Saturday, October 13, 2012
False Equivalency: Broadway Is Not The American Theatre
Howard Sherman: I’m sorry, but I can’t read a statement like that and keep silent.
The above quote is taken from a blog by Jim McCarthy, CEO of Goldstar and one of three organizers of TEDx Broadway, which will take place this January for the second year. Jim organizes the event along with producer Ken Davenport and Damian Bazadona of Situation Interactive. I attended last year’s event and furiously live-blogged it; there was some very interesting conversation that day and what struck me about it was how little it spoke specifically to Broadway and how much of the content spoke to issues of theatre as a whole. But as much as I’ve enjoyed meeting Jim and communicating with him subsequent to last year’s event, my response to his premise is at least dismay, if not outright offense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I happen to think that Sherman and this statement are saying the same thing in two different ways. "Broadway is not American Theatre" could mean simply that what happens in a handful of theaters in a given region of Manhattan is not an adequate representation of the greater art form achieved throughout the country. And this is exactly Sherman's point. Broadway is only a sliver of the pie. Granted, if the same pie were represented financially, Broadway (collectively) probably occupies a sizable piece. For the most part, I agree with Sherman, I generally like reading his articles. And he addresses the point which drives could potentially drive the global cultural assumption that Broadway is the face of American Theatre--and that is that broadway companies and shows are usually the only ones with the resources to brand it, package it, and send it on tour so that it can reach audiences that might not otherwise have the opportunity to partake in the experience.
But Sherman is right, I think someone like McCarthy should know better than to make such a broad claim. Especially because Goldstar, McCarthy's company works with companies ranging in size and scale across the country. They get closer glimpse than others at how much theaters are actually generating on ticket sales for different kinds of performances.
YES! I am so happy that this article addresses the issue that so many people believe that Broadway is what American Theatre is. It is simply the commercial side of American Theatre, while regional theaters are actually the ones bringing theatre to the nation as a whole. Shows at regional theaters often have so much more impact than a show on Broadway because they reach audiences in so many different places and have the opportunity to be more intimate and challenging to our societal constructs and ideas. There can be great shows and terrible shows on Broadway, and the same goes for regional theaters. Broadway is just one of many veins of theatre in our country.
I think Broadway is good for somethings. It has more money, draws bigger audiences, and to the average person is the height of theater in America. But regional theaters have the benefit of, being right in your backyard, having a driving force of art and not money, and allowing for community engagement. I agree with the author though I don't think that Broadway sets the tone for American Theater. Because like he states the regional theaters are the ones where Broadway shows start. Broadway is unquestionably the most visible theater in the country so I do think that to the average American who see's one show if any a year, that Broadway is what they are going to go see. So given that I think it is ridiculous to assume that regional theater is the loudest voice, because it is marketed to a very specific audience. So in a deeply saddening way I feel that to the public Broadway theaters are the ones driving forces in theater but in reality regional theaters set the trends and tones of what we see on Broadway, and hence covertly change the course for theater.
For technicians such as myself, it cannot be denied that Broadway productions do provide something of an "idea factory," at least in terms of technical development, for the world of theatre at large. Since very few producing entities outside of Broadway can come close to matching the budgets of commercial theatre in New York, it isn't surprising that Broadway productions can afford to stretch the limits of what we can create in the theatrical experience. From the soaring Peter Pan to the barely visible for all the fog of Starlight Express (dating myself here) to the fiascos of Spiderman, succeed or fail, these shows have pushed the envelope of our technical capabilities. On the other hand, I can't think of a community practicing theatre in America more woefully devoid of fresh artistic ideas that Broadway producers. Of course I'm exaggerating here, but it seems to me, perusing the endless string of familiar titles gaudily emblazoned on the marquees of Times Square, that, like Hollywood, Broadway has fallen into the cozy trap of simply reproducing what has already been proven to work. Commercialism is not the friend of experimental art, and marketing is the practice of giving people what they want, or alternatively convincing them they want what you're offering. I don't blame Broadway for taking the easy road here, Broadway does what Broadway does, but I, like the author of this article, will neither applaud them `for leading us into the brilliant new future of art. If that future holds no more promise than the recent derivative and repetitive string of cheap reproductions, I shed a tear for us all.
Post a Comment