In what is clearly a case of unfortunate timing at the cosmic level, their dog is dying. When they arrived to move in the first load of their belongings, they took the dog to the vet because he had become rather listless and lacked energy. The diagnosis was stomach cancer; there was a big tumor in his stomach discovered via ultrasound. He will have to be put down soon. The dog is ten years old, and my daughter’s partner has had him since he was a puppy.

While they are back in MA this Labor Day weekend packing up the rest of their belongings for the return trip back, I am taking care of the dog. He no longer eats on his own, so I am force-feeding him twice a day. The goal is to keep him alive until they return (hopefully tonight) so they can have a few more days with him and then put him down.

Force-feeding consists of taking his food in small chunks, opening his mouth, and shoving it back behind his tongue so that his swallowing reflex moves it down his throat. It is not too difficult a task, because the dog is a super mellow dog and makes no effort to bite. But it is not fun. Given his choice, the dog probably would not eat and eventually starve himself to death.

As strange as this will seem, I find that this process of force feeding the dog has gotten me thinking at the metaphorical level about what we force feed our audiences and our students as artists and educators. At the artistic level, we decide as artists to create some work of theatre, and then we attempt to get our audiences to watch what we create. We work as hard as we can to force feed this art to them, by means of advertisements or by trying to convince them that this is good for them in some cultural way. As educators, we decide what the students need to know, and then methodically ram it into their somewhat innocent and unknowing brains. All the “professional” cliches come out and, without any meaningful discussion or the opportunity for the students to “eat for themselves,” they are placed in the back of the throat and given a shove to send them down.

We know that the numbers of people both attending and participating in theatre is dwindling, metaphorically dying. It is a transitional time in theatre, as we struggle to discover what can come out of the ashes of this entropic disintegration. We need to listen more to our audiences and try to figure out what they are hungry for instead of force feeding them what we wish to, and we must find out what types of ideas, concepts, skills and training will nourish our young minds to create theatre anew, rather than feeding them the dried-up jerky of the past.

And yet, I can tell you how emotionally hard it is to stop the force feeding. I am not the dog’s owner, only its temporary caretaker. Even so, it’s a judgment call every day to determine whether another day of life is worth it for him. I know it is for me, for my daughter, and for her partner. We love the dog a great deal, as I love the theatre a great deal. I have a deep abiding fondness for theatre’s past, but I know that the attempt to keep it alive is more for my sake than for anybody else’s. But I think it’s time to go out and get a new puppy, with all the attendant effort that takes (training, housebreaking, energy level). A new, vibrant, energetic, and rough-edged theatre is what we need, something we will have to train and housebreak, but something that will serve us better. Something that will eagerly eat of its own free will.  -twl

8.4 Million New Yorkers Leave New York .

• Acting in Buffalo with Shakespeare in Delaware Park. Just did my role to the best of my ability. No other responsibilities.
• Summer orientation of incoming freshmen. Getting the newbies their classes and getting them over that first academic hurdle is satisfying. And fun. And the atmosphere is relaxed and easygoing. And I don’t have to make any decisions.
• Vacation to visit family.
• Cleaning out the office. Next step – hiring someone to make it look good. I have no skill in interior design.
• Mowing the lawn. Meditative.
• Sitting on the back porch. Contemplative.

But the summer has gone, and everything has already heated up back at school. Classes, auditions, projects; so many things hit all at once. University life is like that: it has a way of not being there, and then in one sudden onslaught, it’s back again.

Thus begins my 23rd year as an acting teacher in a small-town college. But there are many things brewing, and I think as I shake off the summer doldrums and get my head back into writing, this year the winds of summer will blow in some new and interesting developments. I am hoping that these developments will prove interesting as the year progresses.  -twl

One of the items I’ve prepared is something I loosely called “Theatre Facts Today.” Essentially it’s a big list of data culled from the various reports that have been released over the past five years or so. Once I had compiled it, it seems like quite an interesting list, and I could not think of a place where all these facts had been collected in one location. So I thought I would post my list here and on TACT and share them with you for your inspection and reflection. I am making no attempt at analyzing all this data for the moment. I’m just putting it out there in one big list.

Sidenote – I recently had a discussion with a member of the chemistry department who is interested in getting more participation from the arts departments on campus for her Earth Day events in April. During the conversation I happened to bring up the notion that I had been looking at the data as a means of assessing theatre curricula and reforming its approach to training artists. She looked at me and said, “You are the first artist I have ever heard speak of using data to assess a condition.” Maybe I am on to something .

The following is nothing more than a listing of some facts that represent what is happening in the real world of theatre and dance today. These facts are presented as a jumping-off point and context for our discussion “Theatre Training and Education in the 21^st Century.”

•Several National Studies

• 2008 NEA Survey of Public Participation in the Arts
• 2008 Artists in the Workforce 1990-2005 (NEA)
• TCG Theatre Facts 2008 and 2009
• AEA Theatrical Season Report 08-09
• 2010 NY Innovative Theatre Awards Survey of OOB Practitioners
• Outrageous Fortune: The Life and Times of the New American Playwright (2010)

Some Facts from those studies:

• •Median AEA member made $7,688 in 08-09
• •Average AEA weeks worked=15.2 (49.3% employed)
• •Only 14.4% of AEA members working in any one week
• •68% of OOB actors had either FT or PT work outside theatre
• •Playwrights make about $7,000/yr. on average from their plays

Some facts from the 2007 Survey of Theatre Grads SUNY Fredonia

1. When did you graduate?

Response Percent             Response Count

a. Before 1985                                     1.2%                                     1

b. 1985-90                                          10.6%                                     9

c. 1990-95                                          35.3%                                     30

d. 1995-2000                                     23.5%                                     20

e. after 2000                                     29.4%                                     25

Answered question 85

skipped question 0

2. What is your total estimated annual gross income for 2007 (include only the money you make. Do not include the income from any other member of your household. Include income from all sources.)?

Response Percent                         Response Count

a. below $20,000                                     23.5%                                     20

b. $20-35K                                                 21.2%                                     18

c. $35-50K                                                 24.7%                                     21

d. $50-75K                                                 16.5%                                     14

e. above $75K                                            14.1%                                     12

answered question 85

skipped question 0

3. Of the amount listed in Question 2, what percentage of it is income derived from employment in the general entertainment business (theatre, film, radio, television, voiceover, commercials, industrials, etc. DO NOT include income earned from teaching in any educational setting. You MAY include income earned as a guest artist in an educational setting.)?

Response Percent                  Response Count

a. none                                     30.6%                                                             26

b. 1-25%                                   23.5%                                                             20

c. 26-50%                                  9.4%                                                             8

d. 51-75%                                   1.2%                                                             1

e. 75-99%                                   4.7%                                                             4

f. 100%                                      30.6%                                                             26

Answered question 85

Skipped Question 0

4. Of the amount listed in Question 2, what percentage of it is income derived from employment in legitimate theatre ONLY (live performances of staged plays)?

Response Percent             Response Count

a. none                                       47.1%                                     40

b. 1-25%                                     18.8%                                     16

c. 26-50%                                     3.5%                                     3

d. 51-75%                                     0.0%                                     0

e. 75-99%                                     10.6%                                     9

f. 100%                                        20.0%                                     17

Answered question 85

Skipped Question 0

2010 OOB Survey of Theatre Practitioners (my analysis from an earlier post)

• You’re highly educated, female, and you’re white. 84% of all OOB actors have a college degree: 60% with a bachelors, 21% with a masters, 3% with a PhD. 77% are white. 5% are African-American, 4% Latino. 53% are female, 46% male.
• You’re young. 67% of all indie actors are between the ages of 21-40, a 19-year span. The highest age group is 26-30 year-olds at 24%. The average age is 36, the median is 33. There is an attrition rate of 50% from the 26-30 age group (24%) to the 36-40 age group (12%). All the percentages over 40 are in single digits. Only 20% of indie actors are between 40-55, a 15-year span.
• You’re single and childless. 51% of you are single, and 18% are living with a partner (not married). 92% of you have no children. I am assuming this 92% childlessness rate runs across all age groups.
• Your average income is between $30-50K annually. Your average annual salary is about $38, 209, which comes out to about $18.37/hour (as a reference, the contractor re-modeling my bathroom makes $35/hr). But you’re doing better that the median hourly wage of all actors in this country, which is $11.61 according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
• Before you get too excited about that, though, realize that you’re probably living in Manhattan (54%), where according to the Real Estate of New York’s rent survey for January 2010, the lowest rent for a non-doorman studio apartment is in Harlem at $1,312/month. In addition, your money is not being made through the theatre work you do – only 8% of the actors in this survey made all their money through their theatre work. 40% had a full-time job outside of theatre, and 31% had part-time work, for a 71% rate of employment outside theatre. Also, most actors indicated that acting was not the only thing they did as a theatre practitioner. 25% of you also do administrator/producer work, and another 22% also identify as directors. The survey is not clear about how much of the income that the 8% who make all their money through the theatre actually make it through acting alone, without income from these other theatrical identities.
• 48% of you managed to get into AEA, 45% did not. Union workers made an average of $32,092 per year (again, not strictly in the theatre), while non-union actors made $30, 786. So for the privilege of being a union member, you made $1,306 extra, which probably went to paying your union dues. Don’t spend that all in one place.

TCG Theatre Facts 2009:

• While a majority of theatres operated in the black from 2005 to 2007, more than half had a negative bottom line in 2008 and 2009 and an increasing percentage of theatres experienced shortfalls greater than 20% of operating expenses over the past two years.
• The 5-year period ending 2009 finished in negative territory. Contributed income barely outpaced inflation but could not offset the erosion of earned income and the growth in expenses. 5-year earned income growth exclusive of investment income was 0.8% above inflation.
• Total earned income covered 44.4% of total expenses in 2009, a 16.7% decrease from 2005. The inflation-adjusted 23% decline in earned income over the past five years occurred in concert with expense growth that outpaced inflation.
• Average endowment earnings peaked in 2007, decreased significantly in 2008 and fell an additional 79.9% in 2009.
• The economic crisis created 5-year, inflation-adjusted declines in endowment earnings of 79.5%. This line item includes earned and transferred investment income from endowments (donor restricted) or quasi-endowments (board designated) that were established specifically to provide income. Endowment earnings supported 1.8% lower proportion of expenses in 2009 than in 2005.
• Despite belt-tightening in many areas in 2009, total expense growth outpaced inflation over the 5-year period by 9.7%—making the erosion of earned income detailed above an even greater concern. All expense categories experienced growth in excess of inflation from 2005 to 2009 with the exception of royalties and physical production expenses (i.e., lumber, steel, fabric, etc.).
• Total payroll increased 10.7% above inflation from 2005 to 2009 and accounted for half a percent more of theatres’ total expenses. The average number of paid employees peaked at 218 in 2006 and reached its lowest level of 204 in 2009. Job cuts affected full-time, part-time and jobbed-in employees. The number of full-time employees went from a high of 63 in 2005 to a low of 51 in 2009. Theatres employed on average five fewer fee-based or jobbed-in workers in 2009 compared to 2005.
• In 2005, artistic and administrative payroll accounted for 19.5% and 20.5% of theatres’ expenses, respectively—the largest areas of resource allocation (see Table 5). Since then, administrative payroll has held its ground as a proportion of expenses and its growth has outpaced inflation by 0.5%. Artistic payroll, on the other hand, now represents only 18.6% of total expenditures and its growth over the 5-year period fell short of inflation by 0.9%.
• Total attendance—including resident productions and tours—declined 5.7% to its lowest level in 2009 while the total number of performances remained fairly unchanged from 2005 to 2009. The attendance drops were annual while the number of performances offered fluctuated.
• The overall 3% increase in the number of resident performances was met with a 3.1% decrease in attendance.
• In 2009, more resident performances were offered yet attendance was lower than in other years.

Sixty-six theatres have participated in the TCG Fiscal Survey each year since 2000. Some key trends for this subset of larger theatres provide a longer-term perspective:

• Growth in subscription income fell short of inflation by 11%. Subscription renewals averaged 70% to 76% annually over the 10-year period, ending at 73% in 2009. Total subscription packages sold and total subscriber attendance, both of which were at a 10-year high in 2001 were at their lowest in 2009, with 26% and 16% declines, respectively, over the period.

• Total attendance (not including tours) fell 7% over the 10-year period.

• Overall, earned income growth fell short of inflation by 25%.

NEA 2008 Public Participation in the Arts

• Performed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the 2008 SPPA collected arts participation data and other information from more than 18,000 adults (18 and above) across the United States.

• The percentage of adults going to classical music, non-musical theater, ballet and other dance performances continued to decline from levels in previous years.  Only musical plays saw no statistically significant change in participation from 2002 to 2008.

• Musicals drew 17 percent of all adults, and nonmusical plays drew 9 percent.

• Performing arts attenders are increasingly older than the average U.S. adult.

• From 2002 to 2008, 45-54-year-olds — historically a large component of arts audiences — showed the steepest declines in attendance for arts events including classical music concerts, ballet and theater performances, and art museum visits.

• As in prior years, more Americans listened to or watched recordings or broadcasts of performing arts events than attended them live. The sole exception is live theater, which still attracts higher percentages of adults than broadcasts or recordings of plays or musicals.

• In 2008, there were more attendances at musical plays — 83 million — than any other type of performing arts studied in the SPPA. Attendances for musical plays saw little change from 2002 to 2008, which was also true for the number of attendances at “other dance” performances. Attendance at all other types of performing arts events studied in both 2002 and 2008 had large declines in 2008. Attendance declined most for jazz and classical music concerts and non-musical plays.

US Adults attending a theatre or dance activity at least once in the last 12 months (1982/2008):

• Musical Plays: 18.6/16.7
• Non-musical Plays: 11.9/9.4
• Ballet: 4.2/2.9
• Other Dance: 7.1(1992)/5.2

US Adults Participating in theatre or dance:

Singing or acting in a musical play. About 2 million adults (0.9 percent of adults) sang or acted in a musical play in 2008. Because the 2002 SPPA question regarding participation in musical plays referred to “singing music from a musical play or operetta,” results from 2008 are not precisely comparable to those of previous years. People who sing or act in musical plays come from all age groups, with people 18 to 24 representing the greatest share (30%) of all musical play performers. About 63 percent of adults who participate are women. Participation of people with more formal education is slightly higher than adults with less education. Non Hispanic whites and African Americans have slightly higher rates of participation than other groups.

Acting in a non-musical play. About 1.8 million adults acted in at least one non-musical play in 2008. Participation in non-musical plays dropped from 1.4 percent of adults in 2002 to 0.8 percent of adults in 2008. More so than for other types of arts performance, acting cuts across gender, education, race and ethnicity, and income groups. Adults 18 to 24 are the most likely to act in a non-musical play. African Americans are more likely to act in a non-musical play than other groups.

Performing dance. According to the 2008 survey results, 4.8 million adults in the 2008 SPPA performed dance of some type at least once in the past 12 months. Although changes in survey questions make trend analysis in this area difficult, the 2.1 percent of adults involved in dance in 2008 appears to represent a decline from previous years — in 2002, 4.2 percent of adults said they participated in dance other than ballet, including modern, folk and tap. Participation in dance performances has been declining since at least 1992. More than two-thirds of adults participating in dance performances are women. Both young and older adults participate in dance — and the highest rates of participation are among people 18 to 24 and 65 to 74. People of higher education levels are somewhat more likely to participate in dance than adults with less education.

Artists in the Workforce 2000-2005 – May 2008 Report by the NEA

Artists are generally more educated than the workforce as a whole.

• Artists are twice as likely as the overall labor force to have graduated from college.

• The proportion of artists with degrees is rising—from 51 percent in 2000 to 55 percent in 2003-2005.

Fewer artists have full-year, full-time jobs than other workers.

• One-third of all artists work fewer than 50 weeks a year.

• 28 percent of artists work for less than 35 hours a week.

• Actors have the lowest level of full-year, full-time employment—15 percent.

Artists generally earn less than workers with similar levels of education.

• Artists earn $6,000 less annually than other “professional” workers.

• Dancers have the lowest median annual income—$15,000

Compared with the American labor force as a whole, artists are much more likely to be self-employed. Almost one-third of artists were self-employed in 2000, compared with less than 10 percent of the labor force. About half of fine artists and writers were self-employed, with photographers at 42 percent and musicians at 35 percent. This pattern of high self-employment was evident in the 1990 census data, but the 2003-2005 data indicate that the numbers of self-employed artists are increasing, with 35 percent of all artists self-employed, and each artist occupation showing more than 20 percent self-employed. Actors have the lowest level of full-year, full-time workers—only 17 percent. Between 20 and 30 percent of dancers, musicians, and entertainers work full time all year

In the U.S. labor force as a whole, 30 percent of all workers work fewer than 50 weeks a year. The percentage of part-year workers for all artists is slightly higher––33 percent. For many of the artist occupations, however, the percentage working less than a full year is much higher than for artists as a whole. Seventy-seven percent of actors work part-year, as do about one-half of dancers and entertainers, and 2 out of every 5 musicians. Full-time work is defined as 35 or more hours per week, a level that includes almost 80 percent of the U.S. labor force, and more than 80 percent of professionals. Seventy-eight percent or more of architects, designers, and producers work full-time hours, but other artists are more likely to work part-time. Only about half of actors, dancers, and entertainers, and 3 out of 5 musicians, work 35 or more hours per week.

The median income from all sources in 1999 was $30,000 for artists, higher than the $25,300 median for the total labor force, and lower than the $36,000 for all professionals. Dancers had the lowest median income – $15,000 – with actors, musicians, announcers, photographers, fine artists, and entertainers all at $25,000 or less. Architects had the highest median income at $48,000, followed by producers ($40,000), writers ($32,000), and designers ($30,000). The median income for artists in 2003-2005 was $34,800, or $29,700 when adjusted for inflation to represent 1999 dollars. Full-year, full-time artists earned $45,200 (unadjusted) while the median income for full-year, fulltime professionals was $52,500. Producers and writers who worked full time had incomes above $50,000, and the median income for full-year, full-time architects was higher, at $63,500. For the 45 percent of artists who did not work full time all year, however, the median income was $20,000. The 2003-2005 median income for all women artists was $27,300, or 65 percent of the $42,000 median income for all male artists.

Number of actors: 39,717

In the 2003-2005 time period, there were 39,717 actors, a mere 2 percent of all artists and a category that has shown little growth since 1990. Almost half of all actors live in California, mostly in Los Angeles. Another 20 percent live in New York, mostly in New York City. Twelve percent of actors are employed by not-for-profit organizations, a relatively high proportion when compared with other artists. Almost 40 percent are self-employed, and 47 percent work for private for-profit employers. Only 15 percent of actors work full time for the entire year. Almost 60 percent of actors have completed college—more than double the rate of the labor force as a whole—but their median income ($23,400) is below the $30,100 median for the total labor force. For the small group who do work full time all year, actors’ median income is still below the norm for the labor force. About half of all actors are under 35, and 12 percent are enrolled in college or graduate school. Twenty-three percent of actors are of minority racial or ethnic groups, a similar proportion to most other performing artists.

• 45.1% female
• 23.4% minority
• Median age: 35
• 49.9% under 35
• 58.6% with bachelor’s degree or higher
• 11.9% enrolled in school
• 15.1% full-year, full-time workers
• 39.7% self-employed
• 47.2% private for-profit
• Median income (2005 dollars): $23,400
• Median income for men: $26,700
• Median income for women: $19,100
• Median income for full-year, full-time workers: $31,500 (15.1% of actors)

Number of dancers and choreographers: 25,651

Professional dancers make up the smallest group of artists, and they are also the youngest, least educated, most racially and ethnically diverse, and most likely to be female. More than 80 percent of dancers are under 35. With a median age of 26, 15 percent are enrolled in school. Only 14 percent have bachelor’s degrees, about half the proportion in the labor force, and the lowest level of any artist group. Three-quarters of dancers are women and 40 percent are members of minority racial or ethnic groups. Most dancers are employed by private for-profit companies, but 22 percent are self-employed and 11 percent are employed by nonprofit organizations. Only 25 percent work full time all year, a proportion almost as low as actors. More than 10,000 dancers live in four states—California, New York, Florida, and Texas—but Nevada’s 1,385 dancers give the state the highest level of dancers per 10,000 people in the United States.

• 75.9% female
• 40.1% minority
• Median age: 26
• 80.8% under 35
• 14.4% with bachelor’s degree or higher
• 15.1% enrolled in school
• 24.9% full-year, full-time workers
• 22.3% self-employed
• 65.1% private for-profit
• Median income (2005 dollars): $20,000
• Median income for men: $20,400
• Median income for women: $18,300
• Median income for full-year, full-time workers: $34,600 (24.9% of dancers)

Source: American Community Survey   2003-2005

Dunkirk NY

Nevertheless, I have enjoyed exploring the iPad and suspect it will come in handy as a replacement for a lot of gadgets. I took it on my recent MA vacation and it did about 95% of all the things I usually do on a computer. Once iOS 4.0 comes out for it to add multitasking, it will prove to be a replacement for many things. I will be taking it to meetings to take notes as well as record meetings if necessary. I will be using the Shakespeare app as my textbook and reference in Shakespeare class. It’s my newspaper, encyclopedia, reference tool, translator, YouTube viewer, music player and ebook reader all rolled into one. My wife got the 3G version, so as long as I can get a decent AT&T signal, I can use it anywhere. And the data contract plan is $25 per month for 2GB of data – no long term contract. I pay for a month when I want it, and don’t pay when I don’t. That’s nice.

But through all this technological wizardry, I began to sense something was amiss, and it came into sharper focus as I began to search for usable and interesting apps. And here is what I discovered: of all the things the iPad wants to do for me, the single most important thing it wants to do is entertain me. It wants to play my music and have me buy more music, have me watch videos and movies, play games, read books, surf the web, and…that’s about it. Sure, I can do things like write notes, make Keynote presentations, balance my finances and what not, but those things are somewhat hard to do on this device. What’s easy to do is entertain myself.

I am really just guessing here, but as I browsed through the various apps available, it began to feel as if 90% of all the apps in The App Store were entertainment apps. Now, I am not a computer gamer. I do not like to play games on the computer, except perhaps chess, solitaire or some other game of that nature, but even those bore me quickly. I do not surf the web for videos, and I do not generally like to watch movies much. I watch very little television, not even HBO. Sometimes I like listening to music, but I find that at this stage of my life, an attentive silence to the world around me is far more pleasant and interesting. I like being present to what’s happening right around me, not trying to shut out the world by sticking ear buds in my ears.

Nor do I live in a big city where there is a lot to do. All the lifestyle apps are therefore useless to me. They do come in handy when I travel, and that’s why I have them there, but then again, I don’t travel all that often, so I seldom use them. I don’t need UrbanSpoon to give me options on where to eat in the Dunkirk/Fredonia area.

So what have I been doing with it if not entertaining myself? Well, reading my email. It’s a good email reader. I use a feed reader to glance through news, blogs, etc. (which, it can be argued, is a form of entertainment). I do surf the web, but mostly I read news and information sites. I check Facebook because I maintain a FB presence for my department (I was also doing Shakespeare in Delaware Park for a year, but that has recently passed to a full-time staffer in their main office). I use it to check CraigsList (a very superior app). And as mentioned, I will be taking it to meetings. I am also using it to read a book or two.

But all this makes me a minority user of the device. What’s apparent to me is that Apple is selling this device, not as a tool for gaining and organizing information, but rather as a device for entertaining yourself. It’s primarily a lifestyle device, not an information device. Look at the commericals that sell the device – they are all geared towards lifestyle and entertainment. You don’t see someone on those commericals writing an email or taking notes at a meeting or reading the Times. You see them looking up movie times and finding the best restaurants, or viewing the latest music video and then buying the music or streaming a movie. The whole message about this device that with it, you can have an endless source of entertainment, as well as a trendy lifestyle.

So my question is – what happens to theatre in 50 years when these devices – and those that will follow – become as ubiquitous as the telephone, radio, or television, all of which have about a 98% saturation point in today’s society? Will there be an app for that?  -twl

Last week, though, while I was on vacation visiting family in Massachusetts, I did manage to squeeze in two days taking in the three Shakespeare offerings at Shakespeare & Company in Lenox MA. In fact, I got to do a fairly quick buzz around the Berkshires, from Lenox down to Stockbridge, then up to North Adams, across to Williamstown and back down through Pittsfield to Lenox. It was interesting. I liked Pittsfield the best, because it seemed to preserve most if its working-class history, and there was much more diversity visible in the community.

Having completed my own Shakespearian stint at my hometown Shakespeare Festival, it was quite interesting to compare the two and see what a difference money and location can make. When we talk about class, culture and the arts in this country, to me it becomes readily apparent that theatre has become the domain of the white and the wealthy. Comparing the way the two festivals go about producing Shakespeare, as well as looking at the eventual product, makes this pretty clear.

Shakespeare & Company – indeed, the entire Berkshire area – appears to cater to people with means, or at least the ability to scrape up the means for a short period of time. The audiences for all of the plays I saw were what you’d expect: elderly, white and predominantly female. Scattered within the audiences were families bringing their children for some cultural education. No people of color, with the exception of the matinee audience of Comedy of Errors, which had an audience composed of a few elderly people and a group of Upward Bound students from the Boston area on a day trip. More on those kids in a minute.

The town of Lenox is composed mostly of small, expensive shops of many kinds. I stopped in a bookstore, a leather goods store, and an art and chocolate store. My wife and I ate in a small Mediterranean restaurant that was not in any of the guides, and it had very reasonable prices and only one other family group in it (we visited the area over a Wednesday-Thursday). The atmosphere was one of cultured genteelness. Lenox is also home to Tanglewood and Jacob’s Pillow Dance Company, and the mixture of classical music, dance and Shakespearian theatre is very heady. The whole place gives out the vibe that smart, sophisticated, successful individuals live or vacation here. The town was not totally void of non-white faces, but it was always a long period of time before you saw one.

The shows themselves were overall not as good as I would have thought. The grounds of Shakespeare and Co. used to be an old private school for boys, and the Founders Theatre is a converted gymnasium. The first show I saw was Richard III. I did not much care for it. The actor playing Richard was all about effect, and never once did I see a crafty mind at work. The measure, to me, of a good Richard III lies in the Richard/Ann wooing scene; if that’s not done well, the rest of the show usually falls apart. It felt to me like the two actors were mostly standing there speaking well, but not really trying to affect or be affected by the other. The only scene I really enjoyed was IViv, the scene between Elizabeth and Richard where Richard tries to convince Elizabeth to let her daughter marry him. The actor playing Elizabeth was the best in the cast, and she made the scene work because she was actually directing her speech right at Richard. Shakespeare & Co., since it was founded by Tina Packer and Kristin Linklater, does stress vocal work, but it appears that work seems to give the actors the idea that acting is just the act of speaking. Only Elizabeth seemed to conbine speaking with intent and human motivation. Additionally, there appeared to be no real directing in the show, but rather a sense of just letting the “star” of the show go out there, be intense, play for effect, and do his thing. No crafting of pace, style, or intent was really evident.

The matinee of Comedy of Errors was performed by the company’s collection of interns in their newly-built blackbox theatre, and it consisted primarily of recent graduates of university programs. It was performed as if it were a circus comedy, and it was energetic, physical, and boisterous. The performers had a lot of energy, but lacked polish. And again, the hand of the director, while present in some of the concept (such as a bell chiming whenever the word “chain” was utter, which grew absolutely wearying because it had not ultimate payoff), was not much present in helping the young actors shape their performances. Occasionally the actors executed the physical bits to some good effect (with one outstanding performance by a young, tall, black male with an extremely lithe body playing the Courtesan as a cross-dresser), but more often than not they did not have their intended effect due to lack of precision. It was interesting to note that the Upward Bound audience, which was polite and well-behaved throughout the performance, really only laughed at the most broad and bawdy physical humor. I think the rest of it went right over their heads despite the high energy of the cast. If this is an intern company where the actors are supposed to be there to learn better craft, I can’t say that was the case. And had it not been for the Upward Bound kids, there would have been no more than 30 people in the house. The humor, I think, also became overkill for the elderly generation, as one woman turned to her friend towards the end and said “I think this is the last scene coming up, thank God.”

The final show I saw was The Winter’s Tale in its final preview. This was the best of the three. This show is hard to make successful, as Shakespeare seemed to have lost interest in good plot structure with this one. It’s actually two plays in some ways. When the scene moves to Bohemia, the play feels completely different. The director’s hand in this one was most strong, as he clearly was making an effort to create very clear worlds inhabited by very specific kinds of people. The actor playing Leontes, however, was a bit of a disappointment. He’s clearly a very good actor, but he appeared to playing for mood and emotion more so that clarity of story. He kept breaking up the lines in odd places, running sentences together in strange ways, and accelerating and decelerating his pace in what appeared to be an attempt to handle the language with the appearance of dexterity. His presence on stage was very strong, and he’s clearly a fine actor, but his speech patterns were so unusual, broken up in so many strange ways, that his thoughts became hard to follow. He was better in the second half of the play, although his subdued melancholy became somewhat affected after awhile. The courtroom scene was well-staged (as was the whole production), but alas, Hermione’s defense speech was also chopped up for the sake of mood. The actress played the character at that point as very weak from the aftereffects of childbirth, and I think it took away from the strength inherent in the scansion and language of her presence in that scene. Particular kudos have to go to the actors playing The Shepard and his son. Their comic timing and characterizations were spot-on; and indeed, the production was at its best during the Bohemia scenes. I think it was the best staging of the rustic’s festival I’ve ever seen.

Now I point all this out because, in my opinion, the presence of all this money and charm and sophistication did not buy any better Shakespeare. It bought a more comfortable surrounding, and more of a sense of high culture, elegance and art, but it did not buy better Shakespeare. I am no doubt prejudiced, but Shakespeare in Delaware Park is, to me, much closer to what I think Shakespeare was really after. Our production of Much Ado did not feature the kinds of actors you get to see at Shakespeare & Co. (NY credits and the like, although there are quite a few young, non-Equity people in the company). The grounds don’t feature the same genteel, wealthy atmosphere (heck, we don’t even have running water; we have port-a-johns as bathrooms. Very Elizabethan). Our productions do not have the same production values in terms of set, lights and costume. We play a broader style suitable for outdoors.You can hear traffic and airplanes and all manner of noise as the show progresses (two years ago there were even two streakers who crossed the stage during a performance).

But it does afford the opportunity to everyone of any means whatsoever to come and enjoy Shakespeare for free (we take up free-will donations at intermission and suggest a $10 donation. The cost of our three shows at Lenox was $191). It does offer solidly performed shows done mostly by local talent or actors with roots in the area. There are always people of all ages, all economic means, and all ethnic backgrounds in the audience. There can be up to 1500 people present on a good day. The wealthy and the poor alike mix in the same location, just as at the Globe. And for better or worse, it’s quintessentially Buffalonian. In short, it has an appeal capable of attracting everyone. It’s more along the lines of what I’d like all theatre to be in an ideal world. If Shakespeare himself had the choice, I think he’d come to Shakespeare in Delaware Park before he’d go near Shakespeare & Co.

Either tonight or tomorrow night I’ll be attending the all-female production of MacBeth now playing up in SDP. The buzz for this show has been outstanding. I’m looking forward to it.  -twl

But apart from the iPad itself, just the experience of sitting in the backyard doing what I choose to do is my central point. These next few days will entail undergoing some post-show decompression, but there is not really any depression that I can feel attached to ending the show. My body has been geared towards getting in the car in the late afternoon and driving up to Buffalo, and that physical state takes time to leave the system. But there is no real sadness to it; in fact, I am quite glad not to have to do a show.

During the whole process of doing this last show I began to understand that my interest in continuing my career in Buffalo is waning fast. The disinterest is not from any active dislike of anybody or anything, but rather comes from noticing how uninterested I was in the backstage talk: who was casting what show next, how little politicking I did to find out if there were any auditions coming up, or any of the gossip about the upcoming season. Also, it has been just plain harder to get cast now that I am an Equity actor, so that adds another layer to the situation. I have to work harder to make myself the absolute right choice for one of the big theatres to cast me, and I really don’t have the time or the inclination to do so. More and more the signs seem to point to concentrating on running my department, leading it into new directions if possible, and pursuing the TACT work I want to do.

I’ve learned by this time that it’s silly to talk about “retiring” from acting. I don’t think that will ever truly happen. If the right opportunity comes about I am sure I would take it. I think what this is all about is coming to grips with the reality that what I am no longer interested in is actively pursuing opportunities. There is enough to keep me busy right in my own back yard, figuratively as well as literally (the small garden thrives!), so searching out acting opportunities seems to be more of an added burden than anything else at the moment.

And i suppose that’s how it should be. These days I seem to find that more information about retirement comes my way that anything else, and while I am not planning to retire from teaching just yet, perhaps the first step on that road is retiring from actively pursuing acting opportunities. There are many things I want to do that I haven’t done yet simply because I haven’t created the time to do so. By my count I have done summer theatre every summer since 1986 except for perhaps three summers. To get them done, something’s gotta give. An active professional career seems the easiest and most likely thing to surrender. It’s not like I’m making tons of money doing it, or have any hope of winning a Tony. So why not? -twl

It’s also been the busiest week of the summer for me. This past week was the week that working summer orientation getting classes for incoming freshmen combined with working evenings at the park. I find this year I have not been as exhausted as I was last summer, and that has been a relief. I believe my protein shake regimen has made a significant difference, as well as the fact that Leonato is not as physical a role as Sebastian was last year. They have been pretty full, active days, however, and it’s fair to say I have been tired, but not so supremely exhausted that I cannot face the next day. Today is the last show of this week, as we do not perform on July 4th, so I have two days off from the show and only one orientation later in the week. Plenty of time to recover, and as this is the last week of the show it should not be as intense as this past week was.

The show itself has been pleasant to perform. One thing I am experiencing once again about working at the park is that it is about more than just the show. SDP is really a total experience, and in many ways the quality of the show is not the point at all. In this production of Much Ado the director has mixed popular tunes from the 40s into the fabric of the show, and so you have a pleasant little love comedy competently performed with the songs nicely sung. Mix that with a gentle summer evening, a picnic dinner and/or snacks, a bottle or two of wine, a park setting with a lake in the background, a beautiful sunset, and you have more than an evening at the theatre – you have an experience in which the show itself is only one of the many elements.

This is not to say that the show itself is not good; much of it is good. But it certainly does not break any significant artistic ground, and there is no attempt to do more with the show than it can handle. The comedy is there, along with the two or three dramatic scenes that comprise the heart of the Hero/Claudio subplot. Audiences are enjoying the show because it is entertaining, and the setting makes it all the more enjoyable. And that’s it.

Despite that, I find for myself personally that getting in the car, commuting the hour up there, doing the show, and commuting back home has that “been there done that” feel to it. I can’t call it an active dislike, and I think that if I lived ten minutes from the park I would feel completely different about the situation. But I have to say in all honestly that the idea of sitting on my back porch on these delightful evenings, sipping a beer or some lemonade, and listening to a ball game, sounds much more appealing. Right n0w I am in fact sitting on my back porch writing this while listening t0 the Yankees play the Blue Jays. That’s pleasant as well. I guess at the moment I should consider myself a very lucky guy, with so much pleasantry to choose from.  -twl

Dunkirk NY

But it is also a city with a history of corruption and cronyism. City government is a morasse of incompetency and favoritism, not to mention nepotism. Political loyalty and patronage rule the public service sector. In just about every city department you will find some level of corruption, great or small. And finally, although not surprisingly, it has hit the arts community.

Most of the story is in this article from the Buffalo News. You can follow some of the links in the comments section at the end of the article to get earlier news stories on this issue. In a nutshell, the former Executive Director of the Arts Council for Buffalo and Erie County plead guilty this past January to stealing $25,000 from the Arts Council accounts. Now, it seems, another $48,000 has gone missing, according to the Arts Council Board President. That money was the bulk of a New York State Arts Council grant designed to support arts groups around Western NY. According to a former staffer at the Arts Council of Bufalo, the group is about $300,000 in debt. As a result, it appears that by the end of the year there will be no Arts Council for Buffalo and Erie County in existence.

It’s just sad, that’s all. Many small arts groups in the city and in Erie County will suffer. I can only shake my head in disbelief and despair when I read stories like this. Buffalo is a city with so much potential, and for this to happen only means it will get another regional and national black eye. You expect corruption in the city’s public sector departments, and in the local labor unions. But in Buffalo, the sad truth is that even the arts groups are corrupt.  If this keeps up, the arts in Bufalo won’t be worth a plug nickel.  -twl