Monday, March 28, 2011
When did live theater get so small?
The Denver Post: "Colorado's theater companies are thinking small. So small that if you added up all the people it would take to pack the state's 10 tiniest live theater venues, you still couldn't fill the first 12 rows of the Denver Center's Buell Theatre. More and more, new startup companies are opting to make a go of it in performance spaces no bigger than the Denver Center's coat check.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
My reaction would be that you have to go big or go home, that they are not taking risks. But, in thinking about it I guess there really isnt anything wrong with that, in reality these producers and companies are just making smart business decisions. I mean they are still able to put on the art that they want and not lose their shirts doing so, yet. Also the fact that these theatres are popping up in locations that might not be the norm is actually very interesting and could actually add to the performance. These producers are also hopefully creating a demand for the work that they do by only making their houses so big. However, the article brings up a good point in that even if a company can keep their space, it doesnt mean people are getting paid. But if everyone making the show happen can be ok with that then I guess its ok. They still get to perform their art for people, and showcase their talent. I just hope that these actors and producers are able to keep their heads above water.
It kind of goes back to minimizing risk by making smaller decisions overall. One of the smallest theatre companies in my home town (75 seats) just went up to almost 200 after twenty years of success. There's a certain feeling one gets from small venues, a certain closeness to the art, that audiences love. So, in effect, you can create a really strong customer base by keeping your venue as small as possible, then move up to a larger scale once you have a loyal crowd and really start raking in profit by drawing in new audiences. While it is difficult to function on such a small house, especially with today's audiences preferring big spectacle theatre more than close personal expressions of the art, I do think that (if done correctly) it is a sound investment.
I love theatre in small spaces like these. It creates a sense of intimacy that isn't found in any other theatre experiences. As the article mentioned these are a good way of having low operating costs and they support new low budget theatrical endeavors. The next point that the article brings to light is whether or not these theatres can make a profit. It seems that cutting corners and being cost-effective is more important than ever. A few $100 can make a huge difference in this type of venue than say the Benedum. ideas such as presenting shows that are royalty-free, reusing technical elements etc as the article points out are very important aspects of making a venture of this nature successful. Hopefully this style works and we will begin to see some very creative theatre coming from this type of environment.
Theater may be to expose the arts to lots of people, but then why don't they go see a movie or something. Theater isn't going to be widespread. One of the greatest things about theater is that each performance is individualized for the audience. I think that they are really ambitious for performing live theater for such audiences. You can really accomplish a great deal. Unfortunately small audiences do not equal a big increase at the box office. It will be difficult to stay afloat for these companies.
In addition to the intimacy and proximity to the performance, there's a #supplydemand aspect here at work as well.
Do you put a show in a 100-seat house that 100 people will want to see or do you put a show that 100 people will want to see in a 30 seat house. There's a lot of cost analysis and risk factors you have to take into consideration. I'm sure this is what Broadway Across America considers when putting shows on the road. (How long does a show stay in a town, etc.) But on a much smaller scale there's greater ramifications to this type of thinking.
Imagine applying for a NEA grant. What will look better, that you can run a great show (assuming these companies are producing interesting work) for a weekend or keep that show going for a month. Smaller houses could potentially create a bottleneck into your theater's vision and productions. When supply for funding is limited might not be a good thing to control the demand for your product.
I guess my thought here is that there are two large factors at play. The first is economics. It's cheaper to run a smaller space, it's easier to fill the seats. Sure there's less revenue potential, but there's also less loss potential, right? So it's risk mitigation. Additionally, we have to think that perhaps theatre, as an art form, is struggling to compete with other art forms. And what makes theatre so special is its aliveness, it's life, it's proximity. So by enhancing the proximity, putting less people in a smaller room, closer to the action; theatre companies are able to capitalize on what it is that makes theatre unique to, say, movies.
I am a big fan of theater in smaller venues. Theater is about reaching out to people. whatever the most effective way to express the theatrical experience, within the budget. I do not condone theaters refusing to take risks in artistic expression, because of fears of budgetary issues, or popularity with the public. obviously this is not always a feasible goal for theaters to pursue, but it should at the very least be a goal. It is understandable that in tough financial times, the arts will have to make some sacrifices, but there is a good version of any show for any budget, ant with creativity these options can be explored.
We're stuck in two different thoughts here - economic concerns (keeping the house afloat and making a profit on a small amount of income) and artistic concerns ("going big or going home", even with cut costs). There's doubt in the comments above about the ability to balance these, but these theatres definitely can do it - I specifically think of Littleton Town Hall (a theatre mentioned in the article and one that I've worked at before). Because of sponsors and grants (and associating themselves with the city government as a public service), they are able to create some incredible work both performance- and technical-wise, and the intimacy of never being farther than 30 feet from the stage makes a huge impact. There are definitely solutions that come with extra money, but the artistry is independent - a well-written show done with the actor's clothes and a few chairs can still have the art at the heart of it. Heck, Title of Show capitalizes on this, just brings it up into a bigger theatre!
In general, because you are able to connect better with characters in an intimate space, I tend to prefer seeing theatre in these types of spaces. There is, of course, an economic factor at play, but I actually think this is second to the theatre companies actively choosing to play small houses over larger houses. The emotions end up being much stronger, and the audience really can feel like a part of the show, which I think is part of the current "cultural aesthetic" of theatre.
What's great about performance is that it can take place nearly anywhere. Theatre is not constricted to large, expensive productions--well done or not. The mission of theatre is to tell a story, and that can be done almost anywhere.
Who's to say that the only decent theatre experiences come from New York? Why can't you walk down the street in your hometown and experience a performance that is just as exciting and engaging?
Small theatre often offers a sense of community that large theatre does not. The rewards too, can be even more satisfying. If someone is fortunate enough to leisurely work on a smaller production, chances are they're in it for the fun. Even moreso, if someone takes on a smaller production though they are swamped with other work, they most likely are doing so because they feel the experience will hold value. It will be worth it because he/she truly wants to do it for nothing other than the experience.
As far as producing small theatre goes, starting small is certainly a way to start. The audience that you reach is not necessarily avid-theatre goers. And when you're not necessarily making a profit to begin with, knowing who you're touching can be quite rewarding.
This article corresponds with the article on over saturation of the market. Whereas when you have a small audience, a small space is more conducive. 100 people in the Wells could bea vibrant show. 100 in the Benedum would not be conducive to a powerful theatre experience. So, many small companies are creating small spaces to maintain integrity of their art. Unfortunately, from a professional aspect, this is not financially viable all the time. Unless ticket prices are exorbitantly priced. Consequently, I saw a wonderful show a few years back on Penn Avenue. I paid $12 for a ticket and there was only 10 people in the house. Needless to say the company did not make money during that show and I don't think they are in business anymore.
Sometimes you need to start small before you can go big. I remember a theater company in my home town that started our in a TINY TINY theater with only 5 rows of seats. There was barley enough room to walk around. But there is something intimate and personal about seeing a show so close up with so little audience. A space that small can change an entire production. Of course there are audiences that want the bigger spectacle and large sets and big spaces but there is some really great art that can be created in small spaces like this article talks about.
I love seeing theater in small intimate settings. depending on the intimacy of the play, i feel more like i'm a part of the story and can actually see the action. Its also great to be apart of a small scale company; they feel more like family. A smaller theater is also cheaper. Its a good way to make theater more accessible to those who may not be able to afford tickets to see shows.
I actually enjoy smaller theatres. Large performances are thrilling and exciting in many ways, but there is just something so dear and personal about a small theatre experience that can't be compared. I don't think one is greater than the other, they both have their moments in which one is more preferable than the other.
Post a Comment