the reality of who this building is for and who will inhabit it.

Shakespeare lives in the language, in the words he used. He does not live in the spaces or the production values. Give those words life, say them with conviction and a sense of beauty, and you have all you need. Is this so because I wrote it? No, it’s so because Shakespeare himself wrote it:

And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on.

WE are such stuff as dream are made on: we, the humans, the people that inhabit this “great globe.” The ruination of Shakespearean acting has been the confinement of it in these cloud-capped towers and gorgeous palaces we have buried it in. What is a young black man walking the streets of this Brooklyn neighborhood to think about Shakespeare when he walks past this $47.5 million edifice? What would he think if the Paul Robeson theatre got its roof repaired and he could see John Douglas Thompson perform in his local church?

I am not unilaterally opposed to good spaces. The best theatre I have ever worked in is the Blackfriars Playhouse at the American Shakespeare Center in Staunton VA. The interior is a re-creation of Shakespeare’s Blackfriars Playhouse. It’s a gorgeous space, and cost far, far less than $47.5 million. It is designed to let the language weave its magic. It is a tribute to the fact that you can have elegance and simplicity simultaneously, and for a reasonable cost. I was a member of the touring troupe in 2005-06, and in addition to playing in the Blackfriars we played in all sorts of spaces, from makeshift classrooms to village opera houses to high school auditoria to college theatres. I’ve also spent several seasons with Shakespeare in Delaware Park, the poorest and humblest Shakespeare festival I know. This year it lost $80K in funding due to a zeroing out of funds for culturals in Erie County NY. Yet it’s still there after 36 years. It uses local talent, plays outdoors against the competition of dogs, cars, ambulances and weddings, is of varying quality from year to year, and is still free to the public (donations sought and accepted). There is no running water for the actors backstage or the general public (port-a-johns available), a small concession stand with some simple souvenirs for sale (coffee mugs, T-shirts “Out Damn Spot” hand sanitizer), one guy with a hotdog stand, and on a good evening upwards of a thousand viewers with picnics, wine, family and friends. Did I mention it’s free? Did I mention that local kids riding their bicycles through the park often stop and watch for an hour? Especially during dress rehearsals? It’s because of all this that I know that $47.5 million for one building to house one company to do Shakespeare in one location is an affront to all that is the best in theatre, and all that is the best in Shakespeare. There is no compelling reason for this project other than vanity, ego and hubris. The need does not truly exist, the demand is not there except from a number of privileged elites, and other demands on the paltry revenue that the arts has in this country are far more immediate.

Money, and how and where it’s spent, will always tell you where the power is. In the case of the military/industrial complex, the money is in the machinery of war and death. In the arts in the US today, the money is in the hands of a select wealthy elite hellbent on maintaining their stranglehold on Western Art and the power and prestige it represents. No human endeavor is without its power elite, whose only concern is to preserve the status quo, maintain their influence, and maximize their profits. Where the fuck this $47.5 million came from I have no idea (and that’s not all – be sure to check out in the article how much more money is being spent on high-profile, elite cultural organizations in the city), but you can be damn sure that it was not raised by the people, and that it will not be used in the taxpayer’s general interest. Rather, they will be lied to about how beneficial this project really is for them, and why it’s so critically important. And in the process, they will be well and truly fucked, denied participation, and ultimately denied access.

I cannot for the life of me understand why theatre artists across this country aren’t screaming bloody murder about this amount of money being used for this sole purpose. I suppose it’s because they themselves, for the most part, are blinded by their own desire to be part of this artistic/capitalist complex. They believe the illusion and have bought into the big lie. They see themselves on that stage, performing or directing or designing. And so they remain docile and keep smiling as they mail out another 400 headshots. It’s a tough dream to let go of, because it’s so beautiful – fame, acclaim, recognition of your personal genius. But until American theatre artists can let go of their dreams and see the screwed-up priorities that make up theatre in this country today, we will continue to allow $47.5 million to be spent on a few at the expense of the many. And it’s that realization that turns anger into a deep sorrow.  -twl

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