OnStage: Ticket prices.
It’s often one of the main excuses that people have over why they can’t make it to a show. Everyone always mentions how expensive it is, and rightly so. A ticket to the average Broadway show (and this isn’t even factoring in the ridiculous ticket prices for Hamilton) can often cost upwards of $100. Even shows that are produced off-Broadway or off-off-Broadway can often cost at least $20, which – while not nearly as expensive as Broadway –can still be a bit too much, for those who need to save money.
5 comments:
This article does a good job at making a case for a federal government subsidy for theatre, and while I’m absolutely for it, I don’t think many Americans would be happy with raising taxes one red cent so that the elite could go out and see a show for cheaper. And I definitely think that impulse comes down to the difference in culture here in the U.S. compared to the culture in the U.K., and I know the author of the article steps around it subtly, but in my opinion it’s a big deal. We say we take pride in our culture here as Americans, we revere musicians and actors of the screen like many countries revere their authors and painters. So why not theatrical artists? I think it’s a positive feedback loop, where because theatre isn’t exactly accessible beyond the high school level in many places in the same way that movies and music are, people feel like that art doesn’t do anything to represent them. But in reality that doesn’t have to be the case. Theatre, just like any form of art, is all about the free expression and discussion of ideas, and to me that’s one of the most American concepts that could ever exist. It might be because I lean pretty far left, but I’d be proud to live in a country where we care enough about theatre to ensure that it’s an affordable public commodity that everyone can enjoy and think about.
Just a few classes ago in Molly’s Technical Management class we discussed how little of a percentage of a nonprofit theater’s income comes from ticket sales in comparison to donations. Even though, of course, it is still smart and profitable for a theater to try and sell as many tickets as possible, I’ve been thinking about this issue more since learning how little ticket sales actually, in general, affect the economic standing of a company. While the idea of increased government subsidies is interesting, I agree with the writer in that I don’t think it will happen anytime soon, and honestly, that money should be more focused on things people need to survive (such as healthcare) before going towards theaters. I know that some companies have tried different things to make their shows more affordable for the average audience member, like with student rush, lotteries, and pay-what-you-can nights, but too often these are very much based on chance/ luck and take up a lot more time and effort than just buying a regular priced ticket. One company I went to see a show at this summer had such a lengthy and complicated system for buying student priced tickets (which weren’t that much cheaper anyway) that my friend and I just ended up buying normal tickets instead. Overall I agree that there needs to be more systems put into place to make theater more affordable for all, even though theater companies can’t always afford to put these systems into place every night, but I don’t think increased governmental funding is the immediate answer, at least not in the current economic climate.
This article has a lot of relevance to a project I am doing for Foundations II right now. I am working on a presentation on the Federal Theatre Project, which seems similar to the concept the author is trying to get at. While it didn’t provide subsidies to existing theatre, it provided a government funded theatre of its own. It was very successful as it put many theatrical artists, from actors, directors, designers, and stage managers, into work which was crucial at the time in was implemented, in 1935, during the Great Depression. The Federal Theatre Project provided either free or very inexpensive theatre that was relevant and politically charged with the issues of the time. I think that it would be great to see a resurgence of a similar sort of thing in today’s modern theatrical landscape. The possibilities could be endless, inspiring a wave of creativity in the theatre.
I think this is absolutely unnecessary. The last thing we need is more government funding for the arts at a professional level. I absolutely support this idea for non-profit organizations, but not commercial theatre. I do not agree at all that there is not readable access to theatre. If you want to see a show, you can go to college, a community theatre, a regional theatre, a non-regional professional theatre, a themepark and so on. There are so many opportunities for going to see a show. Even high school theatre. If you want to see it, you can find it and for "cheap." Broadway remains a "luxury" and that is fine. If you want to see an absolutely fantastic production when you go to visit New York City, then save up or just have the money to do it. The argument here is like saying the government should fund hotels so they can offer cheaper room rates. If you want a cheaper room, stay at a cheaper hotel. And similarly, if you want cheaper theatre, don't go to Broadway. I don't feel as though that is unreasonable and I really don't feel that my tax dollars should be directed in a manner that they pay for other people to see theatre. No thanks.
Gathering from the comments, this is quite the hot debate! I think that it's a really noble thing to want to expand a theaters audience and provide better accessibility because as we've witness time and time again, theater has the ability to change lives. But I agree that ticket prices (at least on broadway) are outrageous-- this goes hand in hand with my amazement when people buy tickets to see the same broadway show fifteen times. I just saw Finding Neverland at the Benedum last night and I had bough semi-decent tickets, but they still cost an arm and a leg! I also don't completely agree with John's statement above. Why wouldn't you want your art to reach a broader audience, an audience that would be really loyal, but can't see the show because something like monetary cost is in the way? I believe that art is for everyone-- yes, while some art will be better than others, I think allowing people to see more theater by lowering ticket prices with government subsidies is not a horrible idea. However, I'm also completely on board with the fact that there are probably more important things the government should be subsidizing first (ie healthcare) before we even touch a topic like theater.
Post a Comment