Breaching the Fourth Wall

Google Calendar has many useful applications in production management and technical theatre.  On the most basic of levels, Google Calendar helps to streamline one’s use of time by creating a visual representation of where one will be and when.  Even those of us with the best memory forget an appointment periodically, and having a single place to record appointments means not only with they not be forgotten, but they are less likely to be double booked as well.

The ability to share one’s calendar is the most useful aspect of the application with regards to production.  As a production manager, my time is allocated between regular office hours, off-site meetings, events scheduled in the venue, gigs in other venues, and walkthroughs of the venue with clients.

Keeping track of everyone’s schedule and location is incredibly helpful in a larger production office that controls several venues.  For instance, the I work in a scheduling office with production managers for a performance cafe, proscenium style theatre, conference center, and parks.  In addition to production managers, the office contains technical and front of house personnel for each of these spaces, as well as someone who handles personnel issues and finances for the division.  Having everyone in a centralized location is convenient for clients and allows us to use resources more efficiently, but it also means there must be an accurate way to track when staff will be available and when they will be busy elsewhere since a visitor may arrive at the office to see any one of a number of people.  Here is where Google Calendar steps in.

Take for example, the lost soul who enters the scheduling office, looking for the auditorium’s production manager so that they can discuss an event still in preproduction.  The receptionist at the front desk is not sure if the PM is available to meet and pops into the calendar that has been shared with her to check.  Seeing an event titled “Meeting w/ Client at Venue,” the receptionist would know the PM was unavailable for meeting at that time, but would be able to offer possible alternatives.

In addition to helping streamline the scheduling information for a single person, Google Calendar can also be used to store scheduling information for a single job or position.  For instance, our front desk receptionist schedule is published to a calendar.  Since who is working and when changes from week to week, I can simply check my Google Account online to find out who is working and at what time.  Pretty snazzy, huh?

I don’t have too many complaints about the program, since Google is pretty good about  getting feedback and incorporating new features into the application as technology advances.  For instance, the recent upgrade which allows for complete syncing to and from MS Outlook means users who may have been on outlook for five years can still use the same program but can update their Outlook account through Google Calendar when they are not at their desks.  Additionally, the introduction of a mobile-ready version of the application takes one of the strongest aspects of the program, its accessibility, one step further.

Google offers all of the benefits of this easy to learn, useful application at no cost.

Amazing.

If it wasn’t apparent from my first two posts on the subject, my infatuation with Google Calendar and its awesomeness is almost at the stalker stage. Below, I’ve created a slide presentation on Google’s online application, which highlights some of its most useful features.

I am a firm believer slide presentations are not complete without an oral presentation which contextualizes it. My philosophy involves communicating information as efficiently and clearly as possible and the content and layout of my slides reflect this mentality. My slides are mostly image based, with text boxes included to highlight only the most basic points. Any audience can read bullets off a slide, and so most of the pertinent information is fleshed out in the oral presentation that would accompany this Powerpoint. Being from an artistic field, a couple of design elements are included to make sure that the content is easy on the eyes.

Feel free to take a peak, and enjoy!

| View | Upload your own

| View | Upload your own

I Am Knowledge Worker 2.0 is an extensive slide presentation on the changing office environment and what skills and personality traits are needed to excel within that new environment. Initially presented at the Office 2.0 Conference, it highlights the importance of innovation and progressive thinking in the modern workplace.

The designer of this presentation, Trib, successfully marries form with function as the slide presentation itself is a step away from what we’ve come to expect of a Powerpoint. Rather than an endless procession of bulleted lists, the slides use minimal text and well-chosen, interesting images. The presentation incorporates humor (a slide from Napoleon Dynamite, really?) making it much more engaging, without impinging on the message he is trying to convey.

If only college professors could adopt some of Trib’s Powerpoint skills, the world would b a much better place…

Google Calendar is an online application created by Google, Inc., founders of the prolific search engine and a number of other applications.  Since it was introduced in April of 2006, Google introduced several updates, which increase its compatibility with mobile devices and other calendar programs like iCal and MS Outlook.  Although the program is relatively new, Google’s well established name has helped the program to become popular quickly.

Google Calendar consists of one basic interface and it can be viewed in daily, weekly, or monthly segments.  Laid out much like a physical calendar would be, appointments are noted with colored boxes filling the duration of the appointment.  Multiple calendars can be set up on the same account, and it is possible to drag and drop appointments or change times without refreshing the page.

Adding an event is easy, and can be done in one of several ways.  The first is to click the add event button and enter event information into the pop up window.  Gmail also recognizes appointments referenced in emails and offers the option to have such appointments imported directly into your calendar.

The extensive settings tab also makes it easy to customize the calendar’s display and sharing features.  Calendars can be shared with specific users by entering their email address, in which case the recipient is given the option to import the calendar into their own account.   It can be made public, in which case events can even be searched for in Google’s search engine.

For anyone looking to get a better grasp of his or her own time, Google Calendar is a great solution.

Live productions are timed events.

Time allotted for setup and rehearsal is limited and at the end of the day everything must be ready to go by the time published doors opening time comes around.  Whether on production management level of scheduling how time will be spent from load in to strike or on the individual level of balancing work and personal activities, the organization of time is essential for both success and sanity in the business of live events.

Fortunately for us, technology is of great assistance when managing time.  The introduction of computers, spreadsheet software, and PDAs all aid in our task.

Another recent technological innovation of which we can take advantage is an online scheduling application, Google Calendar.  Unlike Microsoft Outlook or Apple’s iCal, both computer based programs, Google Calendar can be accessed and updated from any computer with an internet connection.  Within one’s account, multiple calendars can be created so that it is possible to categorize events by whatever specifications are set.  For instance, one could have several non-work calendars, one which outlines office time, and another for off-site meetings.  And the best news for organizationally obsessed users?  Each calendar can be titled and color coded!

Most importantly, since calendars are stored online, it is possible to share them with others through their own Google account.  As collaboration is as central to the success of productions as time management, the ability to share calendars with others is the application’s greatest asset.

Google Calendar is an incredibly useful online application for anyone looking to manage their time, and is especially useful for people with odd schedules, like we production folk.  If you haven’t yet used the calendar, check it out!

The relationship between art and commerce is a delicate one, rife with both compromise and synergy. Often personified by artists dedicated to their vision struggling with financial backers committed to the bottom line, the relationship can also be full of conflict. Theatre and the performing arts are not historically business driven and have only become genuine business ventures in the past century. As a result of the overall decline of traditional theatre, the business aspect of live productions is growing increasingly prominent to the point where today’s theatre can be classified as either artistic or commercially viable, but rarely both.

Commercial involvement in theatre is relatively recent given the art form’s long and detailed history. Prior to the twentieth century, the performing arts were tied to institutions or wealthy patrons: the Athenian government viewed drama as an essential part of democracy and thus funded the annual Dionysian Festival, the Catholic Church supported morality plays during the Middle Ages as a way to teach church doctrine to the illiterate masses, and even Shakespeare’s work at the Globe was supported in large part by wealthy patrons. Although attendees may have been charged admission to these performances, it was certainly not the Groundlings who kept producers in business. Patrons of of the arts were not always selfless in their donations, but the payoff for contributing the arts was typically found in the elevated social status within intellectual circles of Europe rather than in financial gain.

Significant political change during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries meant a net decrease in funding for theatre. During the 1800s, members of the upper class focused on maintaining their power and keeping their heads, both of which were threatened by uprisings from lower classes and the development of a middle class through the Industrial Revolution. The start of the twentieth century brought about major global conflict and, as a result, the wealthy directed finances towards keeping the war machines of the Central and Allied powers equipped and operating. Funding for the performing arts did not cease entirely, but it did see a significant drop. In fact, the first signs of the divergence between artistic and commercial theatre can be seen as remaining members of the upper class supported and attended opera and plays while variety acts, vaudeville, and burlesque shows began to develop a following amongst the lower classes. Wealthier people, with more income, education, and time, could afford and appreciate artistic and layered dramas which , while variety acts met the need of the working class to be entertained after a long day.

The balance between art and business within show business peaked once the global political scene settled down after World War II and a middle class developed which had an interest in artistic entertainment. Playwrights like Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller brought their works to Broadway. Their shows received critical and audience acclaim not only because of the stories they told, but also because of the discussions they provoked. Plays like The Crucible, which uses the 1693 Salem Witch Trials as a backdrop for a play about McCarthyism or musicals like West Side Story which brought the nation’s attention to the problem of teen gangs while at the same time creatively retelling the story of Romeo and Juliette managed to keep audiences thinking without boring them. With few other alternatives, theatre remained a popular art form.

Before technical developments made CGI armies of tens of thousands of soldiers possible, theatre came the closest to carrying an audience member into other worlds. Through scenery, costumes, and lighting an audience could be transported to Siam in The King and I, the dust bowl in Oklahoma!, or the snow peaked Alps in The Sound of Music, all without leaving the same block of 42nd Street in New York City. Regional theatres also flourished in cities around the country, meaning one did not need the geographic advantage of living near Manhattan to see good work.

Theatre is no longer on the cutting edge of technical innovation. Although there are countless trade magazines documenting the releases of production equipment and how they are being used in stage productions, the silver screen took over theatre’s monopoly on visual spectacle. Pixar can create the images for entire films within computers and in the last decade special effects studios perfected marrying live and computer generated images as well as creating the perfect digital explosion. Live spectacle offers a unique experience, but still must compete with film, television, and the internet when it comes to transporting viewers to different times and places.

Yet theatre’s decline is not the sole responsibility of developments in cinematic special effects. Audiences’ appreciation for art and ability for critical thought has not diminished to a base need for visual stimuli, but patrons are looking to alternate mediums for their intellectual stimulation through art. We live in a society where news is updated and available twenty-four hours a day, user generated content is widespread, and several hours away from one’s computer or cell phone can be torturous. Theatre is no longer immediate enough for people whose attention spans have adapted to a constant influx of new information. Even during the infancy of Web 2.0 in 1997, Robert Schechner commented on this idea in his article “Theatre in the 21st Century.” “Theatre is no longer a conveyor of basic information or the primary locus of social debate. C-SPAN, the Sunday morning talk shows, and all the apparent immediacy that television offers has moved in on one side…movies fill the bill for large-scale narrative entertainment, and pop music takes care of sheer limbic drive” (Schechner, 5). The development of newer mediums which more quickly serve the same purpose as theatre by sparking debate and communicating ideas means, as if by survival of the fittest, the status of theatre will diminish, which is what is happening.

The diminished attendance at live performances as a result of competing mediums is compounded by the decreasing accessibility to shows. The average cost of a Broadway ticket now runs over one hundred dollars and a show at a regional house such as the Ahmanson Theatre in Los Angeles can still cost sixty dollars. For an art form based on strong democratic roots, practitioners neglect the fact that there is a large percentage of the American population that can not afford to purchase a ticket to mainstream theatre. Even if it is possible to scrounge up the funds to buy a ticket, one must still have access to a theatre, which can be difficult if not in a major metropolitan area. When one can experience something comparable to a live performance by turning on a computer or television, or even driving five minutes to the closest movie theatre and paying $12.25 for an evening movie ticket (which even at ten percent of a Broadway ticket many people consider outrageous!), decreased attendance at live theatre is hardly surprising.

The reaction of the theatrical community to this downward trend of audience attendance has been the slow divergence of live performance into commercially viable ventures or experimental and original art. Broadway’s producers understand that the only way to earn back the multi-million dollar investment it takes to stage a large musical is to inflate ticket prices and make sure the subject matter is a guaranteed hit. Producer’s need to minimize risk means that there is hardly anything fresh on Broadway and almost every show is an adaptation or revival. Donald Margulies even suggests that audiences may seek comfort in seeing a show with material with which they are familiar: “Today’s theater-going audiences can hum the “score” of Jersey Boys, the Four Seasons musical, before they enter the theater; they can anticipate the best lines from Legally Blonde: The Musical and know Celie’s fate before the curtain comes up on The Color Purple” (Marguiles, “Playwrights”). In addition to comfort with the material, patrons probably feel more secure in putting up the money for a Broadway ticket if they know what they are getting for it.

If a Shrek musical were not enough to indicate mainstream theatre had gone commercial, the celebrity guest appearances must be some indication. Donny Osmond had a stint as Gaston in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, Joey Fatone of N’SYNC fame took up the male lead in Little Shop of Horrors, and there are far more American Idol runners-up gracing the Great White Way than I would care to imagine (Hughes, “Pursuits”). Nevermind that most of these celebrity guests have never graced a theatrical performance in their life, producers know a famous name on the marquee will push ticket sales and if the patron does not know the difference between Tyra Banks as a Aida and someone with the theatrical training, who cares as long as they paid their hundred dollar admission?

Combine the celebrity status with musical adaptations with twenty-year-long running shows, and most Broadway houses officially become tourist destinations. Most visitors to Manhattan who do not have any particular interest in theatre view attending Phantom of the Opera as a parallel activity to climbing the Statue of Liberty. A musical that played for such an extended run must be worth seeing, and whether or not the tourist appreciates that after two decades there is nothing innovative about Phantom, it does not matter because the producer’s initial investment in the show has been paid off and its continued run means a steady, low-risk revenue stream. Even if long running shows like Phantom, Rent, or Les Mis prevent newer productions from moving onto Broadway, keeping a guaranteed sell open is a smart business decision, artistic merits be damned.

Although regional theatres do not encounter as many strictly business attitudes, they are facing a similar dilemma as Broadway houses. More and more of the season for large, proscenium style venues are dedicated to the national tours of Broadway shows or independent revivals of well established works. Companies like Los Angeles’ Center Theatre Group do produce newer, more high-risk material, but its presentation it is often limited to their smaller, off-site facility. Many of these regional theatres design their seasons in order to keep their subscribers, who provide a large percentage of their income, happy. As season subscribers usually fall into the same demographic, play selections sometimes offer only a narrow range of variety in genre and period. On a positive note however, companies are often able to support their smaller, independent endeavors through the profits from large-scale productions, so there is hope for symbiosis between the diverging theatrical forms

Productions which are governed by a more commercial strategy are not completely devoid of artistic merit. There are frequently components of a performance or design which are incredibly original, but in a collaborative medium like theatre, the overall product and not individual elements make a show fresh and relevant. Even if a scenic design for a show is brilliant, if the production his running its sixth revival, there is very little that is fresh and innovative.

The result of the commercialization of larger theatres means that newer and more experimental works are typically put on in 99-seat Equity Waiver houses with little or no budget and minimal production elements. In rare instances there are crossovers from the realm of low budget workshops onto Broadway when shows with limited budgets are picked up by regional theatres and then transferred to Broadway. The refreshing jolt of energy shot into 42nd St. when such an instance occurs, as did this past Winter when August: Osage County was transferred from Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago, does not go unnoticed and by the theatrical community. Yet for the most part, exploratory and off beat works, while being much more affordable for patrons, will rarely see the production value given to a regional or Broadway show.

Whether or not this divergence in is a problem or not is up for debate. Performing Arts professionals, producers especially, are concerned with the net drop in attendance at plays and musicals. Their attempts to remedy the situation are varied: youth-specific marketing strategies to hook new subscribers, promotional events in conjunction with the kickoff of close of a season, and by increasing collaboration with relevant political and cultural thinkers (Janeway, “Who’s”).

While the decrease in attendance at theatrical events is something to be concerned about, whether or not the growing split between theatre for business and theatre for art is a topic of concern is up for debate. Personally, the split as a natural progression of commercial involvement in the art form, and that as long as both can exist, theatre as an art form won’t be in danger. Big-budget Broadway musicals will serve simply to entertain, much like blockbuster films, and those people who might prefer the art house indie can stroll over to the black box theatre next door to see a cutting-edge production. There will also be exceptions to the split, and gems like August: Osage County or Spring Awakening will emerge onto the scene as both bold artistic statements and commercially viable productions. We as members of the artistic community will cheer on these productions, while understanding that their presence next to Spamalot and The Lion King is a rarity. Even so, we will appreciate that as long as there is a venue for fresh work, having to sit through the seventh revival of a major Broadway musical wont bother us too much.

J.Hughes, Robert. “PURSUITS; Picks — Theater: Broadway; As ‘Chicago’ turns 10 and ‘Phantom’ pushes 20, how long-running shows are wooing crowds.” Wall Street Journal 11 Nov 2006: P.2.

Janeway, Michael. “Who’s teaming up in the tug-of-war among the two theatre sectors, pop culture and the press?.” American Theatre 17.10 (2000): 32.

Margulies, Donald. “PLAYWRIGHTS ON WRITING; Let imagination blossom again; The theater audience is drying up. It’s time to train a new generation in the joys of thinking and believing..” Los Angeles Times 23 Sep 2007: F.1.

Schechner, Robert. “Theatre in the 21st Century.” TDR 41.2 (1997): 5-6.

Hello World!

We live in a world of information overload.

Daily, our senses our bombarded with innumerable visual and aural messages, and the ways in which we can keep ourselves informed and entertained are constantly expanding. Between professionally produced television, newspapers, billboards, books, the internet, and our friends, communication can occur in any one of many forms. Messages simultaneously received from these sources all compete with one another for our limited attention.

When combined with the thoughts and worries of our daily life, it’s a wonder our heads don’t explode.

I am particularly interested a more formal type of communication: the realm of entertainment, particularly live events. How do production values, including lighting, sound, pyrotechnics, projection, and special effects, help to further the experience of a show and communication of a message?

Live events, when compared with the rest of the entertainment industry, may seem like a narrow category, but the number of presentations we observe, knowingly or unknowingly, is surprising.
Guerilla theater on city streets, corporate presentations to shareholders, theme park rides, Broadway theatres, and even university lecture halls are all viable venues for the live presentation of ideas.

Yet amidst these different options, the collaborators behind each project strive for the same goals: presentation of ideas and communication of a story. The act of conveying these ideas fascinates me, especially because direct, oral communication is a universal experience. Everyone knows what it feels like to sit through a bad presentation or performance. Whether it was the overuse of technical flash and trash meant to distract an audience from the a lack of plot or an unnecessary amount of special effects employed by a designer with not enough appreciation for simplicity, technology does not make or break a live event. But on the other end of the spectrum, poorly executed technology can be equally detrimental. Using the appropriate amount of technology is key, as is making sure its use serves, rather than detracts, from the presentation.

This blog will be my attempt at exploring the clockwork behind live events. What are producers finding worthy of putting in the public eye and how effectively are they doing it? What are the trends in live presentations? What tools are being used and which industry professionals are making the biggest splash?

As a dabbler in all things related to live entertainment (read: I’ve sold my soul to technical theater and production management) I’m intrigued by all things related to it and hope to understand it.

Coming from a collaborative and often crazily artistic industry, all feedback is welcome and appreciated. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats and turn off your cell phones, the house lights are about to go down….

Looking forward to the discovery,

AlltheWorldsAStage
A Glance at the Work of a Vixen

Amidst the many, many blogs of amateur theatre critics online (and trust me there are many, covering the full spectrum of level of interest and quality), Violet Vixen stands out as a entertaining an informative read. Vixen’s self titled blog is a mix of the analysis of Los Angeles performances and the occasional commentary of films, television and current events, with a particular focus on queer theatre and those issues that most directly effect the gay community. A Los Angeles based graduate student with an affinity for theatre and performance art, Vixen’s posts are a mix of informal familiarity, wit, and personal anecdote.

The front page of Vixen’s blog creates the identity of a progressive thinker and a taste for the eccentric. Her blogroll includes sites like A Daily Dose of Queer and Neil Gaiman’s Journal, neither of which are sites that would be considered mainstream culture.

Upon my first view of her site, the inconsistency of post topics turned me off. Not someone well versed in blogs, I like the more streamlined content found in print materials. Yet after my initial negative reaction to fluidity of subject matter, I found the potpourri of topics to be a healthy remedy for my short attention span. The variety of Vixen’s discussion ensured when my interest wanes from a particular post, I know the next one will bring a slight change of pace that may grasp my interest. Additionally, each post brings a new surprise as the next posts content is never certain.

Not that Vixen’s posts are boring. Her greatest strength is her ability to catch my attention within the first sentence of her posts. I enjoyed the opening to her most recent post, What’s a Girl to Do? , which begins with the punch, “What do you do when a friend writes to say that there’s a fabulous queer femme performance artist you don’t know about who wants to perform in LA?” Not a dilemma I face too frequently, the question leaves me wanting to know more. Many of her posts open similarly, piquing enough interest right away to keep me reading.

Violet Vixen successfully creates a memorable blog, most noticeably by making the connection between her name and the layout’s raging fuchsia color scheme. Although the design of Vixen’s site may visually support her two-sentence identification as a Los Angeles based lesbian theatre student and aficionado, the onslaught of pink upon the entrance to her main page undercuts her credibility. Perhaps I am conditioned to appreciate sleek, simple designs and associate them with intellectual authority, but appreciating someone’s text, no matter how well written or insightful, is difficult to take seriously when confronted with a wall of text I most quickly associate with packaging for a Barbie Doll.

All in all a well done site with engaging writing created by a memorable persona. Although Vixen may not be an “authority” she draws readers in with her well-developed identity and entertaining reads.

A Recipe for Content and Sass from a Theatre Vet

It only takes one post to know that David Cote is a theatre veteran. Throughout his blog, Histriomastix, I am reminded of many a headset conversation with fellow crew members during less than engaging productions. His dry sense of humor, irreverence, ego, and proper appreciation of a well-placed expletive all strike me as characteristically theatrical.

Published author and freelance writer for periodicals as varied as The New The New York Times to Maxim. His self-proclaimed love for Indian food, blasphemy, and alternative historical fiction immediately struck a chord with me, and his eccentricity and audacity as a writer punch to the forefront of websites centered on the New York City theatre scene.

David Cote does not worry about appearing controversial or confrontational, and in fact, may even relish it. His avatar, a cartoon of himself in Elizabethan garb, is upstaged only by the drawing’s prominent middle finger, sending out a warning to readers that Histriomastix will not be a strictly academic or analytical blog, and those people who are easily offended need not read any further. The tagline below the site’s header is “sound and fury from a New York theatre critic,” furthering the idea that rippling the pond should be the expected norm in his blog.

Beyond merely having a flare for the controversial, Cote seems to enjoy riling up his readers, especially if it leads to a strong reaction. In “Catechism on a Hot Tin Roof”, a lengthy segue from theatre which touches on the author’s views on religion we get the idea that this site is meant to spark dialogue, not provide a one way diatribe. Capping off his hot post, Cote finishes by summarizing, “I don’t tell people they can’t believe, they can’t worship and they can’t try to convince other people of their beliefs. Much as I logically and ethically deplore religion, I don’t do that. I may ridicule, cajole and make sweeping rhetorical gestures.” I’m sure these words were penned knowing that they would lead to the outcry of comments in response.

Histriomastix stands out from other sites that employ the same incendiary tactics, because it is clear he respects his readership. Although he comes across as extremely opinionated and set in his ways, he dutifully and thoughtfully responds to each reader comment without the condescension that leads to a loss of credibility. Such behavior is indicative of professionalism towards his readers despite differing viewpoints, and for that he earns my admiration.

For all of the debate fostered at Histriomastix, Cote maintains his image as a respectable theatre critic through well-developed reviews of New York City based productions and updates about the goings on of theatre companies and major awards. His analysis of the 2007 Tony Awards and how the success of its broadcast versus other television programming that night and its correspondence to the role of theatre in American society was particularly notable. The peppering of posts recommending which shows are worth seeing (and the lists are fairly comprehensive), one gets the sense that Cote is sees a lot of live theatre and has enough experience to speak authoritatively on the topic.

The design of Cote’s site furthers his image as a theatrical authority, especially concerning any New York City based productions. His main page includes a healthy list of links to websites for artists, theater festivals, venues, news, and blogs. The page’s layout emphasizes content: there are no large visual distractions on the page, and the large, black on white posts make text easy to read and maintain the same visual that might be viewed at sites of accepted news authorities like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal.

Beyond being both controversial and content-driven, I enjoy reading this site because the language is entertaining while still having something to say. Anyone who can use the transition “speaking of fucked up families” and have it segue into a coherent piece of writing deserves praise. Posts with titles like “When the Fat Blogger Sings,” a post about hybrid theatre/opera productions further adds to the wittiness factor of the site, and reminds readers that Cote may be opinionated, but he doesn’t take himself too seriously.

All in all, Histriomastix is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in theatre, even if they are not familiar with or interested in the New York City theatre scene. David Cote develops his online identity as one that jives with the theatrical types who might be visiting his blog. Opinionated, controversial, but not without sense of humor, a reader gets a clear and consistent understanding of Cote’s persona throughout his posts, and although his voice may drip with a bit of sass and irreverence, Histriomastix is a worthwhile journey into bloggerdom.

Over the next few weeks, I hope to explore the commercialization of large-scale theatre and how cutting edge, novel works are being relegated to smaller, low-budget houses.

This topic is hardly news breaking, but rather is the continuation of a trend that has become significant since the 1970s and1980s when large-scale musicals like Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, and A Chorus Line opened and remained on Broadway for over ten years.  These mega musicals are much more practical business models than there predecessors.  Granted, there is quite a large initial investment (over six million dollars for 2003’s Wicked), but if the show can run for over a decade it earns back this initial investment several times over.  Add in the earnings that stem from national tours, merchandise, backstage tours and, uber-VIP passes, and the net income is significant.

Although the shows mentioned above were relatively groundbreaking at the time of their openings, many of the shows now gracing Manhattan’s theatre district have either been running for over five years, revivals of older successes, or are recently opened adaptations of movies or books.

Compare a long running show’s earnings to the four in five musicals which fail to earn back their initial investment and it is understandable why producers would opt for reliable subject matter rather than a risky but innovative venture.

Risky innovation is still encouraged among the theatrical community, but an industry that already has slim margins can’t afford to be too risky when large sums of money are involved.  As such, anything that might not be  smash hit with the general public is tested out in smaller venues.  If a risky musical or play succeeds in workshops or off off-Broadway runs, it might then be moved, but rarely are such productions started in large houses.

There are a few exceptions to the growing divergence between what would be classified as artistic ventures and commercially viable live productions, and I would like to explore how the changes in commercial theatre affect the way in which new material is produced.

Many of Broadway’s youngest fans were heartbroken last January when they learned that Rent, the long-running rock opera residing at New York City’s Nederlander Theatre, was scheduled to close on June 1st.  Was the closing date publicized as being earlier than expected simply to spur ticket sales for fans hoping to catch their last glimpse of “Seasons of Love” before the show closed?  Who knows.

Regardless of their intentions, the announcement resulted and in a spike in ticket sales, and (surprise, surprise) producers have extended the run to September 7th.

Don’t’ get me wrong, Rent was a groundbreaking show. But the past tense is critical in this case.  It was groundbreaking in 1995 when it was being developed by a Scarsdale native at the New York Theatre Workshop.   It was even a groundbreaking show when in opened on Broadway in 1996, but twelve years worth of performances, tens of thousands of screaming tweens, and way too many pairs of blue polyester pants later, the show is a cash cow and ready to close.

The closing date announcement may not have been manipulated to increase ticket sales.  Even if it were, I’d have difficulty condemning producers for being good at their job.  But at the same time, Rent’s recent developments only add to my feeling that Broadway is becoming over-commercialized.  Clay Aiken of American Idol fame is now playing Sir Robin in Spamalot, Shrek the musical will be opening later this year, and Disney is spearheading the spread of corporate involvement in New York’s theatre scene.

Broadway is part of show business, and I understand the need to develop shows that are commercially viable, but could producers and audiences alike please remember not to lose sight of the art behind the income?

(3/13 pageflakes) 

Election season is upon us, and although arts are rarely a high priority for candidates when defining their platform.  Even the most significant issues for artists, most notably federal arts funding and unemployment, rarely become a factor in a candidate’s run for office.

Yet despite the limited impact politicians and their policies appear to have on the arts, artists and their work have a rich history of involvement in politics.  At the height of Greek society in Athens, attending plays was mandatory for all citizens and viewing drama was considered essential to maintaining a healthy polis.  In fact, theater was so important to Athenians that annual taxes could be paid in the form of outfitting a war galley or funding the chorus for the annual Dionysian festival.

Attendance is no longer required by the state and producers are lucky if even a fraction of citizens make it to any live performance, let alone one that engages them mentally.  Yet for the few people who do regularly attend live theater, performances are still a testes way to spark conversation amongst an audience and cause them to think critically about their government and society.  Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, Jean Anouilh’s version of Antigone, and many other works are written more for their political subtext rather than overt storyline.  Thespians and artists in general take it upon themselves to challenge the public and keep them questioning.

Arts policies are typically an afterthought for politicians running for major national political offices, but the arts remain actively engaged in the political scene.  Any effort to cause a population to think critically about the issues important to them prior to stepping into a voting booth should be encouraged.