The Blog You Need to Follow, the History You Need to Know, the Book You Need to Read and Rally ‘Round (or Against)

Folks, I am so excited right now that I am leaping heart first into this blogging without thinking thing.  If you have agreed with what I have been saying so far, or conversely, if you have been vehemently disdaining it, you need to go to http://theatreideas.blogspot.com/ to see what I am trying to say said by someone who actually knows how to say it, better, more thoughtfully, more informedly, and more consistently than I can offer it here, life-addled playwright that I am.  What Scott Walters is saying is so clear and bold and brilliant that I basically insist that you stop reading this right now and go check out this:  http://theatreideas.blogspot.com/2007/08/welcome-new-readers.html

Yup, that’s right.  In August of 2007 he called for, what I so boldly and presciently just called for in December of 2009.  (Hey, I’m a playwright.  I’m used to being irrelevant and my betters preceding me.)

Just recently Scott posted this: a very cogent history of what went wrong with the regional theatre movement in America.  (BTW: thanks a lot, Tyrone Guthrie.  Do we need to fight another war to get you British to finally fuck off?) 

Naturally I subscribed to the guy’s blog, and just yesterday he comes out with this:  http://theatreideas.blogspot.com/2010/01/outrageous-fortune-chapter-1-build.html

It is the first in his chapter by chapter analysis of Outrageous Fortune: The Life and Times of the New American Play, the hot new treatise which examines the "collaboration in crisis" between playwright and those who produce their work by Todd London, Ben Pesner and Zannie Giraud Vos.   The book is available on line at www.tdf.org/outrageousfortune.  (Though trust me: there is already a promo copy sitting unopened on your favorite theatre critic’s desk.) 

This is it, folks.  You mark my words.  This book is going to spark the revolution Louis Broome has been so ardently calling for from his comfy day job office in Redmond.  I have not read it.  I have no idea if it is ultimately any good.  But that hardly matters because it is going to spark the deep struggle that will turn this whole art form upside down in the space of four years.  The powers-that-be already have their forces out, desperately, snarkily trying to put out the fire.  The first missile of dismissal comes from Chris Jones.

“'Outrageous Fortune': Playwright book full of whine and din”

I’d respond, but my guy, Walters, does it so much better:

Chris Jones may characterize this as whining, but that is a term that is always used as a weapon to shut up anyone who questions the status quo. The consistency of the complaints is indicative of a real problem….  The larger picture -- this study uses 250 surveys received from "working professional playwrights at all stages of their careers, including Albee, Congdon, Dietz, Letts and many others whose names you would recognize …  , as well as surveys of almost a hundred theatres across the country -- reveals an entire system in disarray, not simply individuals in dismay.

Walters also knows what it will take to set this all aright:

As a theatre historian, it is baffling to me how willing artists are in this country to dismiss what has been proven effective throughout most of theatre history. Yes, Shakespeare AND the rest of the Elizabethans created work within ongoing ensembles, yes Moliere AND the rest of the theatre artists of the French Neoclassical era, AND the commedia dell 'arte troupes, AND Chekhov and Odets and O'Neill and and and. And lest someone wants to make the case that this is a thing of the past, we might look to the Royal Court as a model, or to Ariane Mnouchkine and Peter Brook and Peter Stein and and and. What is it about the American theatre that is so committed to the idea of a "free agent nation," failing to recognize the artistic value of an ongoing relationship between artists?

“May you live in interesting times,” goes the Chinese blessing/curse.  These are them, friends.  This is the crisis coming to the head that we have been earnestly ardently waiting for. This book will be pivotal, whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not.  This is what the forces of change will rally around.  For those who were hoping that they could put it off for a few years, it is too late.  The New York Times is writing about this now.  The problem is receiving wide and deep attention now.  Join the fray or stay away, but this chance will not come again within this decade, if ever.

So order the book.  Show up at the discussion of it hosted by TPS at the Center House March 1 from 10am – 1pm.  (Stay tuned for details on that.)  Think about how you can make this theatre town world class now that everything’s a’changing, because, trust me brothers and sisters, you will not recognize the place nor the art form in four short years.

Comments

[Bill Salyers]

You never hesitate to make bold prognostication, my friend. Your crystal ball is far clearer than mine. What if said volume is greeted not with a bang or a whimper... but a yawn?

[Paul Mullin]

I don't know, Bill. I buy you a steak dinner maybe?

I'm seeing a lot of synergy out there though. I mean A LOT!

[Scott Walters]

Thanks for the compliments, Paul. I just discovered your blog recently, and recognized a kindred spirit, right down to the bare-knuckled writing style. Glad to meet you and your readers!

[Carl Sander]

Paul -- You’re doing a hell of a job serving as a local portal for the conversation. I have little interest in wading in on a national level, I love to be kept informed, but when I read “The Guthrie” my eyes glaze over. From 1981 -1994 I read every issue of American Theatre cover to cover, but what goes on in Milwaukie, Portland, NY or Maine no longer holds my attention. We’ve got enough troubles here at home and the local solutions seem to be the ones that are sticking.

Can we assume that your site will continue to serve as a clearinghouse? And that you are going to continue with your “let’s make Seattle a world class theatre town in five years or bust” campaign?

[Paul Mullin]

Carl, I do indeed intend to keep the tenor of most of these posts tight to the subject of making Seattle great. Of course, Scott Walters makes a great argument about localization being key, so I'll take and pass on a great argument for that from North Carolina or Timbuktu.

He also makes a great cogent explication of how we got screwed into these toadying NYC-centric and asinine anglophilic mindsets in the first place. Always good to know where the poison comes from so you can avoid it when they try and spew it at you again. And I don't think we've seen the end of the spew, or even, really, the beginning of the backlash.

But we're ready for it. And there's nothing like the power of nothing to lose.

[Dennis Baker]

Paul,

I was in your shoes about a year ago when I stumbled onto Walter's blog. Good stuff indeed. When you have time, pour through the blog posts he organized under the various topics for the Theatre Tribe model: http://tribaltheatre.pbworks.com/

[Louis Broome]

If you're not going to read this entire post, read the last sentence.

Before working at Microsoft I was a

Bus boy
Bartender
Contractor's bitch
Surgical orderly
Hair Salon Manager
High School Drama Teacher
Airport Limo Driver
King County Land Plat Office Word Perfect Wiz
Receptionist

And in-between all of the above were countless acting and directing jobs. I've been a singing and dancing salt shaker. For the love of God, I did MIME!!!!

KCTS was the first gig that became something like a career, the first that offered reasonably good health care. In the NYTs article today, there was a quote about bad teeth. My teeth are something like 50% fillings. KCTS was good, I learned a lot - like how stunningly dysfunctional .orgs can be.

My current job is not all that comfy. I like it, but it can be brutal. I work with super smart people. Smart people can be fun, but they're also a constant reminder of how I have a BFA in fucking ACTING!!! I like that I make decent money. Growing up, we had no money. Poverty sucks. I like that I can support child development programs in my old neighborhood.

Ten years in a for-profit corporation has taught me that the world is full of smart, ambitious, creative, inventive people who dream up crazy things, make them a reality, sell them and MAKE MONEY. I swear, the only difference between most .com entrepreneurs and most of the theater people I know is that the entrepreneurs' have better imaginations. They don't limit the possibilities. They never accept the status quo.

We are living in a time when great, GREAT stories are being told - stories that are thematically driven, explore universal themes, have broad appeal and exert an influence on our culture. The vast majority are being told in the vital forms of our time, TV and film. Our theater is a future footnote. That footnote will describe how the film industry extended the brand of their most successful properties by turning them into Broadway musicals.

If you want theater to be relevant, figure out a way to make it profitable. If you want to ensure its continued irrelevance, keep bitching at the not-for-profits.

[Paul Mullin]

Well of course, Louis, I have to read your WHOLE post. It's on my blog. And you know that I'm not yet convinced either for or against this "it-must-be-for-profit-or-it-simply-must-not-be" mantra. It feels a little like saying, we must put a man on the moon within a year or we can never explore space again. Or worse, it feels a little like saying theatre, like health-care, is for those who can afford it.

And as for the "theatre-has-always-and-only-thrived-in-a-strictly-for-profit-model" argument, that doesn't sound right either. It was nearly always subsidized to some extent by the aristocracy. They weren't called the "King's Men" for nothing. Moliere got plenty of help from the royals. Chekhov was basically a dilettante in the theatre, making his money as a writer from his short stories.

I don't say this to defend the non-profit model. I say it to spur you to give us your alternative model instead of just rhetoric, something of which I do not lack my own ample supply, as you and others have so aptly pointed out.

So, let's see the models please. I'll take a napkin sketch at this point. Otherwise, we're just peddling separate irrelevancies, and it seems like people would rather hear me bitching at the Big Houses. We're supposed to give the people what they want, right? Supposed to entertain and not just be important, right? ;-)