washingtonpost.com: Well, well, hello, oldie! This is the time of year when the region’s subscription theaters lay down their cards, revealing what they’ve got in their hands for the new season, which begins around Labor Day. The idea, of course, is to tantalize playgoers with the upcoming slate, in the hope that they will be motivated to pull out their checkbooks and credit cards and make advance ticket purchases to many if not all of the as-yet-unrealized offerings.
12 comments:
Just because well-known DC theaters have chosen "oldies" for their 2012-13 season's does not necessarily say anything about what their productions (or seasons for that matter) will end up like. The author of this article says that it is almost "cringe-worthy" to see so many old shows making their revivals in DC this year, but I wholeheartedly disagree. While these shows may have been written, or taken place, in different times, there are still many ways to modernize a production to make it relatable to its audiences. The author of this article should not write off the theaters in DC solely based on their selections of older plays and musicals for 2012-13. I do wonder why these theaters ALL chose so many dated plays for the season. You'd think that they would want to make themselves unique and each have something different to offer to their guests. It will be interesting to see the reviews of the productions in all of these theaters, and to see whether the author of this article was just in his early precautions about the 2012-13 seasons in DC.
I agree with Jess's comments above, and am really surprised at what Peter Marks has written. I spent 4 years in DC and Peter Marks is who you want to give a good review to your show for the rest of DC. One of the things that really bothers me about this article is that he names one, maybe two, shows that a company is doing in its season and makes a generalization that they are just reverting to the "tried and true oldies". OK, Arena is doing My Fair Lady this season. They did Music Man last season. Their Oklahoma! in 2011 made headlines. That's one big major money-making musical in a season with four or five other shows, many of which are world-premieres and new works by new playwrights. A world-premiere show that I worked on at Arena in 2011 was only possible because of the revenue that Oklahoma! was bringing in at the time. Especially in this political climate where Romney is saying he will eliminate NEA funding, I'm not surprised at all that theatres are choosing shows that should make some money. They have to in order to continue doing the non-money-making shows. Furthermore, in an economy with high unemployment and people worrying about their next paycheck, the public may not spend money taking a chance on a never-heard-of show. But if you can get people to come see My Fair Lady, maybe you can get them to see something else too. I'm annoyed that Peter Marks seems to be harshly judging the DC theatre companies for choosing "oldies" when that may be what they need to do to survive another year.
I am typically annoyed by seasons that have exclusively scheduled "oldies." DO SOMETHING NEW, PLEASE. Jess, however, brings up a good point. We don't know what they'll do with those productions. Now, I still don't have high hopes, but it is true that there are a lot of remounts of classic that are not boring, dated, and totally lacking any fresh insight, but that is how I find most of them to be. I wish more theaters would choose to put on new different shows, but I understand the motives not to do so with the tough economy.
Although I do not completely agree with what Peter Marks is saying in this article about the possible outcome of the revivals in DC, Marks makes a very interesting point in his last paragraph. Revivals of pieces that were commercial and artistic successes rarely tend to be much different from the original because of the success of the previous choices. I have seen this several times at a theatre in Massachusetts. This theatre chose to revive their production of Annie because it was the most successful show that the theatre has ever presented in terms of profit. I believe that theatre is about taking risks. Why would you not try to create something new and exciting rather than creating a copy-cat production? Interesting to think about...
After spending the last year working in DC I too am kind of surprised that these few shows and venues are the ones he chooses to pick on. I saw some incredibly new works, premieres and classical remounts in that town while I was there, including productions at both Signature and Arena, among others.
It's just the nature of our business, sometimes you have to mix that oldie in there to help boost the more experimental parts of your season. However even remounts and classical oldies can be dangerous for a theatre if the concept diverges too far from what people know and love.
I think the point that a lot of the above commenters are missing is that the unfortunate thing about theatre is that at the end of the day, it is about making money. A company needs to earn money from the shows they produce to continue to produce shows: its a nice big feedback loop. When a company produces many new works, or works out of "popular" repertoire, the company is taking a risk for the sake of promoting the piece. If a work does badly, the company just lost money to make the set, hang the lights, pay the actors, etc. Have this happen enough times in a season, and of course the next summer when the artistic director and the CFO sit down together, one of them is going to be a little bit nervous about launching a whole season of unheard of plays.
That being said, to do an entire season of the "tried-and-true" is perhaps excessive, but if it puts the company on track for a year of more balance between avaunt-garde and classic, then good for them.
I would agree that sometimes returning to tried and true shows may be necessary evil, shall we say, for theatres to do. He mentioned this may be a "rebuilding" year for the theatre. Have a year where you know the show, the plot, and the projected expenses to recover for past bumps. There is a chance that the theatres will try something brave and new with the old shows, I personally do not think that is very likely but there is a chance of that happening. I personally know nothing about the D.C. area and theatre there so what is typical or the region I can not comment on. Overall we must trust management or do not trust them and fire them, so what will it be. I hope they know what they are doing because that means more places will be open when I graduate and that means more jobs. So lets see what happens.
I definitely agree that the upcoming 2012-2013 season seems rather heavy on "oldies," but why does that have to be a bad thing? It seems that lately theaters have been TOO progressive and are forgetting their roots. It's nice to see older shows getting the love they deserve; after all, they didn't stay on Broadway for so long because they were bad. It will be nice for the public to get to see the old favorites again (or, for some of the younger folk, be introduced to them for the first time). Theatre is not like film - you can't go to the local Blockbuster and pick up whatever you happen to be in the mood to see. You have to wait for theatre to come to you, and maybe it's time for the "oldies" to make a reappearance. After all, they haven't been seen yet and they could very well include refreshing twists and creative directing choices.
I think that reutrning to "oldies" is entirely based on what we as theatrical practitioners do to keep it relevant as well as fresh. Everything about our socitey is based pioneering new ideas and moving forward, but there is something that we are moving forward from. We need to have a foundation, and there's nothing wrong with returning to that foundation. Plus, they always draw a crowd.
AAKennard said that returning to the “Oldies” was a necessary evil. I would like to take opposition to that statement. There should be nothing wrong with returning to the classics. People and institutions are very nervous these days about being cliché and they do a season of shows that I have never heard of nor have care to. We love movies again and again and there are entire radio stations dedicated to music made in previous decades but when the Arena Stage puts on My Fair Lady we accuse them of selling out to make a quick buck? I believe that The Arena stage has earned our artistic trust in this matter. I am totally going to drive to DC to see this show.
I guess the revival of the "oldies" is both good and bad. I would rather see a revival with new designs or direction rather than a copy-cat production. It's kind of sad, though, that mainly the old productions are the ones bringing in the major profit. It's not really the theaters' fault that the public wishes to play it safe when seeing a show. I agree with Nathan: theatre is about taking risks. It's a risk for the theater when trying to choose a play the public would want to see. It's a risk for the public to spend money on a play they may or may not like. But isn't that how the old productions were created? They took a risk and made it big. Personally, I would love to see the production, "Brother Russia." It sounds very interesting.
I enjoy the fact that these theaters have chosen "oldies" in order to spruce them up a bit in a way to just make them different from the perceptions we may have from previous experiences. I always find it interesting when a director, designer, actor, etc. can find something new and invigorating to make the show different from the last time I saw it. Although, it would be nice to see something new originate or be done at these theaters, however, that is not under my jurisdiction and I believe that with their lineups they can easily change the audiences perspective of the show.
Post a Comment