Sunday, September 08, 2013
What Killed Shakespeare Santa Cruz?
Parabasis: Shakespeare Santa Cruz, a theater that helped give birth to the careers of many friends of mine, including my mentor in college, is gone, definitely for good and very abruptly.It's a sad story-- it's always sad when theaters close their doors, even if sometimes the mismanagement issues at the heart of their closure are infuriating-- and it's guaranteed to reverberate throughout the national theater community. While we seem to be past the post-bust days when theaters across America were closing as a direct result of their overbuilding, the sustainability crisis in the American theater feels far from over. Whenever I hear about major theaters in their areas that are sitting on serious debt and building maintenance sinkholes. I worry that these stories will start appearing again more regularly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This is a very common thing in any business that relies on one major funding source. Diversity of funding is essential in an arts company but a larger problem is relying on space from a single place. Seaside Music Theatre had the same problem when their backer a local paper changed management and cut all ties. While getting funding from one benefactor is easy management needs to have a backup plan. Many companies that are reliant on one entity for funding work under the assumption that when the funding dries up you just move on.
I have to agree with Luke on this one. Having been a patron of Shakespeare Santa Cruz it is incredibly sad to find out about its sudden loss. It is vitally important, especially in the arts community, to make sure that management is sound, and funding is secure. It is awful to think that this could potentially happen to any theatre seeing as it happened to one as well know as Shakespeare Santa Cruz.
It's such a shame when any sort of company such as SSC has to shut down due to budgetary reasons. I agree with what Luke said about a major problem is that the funding came from a single source, because there's no security for the theatre company in the event that something about the source changes and their funding is cut. Another issue that was brought up in the article that I found interesting was the use of union labor being a large cause of going over budget. Did SSC have any other options that involved not using union actors in their performances? If only there was someway to cut costs there, so maybe they wouldn't be closing down after the Holidays.
The drop in ticket sales seems to be almost universal across the professional local and regional theater scene. One has to wonder if this is the indicative of a major cultural shift away from live theater (I hope not) or merely a consequence of strained economic times, or maybe a combination of both. The articles second point, that sometime people tend to blame equity pay rates, and in some cases IATSE rates for theaters financial problems, is true that this arises often. However without the use of talented and quality professionals ticket sales might drop, as a result of of the quality of work, not the culture in the community.
Shakespeare Santa Cruz was one of my first paid professional jobs. The experiences and education that they provide young professionals is unparalleled by anything else at that school. It's upsetting that this wasn't brought to the publics attention prior to the decision to cut funding. I feel that students should have a stronger voice when it comes to decisions regarding the education that they are paying for. And if he wants to hide behind the excuse of budget cuts (which has been raging rampant on the UC system for the past several years mind you), why didn't he lessen the financial burden of what SSC has to pay to the school? Free use of the Glen? The SSC admin offices? Rather than just pocketing all the money he gave us? Below is an article that bring to light a lot of interesting numbers and revelations about the situation.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_23977879/ucsc-arts-dean-defends-closing-shakespeare-santa-cruz
Although this article seems to be written from the angle of "there must be some kind of conspiracy underneath it all", it does raise some very good points. I agree with Luke that having one huge source of funding is a risk, because if that one source dries up or cuts ties, the company is left without any other financial resources.
It is a little strange that, at least according to this article, the artistic director of SSC seems not to have known about the potential that the company would be shut down until the dean came out and said it.
I also think that the final cause that the article claims may have been a cause (the use of Equity actors), is a huge problem for the industry. I think that it absolutely essential that there is a union that supports actors and stage managers, and there should be minimum salaries, under the assumption that the Equity actors are experienced and talented, and so worth the cost.
The issue of financially supporting any artistic endeavor is always a difficult one. As Luke said, a broad base of funders is synonymous with a theater that can weather economic downturn. It is sad to see what happens when arts funding drys up. Pittsburgh's Black Sheep Puppet Festival is an example of an extremely cool operation which ultimately was under-supported. They encountered a complicated issue of balancing growth with limitations in funding.
Post a Comment