The "masses" and why they aren't coming to shows?

First a quick thanks to the Clyde Fitch Report and Leonard Jacobs for the shout out on his site.

But back to the blogosphere debates....


Then there are the cross-over debates that folks from non-profit and for-profit theatre are having. These are issues that have more or less plagued theatre for a long time:

1. Should we just give the "masses" what they want and make some money or do great art and hope the masses notice?
2. Are the so called "masses" pop culture obsessed, short-attention-span idiots or are we under-estimating them - in other words - do we know what the masses want?
   
3. Those darn critics have too much power.
4. How the hell do we get people to come see shows?

Okay - Ken Davenport (super smart guy I met at off-Broadway Brain-stormers Committee that two years ago) has been getting a ton of flack via twitter, facebook and his blog Producers Perspective regarding screen to stage adaptions. This is just a specific point to number 1 above.

The answer to number 1 is simple - DO GOOD WORK and in most cases the "masses" notice. There are great original musicals (Avenue Q, In the Heights, Spelling Bee, and those are only the recent ones) and there are great musicals that come from other sources whether they be books (Wicked, Les Miz); artists body of work (Mamma Mia); plays (Spring Awakening) or films (Hairspray). The same can be said for straight plays - there are several great plays based on books and other sources - too many to list (but I am seeing To Kill a Mockingbird tonight at Hartford Stage)! And guess what for every successful original work there are a bunch that are not successful or need work and the same goes for adaptions. It is not about where the work comes from but how good it is. Although the examples above are from Broadway, this applies to off-Broadway and regional theater too.

It is also vital to match the space, location, and community to the work not an individual's ego. Not all art is meant to be seen by everyone. We have all seen a good show die in a space that was too big or worse a show so great it eclipses the space it is in but can't get into bigger real estate (Wit, anyone? Yes, I still think it should have gone to Broadway). Take Signature Theatre Company for example - they have produced some of the most innovative work (Bill Irwin season) and best revivals (Fifth of July, Seven Guitars, Trip to Bountiful). None of these moved on the larger venues, but they are remembered, discussed and landmark productions. Certainly some shows make more sense in urban locations or in a community with a specific population. Any theater person can tick off a long list of ego-based projects that ended up on Broadway when they had no business being done there or were done in a community that the show didn't relate to at all because someone's ego needed to be fed by doing the show - and the majority of these shows were failures because they didn't connect with the space, location or community.

As for number 2 - those so called "masses" who are supposedly pop culture obsessed, short-attention-span idiots? It doesn't matter if we are underestimating them or not, because the fact is there are massive shifts happening in how people live their lives; what experiences they search for and how they access those experiences, and THE THEATER IS BEHIND. We are quickly losing our relevancy and it is not the audiences' fault. We are quick to blame TV, movies, the Internet, anything but ourselves. Theatre must get with the times. We have to do what we do best - live on the edge, take on the difficult stuff, take the audiences there for the experience, find new ways for the audience to reach the experience, inspire the audience to think or take action, and WE HAVE TO MAKE IT RELEVANT. (see most of last summer's posts about nonprofit theatre).

Lots of theatres are making wonderful steps in this direction and producing great work (August Osage County, David Cromer's Our Town). Many theatres are creating partnership programs that explore the issues or ideas of a piece, and providing an in depth openness about the production process, etc. Theatres are finally building websites that have actual content and make it easy to buy a ticket! We need to double, triple those efforts.

Number 3, Oh the critics - are they too powerful? Considering the critics are being overtaken by bloggers and newspapers are being shuttered, I think we will soon be nostalgic for the time when the critics were so powerful and got the word out about shows. Sure, the critics often have the power to kill a show, but let's be really honest once and for all (and I am sure people will get mad at this but here goes) - aren't the critics right some/most of the time? I know they cost a lot of commercial/nonprofit producers to close shows prematurely or lose money, but frankly they have saved me a lot time that would have been spent sitting through mediocre or (sorry) bad shows. I would actually argue they are losing their power and the audiences are suffering for it. The fact that the wonderfully reviewed, amazing production of Horton Foote's Dividing the Estate closed after such a short run on Broadway is proof of the loss of power of the critics.

But the real question that everyone in the industry should be focusing on is number 4 - How the hell do we get people to come see shows? All of the above - great theater that is relevant - is a good start, but unfortunately it isn't enough. We have to make great theatre and find the answer to this question. We are entering the second generation of students who do not have the arts in the schools (despite valiant efforts by many organizations). Ticket prices make it difficult for people to afford attending a show. There is a lot of competition for peoples attention. We have a lot of work to do.



http://www.theproducersperspective.com/my_weblog/2009/03/in-defense-of-the-screen-to-stage-adaptation.html