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.
