Playbill.com: Annie Baker, John Guare, Branden Jacobs-Jenkins, Tony Kushner, Terrence McNally and Sarah Ruhl are among a group of 80 influential playwrights who have signed their names to an open letter sent to The New York Times urging the publication to restore the list of designers and production members to its printed and online reviews and listings.
10 comments:
I'm not quite sure why the Times is always so casually shady with their theatre arts section. Reviews have, from what I've seen, drastically fallen out of popularity in the first place, so it just doesn't seem to make much sense for them to be making missteps like this that will only have theatre artists more frustrated with how they approach their arts section. It really gives the impression that the Times is out of touch with the theatre community if 80 playwrights, including several award winners, have to reach out to them to express their dissatisfaction. It also shows that the theatre community, in a lot of ways, is pretty tightly knit and yet welcoming, so there would be no reason for them to be so out of touch in the first place. The letter itself was excellently written, and I absolutely loved the nod to each designer and manager that works on new productions alongside the playwrights themselves. I look forward to seeing how the Times responds.
Quoting the effervescent Latrice Royale, "The shade, the shade of it all!" I am not a regular consumer of theater reviews, and being a west-coaster, the New York Times is not my daily fare, newspaper-wise. That being said, I find this most recent change to the NYT theater reviews section very interesting, because of the attitude it represents.
I can see how some would find it logical to omit designers and managers, people with incredibly specific skill sets, yet difficult-to-define responsibilities. It's understandable that the New York times, seeking to save space and cater to its audience, saw the elimination of these credits as a no-brainer. Most audience members, unfamiliar with the complex backstage machinations that go into any production, may not care whose names decorate the design and management portion of the credit box.
However, such assumptions are treacherous, It's all too easy for any Tom, Dick, or Harry, upon reading a credit-less NYT review, to assume that theater is not the collaborative effort that it is, an assumption that the New York Times does nothing to dissuade.
I would like nothing more than to see proper credit given where proper credit is due, and wait eagerly to see what comes next in this saga.
Great response, ridiculous that the Times would think that removing those names would cause no backlash. I tend to think about decisions like that in today's era in terms of ways to simplify the medium of print news so that it does not fall out of popularity. And, because the Times is such a juggernaut in the field of reviewing for New York, they, I'm sure, feel that they would not be challenged in such a direct way, for fear that they would use their power against those playwrights, or any other protesters. What saddens me about this is that the culture of New York theatre allows this type of control to be so centralized in the Times. I absolutely believe, and I think you're silly if you don't, that every person's work on a project needs to be respected and acknowledged. I continue to think about New York dying out as a cultural hub, and about how we need more regional theatres, and more attention on cities like Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago for doing the exciting work that they do. Then we may be able to achieve a state of theatre in our nation that is controlled by its artists, rather than the people behind the pen.
I find it very heartening that eighty playwrights have banded together to support their fellow theatre makers in representing the full breadth of a theatrical performance. As Annie Baker puts it, those behind the scenes are as important as actors, writers, and directors to the making of a successful production. Simply because they aren't as vocal about their professions does not mean their work should not be recognized by such a major publication as the New York Times. I also completely agree with Baker's message -- that disheartening theatrical artists will not push many other burgeoning designers and production technology management people into the entertainment industry. Having representation for anyone is important to including the future into your profession. The young people that read the New York Times and can't find the names of the people who created the set, costumes or lights won't have the access to learning about an entire world of the theatre.
People might not like my thoughts on this, but we should be lucky that the Times reviews theatre at all.
Theatre is an important part of our culture, but it’s not an important part of everybody’s culture. The media has a bottom line, and every inch taken up by production credits is an inch that can’t be used for another piece or another advertisement. The paper has a business to run too.
Companies should urge the media to provide production credits when that’s the factor that’s going to put butts in seats, but the newspaper is not the right outlet for production credits.
That’s what the playbill is for. You don’t get to have your name in the paper just because you designed part of a show that the Times reviewed. You get your name in the Playbill. That’s the credit you get. You also get paid. You can’t be angry when the media doesn’t feel the need to include you on everything they write about the play.
But if it’s that important to the company, only comp media that will agree to put the production credits in their review. See how well that works out for you. You’ll lose the coverage all together.
Looking at the list of playwrights who feel strongly enough about this change is both humbling, and heartening. Though public recognition is always a boon, and it is irritating that the Times deemed so many people so integral to productions as superfluous, in light of everything that has happened around this new omission, I am not that bothered. Personally, without imposing my beliefs on anyone else, I think that theatre is made and produced for two entities: the creators (including playwrights, management, designers, actors, etc.) and the audience. To me, what and who the Times deems important enough to include in a review is irrelevant, because the art is not for Times' review. Yes, reviews are nice, and useful, and they can encourage audiences to go partake of the art that is out in the world. But I would like to focus on the fact that someone noticed the backstage silent many were missing. And that this staggering list of playwrights felt strongly enough to do something about it. Because I at least would like to produce and enable their art for them and their audience, not for the Times.
I’m glad that these playwrights spoke out. This practice of the New York Times is continuing to push the backstage part of theatre out of the picture. Plays don’t happen without those backstage people. If we continue to ignore those jobs people will stop pursuing them. We already have a huge imbalance of technicians to onstage personnel, why support a bigger gap? It goes back to appreciating the arts and who makes that art. I find that with the general public they think they understand the entertainment industry because they encounter it every day. However when they meet someone like myself they are puzzled because they never thought about where costumes actually come from. Entertainment, movies, TV and plays are far more complicated than the general public realizes. We can’t afford to have our jobs continually ignored. It’s about respect for ourselves and our decreasingly respected industry. Without respect we don’t have jobs.
I am glad to see that playwrights care about this and are standing up for the crew. I think their letter pointed out a huge misconception that many may have about us crew members, which is that we are artists, not helpers. Recognizing everyone who worked on the show is such a fundamental thing to do; it's no different than citing an author whose research you used in your essay. Some people say that if you're working backstage you're not supposed to "seek attention", but just because crew members work behind the spotlight doesn't mean that they don't deserve recognition - acknowledgement and attention are different things. I've met so many people who didn't even know that there are actually legitimate jobs for people who work backstage. The fact that New York Times used to include the whole crew but now intentionally took them out does bother me and hopefully they will respond to this - if New York Times continues to do this, then no doubt other publication/news will do so too.
Oh my gosh this article just made me so glowingly happy. I am so warmed by the idea of all these theatre artist working together to give proper credit where credit is due, they are supporting each others careers but also their morals towards theater and working on new plays. I’m sure there are stage managers that really only love working on new work because of the input and contribution that they get to have, the collaboration that Annie Baker was talking about. Producing new work for the first time is a totally different animal, and I think a lot of artists who don’t really do that, don’t realize how different it can be. The play changes such an incredible amount, not just transitions or blocking or order of scenes, but actual dialogue. And with the changing of dialogue comes the changing of characters and plot points and major archs as well. The field of new work is a complex machine that needs to be treated with an attention to detail, and I hope the New York Times will realize that.
It is comforting to see a letter, as to the point and essential as this one, come to the surface and receive some press from another news outlet. It’s bad enough that the public rarely gets a glimpse into the artistic collaboration that happens in order for a production to come to fruition. I’m sure that most Tony award winning designers would not even be recognized on the streets, yet they are at the top of their field, just as many of the wildly famous actors and directors that are so commonly followed by blogs and paparazzi. These unsung designers and artists rarely even get a headshot in a program, the one place where their accomplishments and thanks and name can be lauded and presented for other aspiring theatrical artists to see. Then the New York Times has to go and omit even their name from the articles and reviews for the shows which they are pouring their heart and soul into. Most unfortunate. Almost as unfortunate as the Sound Design Tony being eliminated and the awarding of other Design Tony’s slowly being edited out of the annual televised awards ceremony. Hopefully this will change soon!
Post a Comment