Theater - The Stranger: Seven years ago, I left Seattle for New York—I abandoned the garage theaters and local arts scene and friends and colleagues—because I was a coward. I'd already tried to sell out once, by working at a shitty Wal-Mart of a tech company, but I knew I would not survive in the theater if I stayed. I fled to New York to bite and claw a living out of the American theater as an independent artist because I was young and stupid enough to think that would actually work.
17 comments:
The scary part of this article is the description of the author's friend, whom is taking on a full time job that evolved from a part time job allowing her to take on roles by night. The fact that doing on and off theatre has burned out her flame is a scary premonition of what can happen to any passionate professional who either isn't consistently working or who isn't consistently gratified by their work. The anecdote about being tired of eating rice for a month is less a singular moment and more an indictment of the theatre system as a whole if you are a freelancer who isn't a member of one of the big unions in one of the big cities. Regional theatres do continue to exist, as the author points out, but the dreams behind them have gone by with the generation. Since everyone is so enveloped by the idea of Broadway, most of these companies bring in designers, and sometimes even actors, to lend their productions more "credit" and creating a sense of importance. People are more likely to see a show if there is a big new york star headlining, no matter where you go. On that line of thought, people will more likely spend their tickets on a touring Broadway show than on a small, garage-style show, just because we as a community are so wrapped up in the spectacle. Until we return to theatre as an encapsulation of the human condition as opposed to a way to feel warm and fuzzy for two hours, we will continue to see actors and actresses tired of Uncle Ben's rice taking on office work for the steadiness they provide.
Well this was depressing, but it also isn't something that I have never thought about. When I started to apply to college and made the choice to apply to mostly BFA programs I had a big talk with the important people in my life about the choice and whether I would be able to live a comfortable life as someone in the arts. We made the conclusion that I would not be happy doing anything else and so it would be worth it for me to do anything else. All that being said, it doesn't make me feel any better know that I love what I do when I read stories about people giving up on acting, or theater after 15 years of trying to make it. The truth of the situation is that people fail, and that a lot of people in this business don't make it, and you have to be willing to fail 100 times before you get one good job, but hopefully that one good job is enough to keep you going for a little longer and maybe then you can sustain yourself a little longer. It does scare me that I could have to give up after years of trying to make a life out working in theater, but I think what keeps me going is that I really do love this. And even though the instability is scary it is also what makes theater exciting. And I will probably regret saying this 15 years from now, but today I would rather live in a shoe box and work 3 jobs and get one day a year of doing what I really love, than give up.
I really appreciate the passion and sentiment behind the article, as the writing clearly shows that the author is making a somewhat desperate and emotional plea for a good cause, but I also can't help but feel like her perspective is a little bit jilted and bitter instead of coming from a place of well educated, well researched fact. It makes it very difficult to agree to the fire that the author is attempting to light under your ass if you feel like they're biased in their own right about the particular subject they're speaking on. Using such personal anecdotes without statistics to back up whether or not this particular issue was limited to the seattle area, etc, can be a bit distracting and ineffective in terms of the power of their argument. Yes, the primary regional theatre audience continues to be older people, but does this mean theatre can't continue to evolve, as it has done for centuries?
This is really sad that these people have such negative feelings toward theatre as an industry as a whole. Theatre is definitely a hard business to stay in and be really successful. There are a lot of theatres that are very small that many people do not know about so it is very hard for them to grow and expand their company. It makes sense that small companies want to bring in union actors and designers because they might bring a bigger audience of people to the theatre to watch their shows. This is very unfortunate for the actors that are trying to break their way into the industry. Not everyone wants to make it big on Broadway, but they would still like to make enough money to survive and live a reasonable life. Theatre is very tricky because there are so many unknowns and there is no guarantee that you will have a job all the time.
This article is greatly reminiscent of the sequel problem currently destroying (debatably) the film industry. So many critics in recent years have pointed out that new movies are few and far between and that the majority of films coming out these days are sequels or revamping or mash-ups to previous films. Oftentimes these films are met with minor recognition and a decent audience base and box office numbers. However, as we saw with Star Wars, some franchises are meant to transcend generations and do smashingly well. And then there are things like the newest film fiasco that is the Batman vs. Superman movie. This movie was not expected to be good at all but is actually doing worse in review than expected. People are expected to like things they are familiar with and therefore enjoy the topics, as it already exists and they know what it is. However this approach is not always popular.
This article makes me very sad. I understand what the author is saying, but it is pretty frustrating to hear "Theatre is dying" when I am paying a ridiculous amount of money so that I can eventually work in theatre. Money is important, since it is necessary in order to continue living, but obviously being happy and doing something you are passionate about is equally, if not more important. It is a lot of work for not much reward, but this is not a surprise for anyone. We all know what we are getting ourselves into. When the author describes his friend, he says that her face absolutely fell after he asked her what she was working on. If that is how you feel after giving up theatre, it is something that you should not be giving up. I think the author also did not do a ton of research on this topic, and is basing his entire argument off of his personal experiences. While his experiences are compelling, and support his argument, they do not represent the entire theatre industry.
This was a saddening read. I don’t disagree with what the author is saying. We need better, more sustainable local theatre. Of course, audiences will continue to favor productions with Broadway names. I think one of the only ways to get audiences to see more regional theatre is to put more money into it. Pay the actors, directors and designers better so audiences have better performances to see. Of course, that requires said funding. Part of this phenomenon, I think, is driven by the relatively limited spread of new theatre. As the author mentions, producers like to go for classics and well-known extant pieces, due to their “security.” If more producers would start funding new and more progressive theatre (outside of New York), we might see a change here. Will that actually happen? I hope so, but at this point it’s pretty hard to say.
Wow. Well, like everyone else said on this thread, that was a pretty depressing read. However, I don't blame the author's friend for feeling the way that she did. Pursing art, and theater for that matter, is really fucking hard. You don't have to say that twice. The term and stereotype of a starving artist didn't just come out of thin air; it's a real sad reality that many artists live every day. We must realize that we are a privileged bunch just having been given the opportunity to pursue our dreams and study art. It's not a terribly practical thing to do if you think about it, but the passion and hope steamrolls all of that. There's a certain attraction to that and the attitude that comes with it. Like Claire said, it's frustrating to hear that "theatre is dying" when I'm paying tens of thousands of dollars to pursue exactly that. But I think that I would have been much more upset not trying and regretting, thinking about what could have been. As for the author's friend, we can at least give her that much. She was putting herself out there for years on end, living like scrap, but couldn't handle the romanticized reality of it anymore. It completely blows to say and know that a lot of the time, in areas like the arts, success is almost always based on who you know and if you're there at the right place at the right time. It's such a gamble living the world in this way, but I think it's worth the risk at the end of the day.
What a depressing article. It’s always difficult to watch things like this as someone who will be trying to make a living working in the theater industry in a few years. When we read and hear so many say that “as long as you work hard, you will find success”, in some ways it can be comforting, yet also incredibly disappointing when you hear of people working insanely hard only to fail and burn out. It’s extremely saddening to realize that some of the most successful companies continue to perform the same overdone, stereotypical, shows that appeal to the old generation who they know will give them money when there are so many new, exciting, socially relevant pieces being written that would be taking advantage of theater as a unique and revolutionary art form. The idea of theater being “classist” is something that is very infuriating, especially considering that some of the most powerful theater pieces, in my opinion, focus on important world issues such as class, and race. It’s frustrating to me when people exclaim that “young people are no longer interested in theater!”, because of course they would be, if only they were able to relate to the stories more. This article makes me feel especially bad for theatrical actors trying to make it in the business; at least, as a designer/ manager, there are other options outside of theater and tv that need the same skill sets, but I can only imagine what it must be like to perform knowing that no one is paying attention. I’m not sure how we should solve this problem, but a grim article like this definitely doesn’t make me feel better about the future.
wow, I wish I never become as defeated and disappointed as the author of this article sounds. I think that a lot of his beliefs are probably rooted in truth but I think that while writing this article, the author was blinded by anger and didn't really do a good job of supporting his argument with any factual evidence. He brings up some interesting points that I have herd as truth such as the aging audience and how they affect the theatre that is being made. Although this is possibly one of the main points he makes, He really doesn't go into much detail about its affect. I Feel like the majority of this article was complaining about different problems with corporate theatre but really not how they affect the community. I think the most interesting point that he makes is the fact that seasoned veterans do not live such glamorous lives and companies are taking advantage of the plethora of interest in acting and that is what is killing theatre. While I don't deny that this is true, I also feel like this can be seen in all job environments. Theatre might be the most affected, but everyone faces competition in the work place. The fact that makes it so much worse in theatre is that it is a direct correlation to who you are as a person and not just how you do the cookie cutter job.
Overall, while this article was poorly written and supported, I think that the author brings up some interesting commentary on the theatre business. What I wish he would have done, was provide possible solutions. Whats the use of complaining if you don't do something about it.
While the author does raise some valid points, I think the reasonable conversation and thought provocation he could inspire are overshadowed by his bitterness and anger. The case he elects to discuss is very personal, and I think this problem needs to be addressed from a broader, higher perspective. Job instability is an occupational hazard for theater artists if ever there was one. I look around at my classmates, and we all know this. I know this probably better than some, knowing first the promised demand and stability for doctors - especially in psychiatry and cardiology, my two fields of interest - before leaving the land of work right out of school to pursue the unstable, irregular world of theater. All I have to do is walk around campus to be reminded of how different those two worlds are in terms of employment, and a future. Perhaps theater has made too many, too-businesslike decisions in recent past. And this is an issue. However, anger and bitterness will do little to resolve it.
Well that was not exactly uplifting. I cannot imagine becoming as disillusioned with the industry as the author currently is. Unfortunately, I agree that the author had many valid points. The amount actors are paid is a huge issue. The fact that a working professional can barely get by is terrifying. The fact that the actor friend had to take on a second job to live is depressing. I would like to operate in a world where professionals can support themselves on what they studied and what they do. I’m not asking that actors be rich. I asking that they can get by. That they can have the “American dream” and not be constantly worrying about money. I am also concerned with the aging audience. Even at CMU, a university filled with young people, most of the people who buy subscriptions are not young. This problem is occurring across nearly all of the preforming arts. This blog even posted an article last semester about the aging classical music audience. It is terrifying to think that our industry is failing to get young audiences into the house. What do we need to change to correct this problem?
Being from the Seattle area myself and right at the starting point of a career in theater, it was very disheartening to read this article. That is until I realized, he’s wrong. Obviously I wish actors could make a living wage and what happened to his friend is unfortunate, what I disagree with is this idea of the overall death of theater as an industry. The author of this article is being kind of alarmist. He has had some unfortunate experiences in this industry but he is using them to paint a larger picture that doesn’t quite ring true. A lot of the problems he discusses are a reality to some extent, for example aging audiences, but not at the scale that he claims. Just recently Hamilton has both proven the ability of new and fresh material to thrive within the corporate structure, and good theater’s ability to attract audiences from across generations and backgrounds. I recognize that a lot of theaters are rehashing and reviving and not producing anything new or challenging because they don’t think it will sell, but theater is not dying yet. Parts of it are just a little sick, and we as young professionals will have to push to bring it back to its full glory.
Theatre is a really really hard business to be in sometimes and it sounds like the author is grasping at straws trying to find someone else to blame for the lack of growth in theatre. His anger at the organizations that create theatre is not, in my opinion, entirely justified. Yes the bureaucracy surrounding theatre has increased dramatically but hasn’t it everywhere? We live in an age of specialization. Companies, non-profit’s in particular, are expected to play an active role in the community, this does require more staff that is not directly involved in producing theatre. The author also criticizes the wealth of “youth engagement” programs as a money grab. In fact this brand of theatre can be just as important as the regional theatre dream which he praises unequivocally.
This article is really depressing. I really hope that the industry is not as bad as he illustrates it in this article. I feel like he is really only coming from his own experience, and broadening it to the overall industry of theatre. I feel like that, recently, there are a lot of conflicting article about the current state of the theatre. On the one hand, there are articles like this one, bemoaning the end of theatre as we know it, saying that true theatre is dead and what's the point of continuing the struggle. On the other, there are stories of increased audience sizes, more and more diversity in theatre, and successful new work finding itself on or off broadway, even calling today a new golden age of the theatre. So, I don’t really know what to believe, but I am more inclined toward the latter. I don’t know if that just reveals how naive I am or if I am just unrealistically optimistic about the future, but I can’t help but think that if we, as future theatre artists, think about the future of theatre as Mike Daisey described it, then that's what it will become. But if we strive towards the Golden Age, there will be a greater chance of that actually happening.
this article was so pretentiously written. I think that for sure, he's reaching. First of all, when he cited him and his wife as "We're nimble. We break rules." Okay, man we get it, you're an artist. I agree- it's hard as hell, I'm sure working freelance forever. And I've thought about it a lot, and have had many nights where I have said "Maybe I should've been a bio major," thinking about this very prospect, of being poor, and disheartened for something you love. But, maybe I'm naive, but this article sounds like one of the people I despise. The people who say "theater is dead", who hate new avenues of entertainment, and who hate on commercial theater, which is making the industry more popular than it's been in a very long time. I'm sorry that you're such an artist and view people who don't want to scrounge for theater as sell-outs. I think theater, at this point- is not dying. There's all sorts of new work and waves happening that appeal to a lot more people than it ever has. I think it is hard, but they knew it would be.
Well this article was depressing. The author of this article may be speaking from a valid opinion, but they really did not provide any information to back up their argument. Saying that the “dream” of regional theatre is “dead” seems melodramatic, and I’m not sure what he hoped to accomplish by doing so.
I totally agree with Brennan’s comment… this article made me want to see some cold hard facts about how non-profit-corporate theatre had destroyed theatre in America. Because honestly, I don’t think the way to fix theatre is to de-corporate-tize it. It seems valid that the manner in which theatre in America has turned defunct was through corporate-systems, but this was only the means of destruction, not the cause. It is definitely true that audiences are very old, white, and wealthy, but I’m not sure if that’s increasing at the rates the author argues. Yes, getting younger audiences is a problem, but cutting marketing/etc is definitely not the solution. People are trying to make theatre more accessible and relevant to more people and communities, and having good management and marketing systems will be essential to the success of those efforts. I don’t think that the solution to shrinking audiences is to “de-corporatize” theatre. If anything, the necessary step to driving in the youth is the corporate model and wow-factor, as unfortunate as that may sound. Many young people just don’t give a damn about art for art’s sake, unless they feel cool giving a damn about it. The budget/donor games that regional theatre plays are not the answer, but I am not fully convinced that “corporations makes shitty theatre.” A completely organic, by-the-“real”-people theatre model does not seem like something that will increase the longevity of the theatre industry. The central part of the author’s argument, that only “real people understand theatre” is flawed in that if you want theatre artists to make careers out of their craft, and receive benefits, etc, they’re going to have to work for larger theatre operations, or organizations, or “corporations.” It also ignores the fact that these corporations are run by “real” people. In a corporate world, if you want corporate success and corporate benefits, you’re going to have to use a corporate model. And that isn’t the problem with theatre in America. The problem is the people and the ideas running this corporate model. Like the author says, corporations are not people, so we can’t blame such an entity; but the people in charge? They’re to blame. Changing the system is not the solution—changing the ideologies and decisions from those running the system is.
Post a Comment