The Globe, A.R.T. and Will LeBow's Open Letter pt. II

After several weeks of talking to people about the A.R.T. controversy, I'd like to revisit the discussion for a few moments.

First, John had a great point regarding the number of Boston actors that Donkey Show and Sleep No More employed. I think that's a great trend, but what I'm really talking about is extending a hand out to the community as an equal partner rather than as a paternalistic LORT behemoth. As I said in the post, I'm not saying it's necessarily intentional, but at the very least it's a crisis of communication. Many members of the arts community do feel alienated by the A.R.T. Of course, the A.R.T. doesn't have to do anything if they don't want to, but I the choice is theirs to make: Do we remain a cog in the theatrical industrial complex? Or do we refocus our efforts on local development and community outreach...

Afterall, I'm pretty sure it's a 501 (c)3. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

So in that vein, I would propose that the A.R.T. conduct events such as open workshops with their resident (oops) company, or perhaps holding more widely publicized readings to the public. And having to talked to actors who have performed in Europe, where it's considered a professional sign of respect to comp local performers, maybe send out a few extra discount tickets on StageSource every so often? What you might lose in ticket revenue, you'll gain in support. Because god knows, the last thing I'm going to spend my money on during hard times is a 50 dollar ticket. And I can't keep using my old student ID to rush tickets forever...

It's like development... if you establish a relationship with me now, I'll look at the A.R.T. as more than a transaction, but something I'm a part of. And in the long run, that's worth much more than 30 dollars in cash.


Moving onto comments by "Anonymous"

read more here about some of the behind close doors deals. much of what is being
expressed by the leadership is idealized banter appealing to artists looking to
break out of the mold and into new forms.

I would suggest reading that article first. It's interesting, as sections of the article seem to imlpy that there's some sort of nepotism going on at the A.R.T. However, it's not as damning as you made it seem to sound. I'm not sure if anyone's accusing Eric Bogosian and Jo Bonney for their collaborations. Since you bring it up, I do believe the burden is on you to make a case using that piece of evidence.

In terms of the form they are installing as the answer to what theatre can be in
the future the vessel is empty and void of any truly challenging ideas. there is
room for more inside of the structure of the donkey show to express, whether it
be Shakespeare or not, more than a thesis that extends no further than ' gee
weren't the 70's fun? anyone want to take their shirt off for another bump of
blow?'

Now, I do find this rather parochial. Do you attend fringe theatre? There's been a number of productions produced at Oberon utilizing the space in a manner that would've been impossible at a traditional theatre. I find it doubtful that anyone of these young, vibrant artists were not inspired in some part by The Donkey Show itself. Theatre is an event, and as much as you wish to take away from what it means to audiences (and artists) who experienced catharsis during the said event, your grand statement merely serves to put words in the Diane Paulus's mouth. You seem to know a thing or two about theatre. But frankly, I do think you could afford to take it down a notch. You are being rather presumptious.

i would ask if you consider theme park entertainment theatre? can't we have
changed forms with substance? i want to be a part of the avant garde but only
when it is defined as the advanced guard that is moving forward with the skill
of a soldier to reconnoitre with intelligence the landscape and proceed as
guardians of what should always be considered sacred. whether comedy or tragedy,
entertainment or agitprop, the theatre is a tool for a community to hold the
mirror up to themselves and evaluate what they see.

Okay, the grammar is starting to annoy me. But I'll try to respond nontheless. Do I consider theme park entertainment theatre? I guess I would, but I also wouldn't say that it's good theatre. It serves it's purpose. If one can make a smal child smile, isn't that worth something on it's own? I don't go to Disneyland expecting to see Lope de Vega. Although I did catch a great production of Mother Courage at Chuck-E-Cheese as a child...

As an artistic community shouldn't we be more concerned that our two main figure
heads ( Dubuis and Paulus ) are more interested in developing, living, and
collaborating with our neighbors in NYC? When will we have an artistic director
who throws the weight of the budget around to add to debates and conversations
that are happening in our community? Rise up fringe you are on the outskirts no
more there are cracks in the pavement and there we can plant the seeds for a
revolution that will crack the foundations of any 'institution'.

I believe it's spelled "DuBois".

That being said, I do agree with this sentiment. I don't believe the future of Boston theatre lies within The Huntington or A.R.T., though I do believe they serve an important purpose. I guess I am concerned with it, but at the same time, I'm not sitting on my laurels waiting for things to change. That's why I produce. That's why lots of people produce. The major changes in theatre come from the the bottom up, and I'm okay with that. I'll continue to see the Hunt and ART, and I'll continue to criticise their bad shows and laud their good shows.

In the meantime, I think your passion and energy is better spent strengthening the fringe than bashing Diane Paulus. Give the woman a chance. I still think it's too early to tell.

Best,
K

The Globe, A.R.T. and Will LeBow's Open Letter

Photo Courtesy of John Phelan via WikiCommons

Lots to discuss today. If you've been keeping an ear out for the latest rumblings in The Boston Globe, you might've read or heard about an article published last week regarding Diane Paulus and the recent change of direction at the American Repertory Theatre. In addition to an analysis of Paulus's first two seasons, the article also quotes an open letter published by elder statesman of Boston theatre, Will LeBow, in which he criticizes "populism" as "more accurately called 'commercialism' ".


Before reading any further, I recommend that you go ahead and check out both for yourself.



In my analysis, and that of many others I've spoken with, it seems that everyone involved has a valid concern or a legitimate gripe on some scale. Generally speaking, I do think that the A.R.T. is potentially moving in the right direction. However, I must stress the use of the word potential.

Personally, I think many of the artists and patrons in the Boston theatre community were growing tired of the avant-garde, big ideas, eating babies and crazy concepts theatre that the A.R.T. was becoming known for. I'm not saying that risk taking is a bad thing... but I do feel that many of us feel that the kind of work being produced by the A.R.T. wasn't risky at all. In many ways, the A.R.T. is an institution with a dedicated base that will always go to see their shows simply because of the three letters, A, R and T. I generally see at least two A.R.T. shows a year, and usually more.

I have to be honest. I don't particularly like the A.R.T., though I greatly respect it. I think they have brilliant actors and do interesting work. But it's a 50-50 hit ratio, and when they're charging ticket prices that high, I can't afford a 50-50 chance of hating or enjoying a show.

So that's where I come from. In recent years, the best A.R.T. shows I saw were Romance and Endgame. The worst I saw were The Seagull and Paradise Lost. But ultimately, I still want to go to the A.R.T. It's a brand and an institution I hold to a higher standard.

"Populist" theatre is not a bad thing. While it's important that theatre remain holy, the last thing we want to do is make it "sacred". Something sacred cannot be changed, and theatre is constantly changing. Moreoever, I fear that this aversion to "populist" theatre is part of the elite atmosphere that I've written about previously. I'm not going to lie, as a young latino man, I feel uncomfortable in the audience at the A.R.T. Even when I'm loud and obnoxious (I'm a full bodied laugher), I can't completely enjoy my experience because I feel judged.

And there lies a large elephant in the room. The culture of elitism, whether it's accidental or not, does exist. This anti-populist rhetoric doesn't help. (I won't even bother getting into the debate over the term's use, but I do feel that using this term is mildly insulting to the Populist movement of the 19th century, a movement that is the idealogical precursor to the progressive movement of the 20th and 21st century. But that's the history geek in me.)

So Diane Paulus introduces some more interactive, more "pop" theatre and turns everything on it's head. I do have reservations of the very "poppy" nature of some of the season choices, but shouldn't we wait and see the results before we judge?

I understand that some people find the interactive theatre of The Donkey Show and Sleep No More "unshakespeare". However, I can't remember the last time there was such excitement amongst the artist community about the possibilities of theatre can be. When Sleep No More was in town, artists were buzzing. I myself missed this experience, and I'm very sad. But many people were saying "Even if you don't like it, you're learning alot from it and getting great ideas."

Isn't that what art should be? Is it a problem if art both inspires artists AND brings in new audiences?

Now, before I imply that I'm 100% percent on board with everthing going on, I do have to say that I'm not pleased with the de facto dissolution of the resident acting company. We have so few true resident acting companies, and I do think that's something the A.R.T. offered that we need. Not all theatres should have resident acting companies, but we do need that sort of an institution. Theatre has changed, but we've transformed the market into "gig to gig" contract hell for most actors and we've lost the tradition of repertory theatre, and career actors who would work at one theatre their whole lives and develop over time, training future artists. I love the actors at the A.R.T., Will LeBow especially. We shouldn't be throwing that away.

I can't say that I know what's going on at the A.R.T. in terms of human resources, but I do have some reservations when people are cut or let go as part of an overhaul. I won't pretend to know what's going on, but I do express solidarity with the artists and administrators who feel as if they've been purged in the new era. However, as far as I know the Staffers left by their own volition. While it's sad that these professional relationships turned sour, I also feel that these are the inherent growing pains that come along with a transforming entity. If a staffer chooses to leave, I would hope it was after careful consideration and not by pressure.

Back to the actors. I hope that in the future, the casting and employement decisions are made with the Boston theatre scene in mind. Quite frankly, there is a wealth of talent and passion in this city and a NYC centric attitude will NOT help the A.R.T. in the long run. These numbers are encouraging, but as a member of the local theatre community, I still feel like the A.R.T. doesn't care about me or my colleagues. This is a problem, if not of substance, then of communication. I think The Donkey Show has been great for the community. I don't know if an absentee Artistic Director has been. I have no problem with Diane working her own projects, but if she's going to be a Boston area Artistic Director, I want to see her reach out and tap into the local artist community ask about OUR needs.

In conclusion:

First, there's nothing wrong with populist theatre. I do think it's important to do Shakespeare's texts. But that doesn't mean "Ten Things I Hate About You" wasn't a kickass movie. I'm still in love with Heath Ledger, despite my status as a heteresexual male. There were about four lines of Shakespeare in that movie. But that doesn't mean I don't want to gay marry his character.

If it's good, it's good. If you insist on judging a book by it's cover, don't judge it as Shakespeare. Judge it according to what it is. Talk to Chuck Mee, I'm sure he'd like to have a debate with you about the validity of reimagining classic texts.

Second, we should wait and see before we judge. I don't want the A.R.T. to go clearchannel either. But I don't think we've seen that yet. And quite frankly, clearchannel rarely excites artists and if anything, attempts to stiffle creativity. Diane Paulus, to her credit, has excited artists in Boston and reminded many people what the possibilities of theatre are.

Finally, the A.R.T. (and all non-commercial theatres) should focus on their community. We are all in this together, whether penniless fringe or LORT contract behemoth. Don't dismantle your company of actors, and don't ignore the large community of artists around you. Work with them. Hire them. Inspire them.

Because in 30 years, our children will be the ones who keep the American Theatre, and especially Boston theatre, alive.

Best,

K

P.S. Please read this article about "Populism". I vote that we remove it from this debate, as it has nothing to do with what populism really is. It really distracts from the real issue here, which is creativity and commercialism.

P.P.S. Seriously, read about Chuck Mee's attitude towards texts. Here's a gem: "...none of Shakespeare's plays are original: they are all taken from earlier work. As You Like It is taken from a novel by Thomas Lodge published just 10 years before Shakespeare put on his play without attribution or acknowledgment. Chunks of Antony and Cleopatra are taken verbatim, and, to be sure, without apology, from a contemporary translation of Plutarch's Lives."

Food for thought.