GREETINGS all!
As promised, here is a link to my interview with Tee and John at the dumbshow:
http://dumbshow.mirroruptonature.com/
Despite a few hundred "uhms" and the fact that I was distracted by my son's antics throughout the entirity of the interview, it didn't come off half bad!
AND- if you listen to the interview, go ahead and listen through the rest of the podcast as I'm gonna base my question around their conversation on this topic:
Have Theatres lost touch with their audiences? OR have the audience lost touch with them?
What do you think? Even if you don't check out the podcast, give it a go...we want YOU!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Let's start where I am currently listening to this broadcast. It is NOT a good idea for Broadway.com to have audience members reviewing. They are amateurs. Professionals don't ask amateurs how to do their jobs. I've been having this argument in film forever...test audience and preview cards. These people don't know shit.
They may know whether they like something or not, but they're hardly the expert at pinpointing what may be right or wrong. They may tell you the second act is wrong, but the real problem may be that something wasn't set up properly in the first act that makes the second act seem off.
As Peter Stone once said: "Together, the audience is always right. Individually, they are almost always wrong." As a professional, you can guage an audience's reaction and from that, try and locate your problem, but you don't ask them to tell you what the problem is. That's your job.
As I've said ad nauseum, the Artist tells the Audience. The audience doesn't tell the artist. Once you start to pander to the public audience's taste and whimsey, you're dead as an artist. This doesn't mean you have to be "in their face".
All it means is you must create your art without the outside influence of wondering what the audience wants. There is no audience for a piece of work until you offer that piece of work up and offer it to the audience. That's when you find out who the audience for it is.
Another Pogue maxim you've probably heard too many times: The job of the artist is not to give the audience what it wants, but to make it want what the you give. Discovering that fine line is when you succeed as an artist.
Further, I think good criticism is a valid and important thing for the theatre. The basis of criticism should be what are you trying to do and how well you succeeded. I really don't the average audience member has those kinds of insights. I want a keener critical eye that can better dissect what's involved with the work.
Having amateur theatre critics is kinda like the polling of movie patrons after they come out a film that we all see in the ads on TV: "Oooh, I really liked it" "I'll give it an A." "It really scared me." "Bruce Willis is great, man!" Sorry, I want something a little more in-depth than that.
As for the question of whether the audience is moving away from the theatre or vice versa, it really does all boil down to learning how to balance your season and build your audience by intertwining the sound, safe, commercial stuff (and that does not make that lesser theatre, by the by) with the riskier endeavours. You put your classic in between your musical and your Christmas show...that sort of thing. Once you've build an audience that trusts your tastes and knows they are going to see a good production, regardless of what it is, you can be more adventurous with them.
As example: I know that anything I go see at the National in London will not be a wasted evening. It will be wonderfully, meticulously mounted and well-performed. The play may not be my favourite or one I necessarily even like as a play, It may not be my best night in the theatre, but I know I will get my money's worth and I won't feel cheated. And I, as an audience member, because I trust the theatre, have taken a chance on things I knew nothing about that I might not have at some other theatre.
A P.S. response to the post above me. We must never resort to what the new, less intellectual audience wants? We must go aspire to the highest common denominator, never the lowest.
Pogue's four rules of writing:
1) Life is too short to write shit.
2) Life is too short to work with assholes (which is where most of the shit comes from)
3) Never go down to where you think the audience is; always write up to where you want them to be.
4) When you write for the stupidest person in the room, crawl in your coffin, you're dead already.
Pogue,
These are some great comments! As promised, we will give your comments listed here the Dumb Show treatment and do a dramatic reading on the podcast! Thanks for listening!
I'm no expert, sorry Pogue, but it seems to me that the crux of the matter lies between being entertained and being informed. Just as there are different types of plays, or music, or art, or literature, there are different types of audiences. While I will respond differently to a viewing of, say, Valley Girl and The Pianist, the intellectual vacuum of Valley Girl does not preclude my enjoyment of the film. Sometimes it just does not matter what is technically "wrong" with a film or play. There are times when I, as an audience member, really do want to be challenged and learn. There are also times that I just want to turn it off for ninety minutes. Does that really make one form less culturally valid than another? Does that make me, as an audience, less worthy of respect simply because I eschew, occasionally, the world of "high art?"
Please note: I did NOT say Highest denominator. I said: "Highest COMMON denominator" as opposed to the lowest common denominator.
And I do think the theatre should aspire to something more than tripe like Saw III. Please!
Personally, I do not find being entertained and informed mutually exclusively ambitions. And no one will be informed by a play or movie unless they are also entertained by it.
Dramatic Art should not preclude entertainment, it should come first. Work that just informs or preaches isn't theatre; it's just a screed. The distinction I find is that so many people think you have to give a dramatic work a lobotomy in order for it to entertain.
I'm not trying to be a hard-ass about this. I too like to just kick back and watch a slob comedy occasionally. But there's a reason why ANIMAL HOUSE is the king of slob comedies as opposed to say the some Rob Schneider comedy. Because it hits recognizable bull-eye's where some element of truth is lurking.
I don't think anyone said that someone who wants to turn it off for ninety is less worthy of respect. We're not talking about shoving Shakespeare down reluctant throats; we're talking about how do you get someone to respond to and to like Shakespeare.
I am one of those who believe if you gave an audience nothing but Shakespeare on the tube or in the movies, they'd watch Shakespeare, they'd get shakespeare, they'd groove on Shakespeare.
Again, it's about making the audience want what you give, not giving them what they want. Because, quite frankly, the audience doesn't know what it wants until it gets it.
So we are back to this topic again?
I know what they don't want, but that is an easier question.
I see your point, especially on Animal House v. Rob Schneider. And entertainment and learning are not mutually exclusive, perhaps I was a little vague there. And as much as I would stay glued to a 24 hour Billy Shake station, I must point out that, unfortunately, people do know what they want. I find movies like Saw III to be wastes of celluloid, but it is hard to argue with a 34 million dollar weekend while movies like Hotel Rwanda garner critical acclaim, but little else. I am not trying to start an argument here, but how would you get an audience to know what it wants? Is there some sort of middle ground, maybe?
rick, gimme a buzz sometime. are we taking a trip soon? time to get the ducks in a row, i guess. call me at the theatre or cell me. 420 5776.
I only have experience with community theatre, sorry again Pogue, but, since comm. theatre provides a large portion of the live theatre seen by middle America, perhaps my point could be valid to a degree. The fluffier the play, Simon, for instance, the larger the crowd. I once did The Ladies Not For Burning...to half full houses. On the other hand, I was a horrible Prospero once, but we had to toy with the idea of adding dates. I believe D$ knows the show I'm talking about.
I won't argue about SAW III being tripe (the first one was great), but I have to disagree about the cookie-cutter part. I love you D$.
A theatre has to take in to account...to some degree the taste of its audience...but that doesn't mean it should pander to its audience...and it still has to wrangle with the aspect of how it broadens...if necessary...the scope of its audiences and their acceptance of all kinds of fare, if it is to survive.
As for SAW, one of the nice things about getting older is I can pretty much figure out what I will and will not like. I have no desire to go see films that glorify or dwell on torture as entertainment. Not for this lad.
By no means do I advocate relegating community theatre to a total diet of Niel Simon and Evita. Fortunately I grew up in a college town where we had some options. What I wonder about are those places, the small towns, where comm. theatre is the ONLY option. Do you think, Pogue, that these places have a responsibility to expose patrons to new stuff, even at the risk of an already thin financial bottom line?
--- OFF TOPIC ! ! ! ---
I am in need of a roommate!!!
If you know of ANYONE, please let me know! Old one could move out as early as next weekend!
russell_mendez@hotmail.com
-russell
Call me crazy, but I think a steady diet of LaBute and his ilk might actually BRING new people to the theatre.
One of the things I noticed in my time at K-state (where my audiences were predominantly inner city kids with very little, or in most cases NO, theatre going experience) is that the more "real" or gritty the material, the more they took to it, It was not uncommon for me t hear something like "Wow! I didn't know plays could be so real", not refering to the verisimilitude of the production, but the "reality" tone. Someone like a LaBute, or a guy like Mamet, for us "old timers" is , to me, a great way to draw those "ripped from the headlines" type folks into the theatres. Didn't we see this last year with
AGL's THE STORY? Huge crowds, well received performances from a show 90% of them had never heard of. Hmmmm....makes on e think, no? Like it or not, folks, and I've said it beofre and I;ll say it again, the model is changing. Younger folks ave different tastes. Do I advocate giving them ONLY this type of material> Hell no- but you gotta get em in the door with something. Those aforementioned KSU students who came to see an edgy piece like UNCOMMON THREADS (a collection of original, gritty poieces from some regional playwrights I know,many of em trolling this blog) and a very real, almost "sit-com-ish" piece like Laddy Sartin's CATFISH MOON, would be the same people who later came back to see ANTIGONE and THE COLORED MUSEUM.
I think that the "snooty-ness" to which Tee and John refered to in their podcast is more about the elitist attitude that some Theatre folks I have had the "good fortune" to know have in regards to developing new, younger, hipper audiences. As one old foggy put it to me and Darren Micheal during a confab in the BOone Mods" FUCK EM! If they don't want to be there for what I'm giving 'em, I don't want 'em there at all"...
In my mind, people, that attitude is akin to suicide, and a GREAT way to see our beloved art form finally turn to dust...
"I also need to comend Pouge, balance and sound programming is key, in any theatre."
Me too...I agree wholeheartedly...
Ys D$, 50 points for reference...
but I take 48 of those away for not commiting to I or WE
X, conversely, before Rick's arrival at AGL when their policy was to only do "modern, now, current material", we saw where it led and how it drove many away because they never knew any of the plays. It was also a case of not knowing your largely conservative audience when seemingly every third play was gay-themed or at least dealt with some gay issue peripherally.
Give me a sampling of everything...the old and the new, the goes-down-easy; the make-me-work-for-it. Mix it up, surprise me.
I also think the mandate is different for different theatres. Studio Players has a different audience base than Act-Out. Paragon's will not be the same as AGL.
In AGL's case, where the goal is to be the professional, region theatre of Central Kentucky, you have before you the whole panoply of World Drama and you oughta use it...from LaBute to Ibsen to Billy Shakes to Tom Stoppard.
The balance is all!
Don't you dare defame the way AGL operated before!
It was founded by actors for actors. We did shows no one else would. Yes, we were under a mandate to do contemporary pieces. That was how it was setup.
AGL is a different organization now. I am fine with that.
Under the leadership of Deb Shoss, AGL payed off (not forgiven) a huge amount of debt, moved to the DAC, and still was able to raise the amount we payed. All of this under the fine line of shows we could do.
The audience numbers continued to rise!
It seems to me that it doesn't matter if you do every show ever written or just ones written by left handed blind playwrites. If your staff, crews, and artists are happy, enthusiastic, and motivated; any theatre can thrive and grow.
Its the us and them mentality that destroys. Staff to crew, theatre, to theatre, artists to audience.
I agree with a well balanced season. I will always choose intelligence over 'lowest common denominator"
AGL is the major force in Lexington today BECAUSE of its past. MANY, many, many of us gave 200% for a long time to get it where it is today.
Be careful who you alienate, we buy tickets too!
-russell
What the Hell are you blathering about, Russell?
First of all, there were others who ran that organization before and after Deb Schloss. I did a show there in 1987, for Christ's sake! So get a little historical perspective.
I've kept tabs on the theatre's up and, yes, downs...pretty much since its inception. I also know...being on the board...what the current adminstration inherited and had to overcome. Trust me, it was not the AGL of Deb Schloss's regime.
It's not about defaming at all...and what a lame characterization that is! It's simply a realistic assessment. If you want to get all nostalgic about the "good ole days" and think there was nothing wrong and everything was perfect, well, go ahead and live in your rosy pipe-dream. But I'll tell you right now you need more than a happy, motivated, enthusiastic staff, crew, and artists all singing Kumbaya for a theatre to survive. You also need bums in the seats. You need money to operate. Where the Hell does the audience (which is what this post was about) figure in your equation for a merry, happy,little theatre?
And speaking of bums, you're pulling enraged responses out of your bum to things that were never said nor implied. Stop buidling up false arguments for you to knock over. Address what I actually said.
No one ever mentioned an us-them mentality. At all! Where do get this crap? All I mentioned were known facts.
There are many who may argue that AGL is a force DESPITE some of its past; there may be some that will tell you it's not the force it could or should be BECAUSE of its past...and those still desperately trying to keep in the past. Without growth, without change, there's only death...
And nobody can give 200%. Mathmatically impossible. But, alas, like most of your overwrought, leap-to-indignity hyberbole.
P.S. - a theatre founded by actors for actors is a rather narrow scope. And, I hate to tell you this, but AGL's ambitions have moved beyond that rather limited goal. They actually had in 1987, when I worked with them.
And please don't threaten me. And, if you do, make it an actual threat! One that would be effective! If you and every other theatre person in this town chose to boycott ANY local theatre, you'd probably only be able, at best, to kill one night for most of the existing companies in the area. In some, it wouldn't even make a dent in the box-office. While the theatre community's support is always welcome, hoped for, and appreciated, no theatre company could survive on only that attendance. Every theatre in town would be dark, if it did have to.
So if you get alienated, tough! I can't do anything about your petty snits for offenses assumed, but never given. But just because you may buy a ticket doesn't give you the right to conjure up injuries out of whole cloth that were never inflicted.
So reality check. No one or nothing was defamed.
Whenever anyone wags their finger at me and says "don't you dare" to me, I laugh in their silly, haughty face. Who made you king?
No "us/them mentality" invoked. We're all in this fight together, I thought.
A happy cast, crew, and staff alone won't grow and thrive anything, won't get you squat, if there ain't no audience. Without them, all you're doing happily wanking off.
AGL's has had serious ups and downs and the theatre Rick inherited was not the rosy, jolly, little, financially viable kingdom you wistfully recall from the Deb Schloss' days.
The only alienation I see is your taking umbrage at a discussion of pragmatic, honest generalities and trying to turn them into specific (albeit illogical) attacks.
You wanna pick a personal fight with me, Russell, fine..I can inundate you about the blunt realities of professional theatre in much more detail. But do it off Tim's site, in private, where we can waste only our own time.
You know those interviews they always have at the back of AMERICAN THEATRE where they ask: "It isn't theatre if...?"
Well, in response to the comment above about a theatre "founded by actors for actors", it isn't theatre, if it's only for actors. There has to be an audience. Someone to perform; someone to watch the performance.
"Clinton (who was told that the arts looked unmanly so he didn't mess with it, see Jane Alexander's book"
Good point Rick. I loved ole SLick Billy as much as the next bleedin heart, but he wasn't especially friendly the the NEA...
And Chuck-
"Give me a sampling of everything...the old and the new, the goes-down-easy; the make-me-work-for-it. Mix it up, surprise me."
I agree 110% (though mathmatically impossible!) with you on this. I didn't necessarily have AGL in mind when I was ranting about edgier plays. I think Rick has found a damned nice balance of material, particularly for the past two seasons...I was speaking from a holistic perspective, I suppose...
...and Boys, play nice! I think it's okay to have one foot in the past and still have our eyes on the future...
...and remember...
"All we are is dust in the wind..." ...or "Candles in the wind" or something like that....
I'll play nice...historical perspective is all I ask:
"Under the leadership of Deb Schloss, AGL paid off a huge amount of debt..."
If AGL had to pay off a huge amount of debt at that time, then apparently there were times previous that AGL was not functioning at "200%".
And I think AGL's troubles before Rick came on board were duly reported in the Herald-Leader in pretty much all their lurid detail.
To address this query, I will use AGL...my beloved theatre "home" for many years...
I rode the AGL waves since 1991 until my departure a year and a half ago. I have done plays under the leadership of Vic Chaney, Deb Shoss, Kevin Hardesty and Rick St. Peter. Everyone of these folks wanted (want) what was (is) best for the theatre: to attract audiences, to be in the black. And throughout those 12+ shows I have done there, I have seen the ebb and flow of the audience's tastes and numbers. I have been in successes at AGL and flops. Art is subjective. The audience's taste, as well as the artistic director's and (in some cases) the board's vision of what should be put in front of that audience is a subjective gamble at best.
So, do we educate and perhaps enlighten with new material? Do we play the numbers game with classic material or a milk toast musical here and there? It is always a gamble. Taste and artistic appreciation is as diverse as hair color.
You know, for me....it's a matter of education, and MARKETING! Let 'em know you're there!!!! Get out in the community...Make 'em WANT to come. Bandwagon! Bandwagon! "Your're missing out if you miss this!!!!" And yes, listen to the audience...what do they want?
I am proud to look to the future of Lexington theatre and can't wait to come home (when I move back....and I will eventually) to theatres that are new and successful and the old ones still truckin' along!
Hey Adam=
I'm a dork and lost ur info...
Call me please or email me
Laurieklou@comcast.net
I need ur thoughts
Good luck, D.
Let us know how things go.
I liked your comments, laurie...you are a great voice to speak for AGL's different artistic leaderships
Hey Laurie! I was IN that play with you in 1991. Do you know where the damn tape of it is???
:)
Who the heck is Deb Schloss?
missy you are too funny, I am laughing my ass off
Here's what I find perplexing. Somehow a comment I made about how play selection can affect audience attendance... relating to the topic of: is the theatre leaving the audience or is the audience leaving the theatre?...got misconstrued and turned into a debate about AGL's regimes. Perhaps, I did not phrase it carefully enough.
But that was not the debate. Nor was I trying to turn it into that.
All I did was use AGL's play selection as a specific example to illustrate a general remark.
If someone had chosen to debate my comment that AGL's play selection at one point in its history affected attendance(and I was thinking of a period during Vic Chaney's tenure), I'd have been cool with that.
My hackles got up because it suddenly became a flailing, all-over-the map accusatory rant that I was defaming AGL and a person I never even knew...which I don't think a rational reading of my post will support.
And just to be clear, I knew Vic...and Carol Spence...who both had their turns at the helm of AGL and I like them both. I don't know where Vic has gone, but I still see Carol occasionally. And still like her. But I have always questioned the viability of AGL's one-time decision of narrowing their palate to only current plays,when it was trying to be a regional theatre...I questioned it all the way back in 1987 when I worked with them.
That decision changed, either with Rick's arrival or shortly before.
The tape of Psycho Beach Party still lives somewhere...but where??????? I'm not sure. BUT HOT DAMN, I'D LOVE TO SEE IT! So wait, who are u anonymous?
And my friend Mr. Pogue, although I was inspired by the mention of AGL's ups and downs for my post. I just used AGL as my example. I knew what you meant in your first post. The narrow scope of the mission was difficult to maintain. So, since I've been around the good ole' Guild for so long, I saw how audiences responded to lots of types of plays.
Speaking of: going to NYC this weekend to catch a few. My birthday gift from my lovely husband.
save the cheerleader, save the world...vote Democratic
Hey local divas et al, come to Natasha's Cafe next week to see American Buffalo by David Mamet.
Produced by Balagula Theatre, Directed by Eric Seale. With Kody Kiser, C. G. Niquette and Bob Singleton.
Opens Tuesday Nov. 14 and runs through Friday Nov. 17.
Tix are $7
Showtime at 8pm.
Reservations: 259-2754
More info: www.beetnik.com
The times, they are a changin'. For now. And for how long?
That's me. A half empty kind of guy.
As well as marking a place on your calendar for AmBuff, make plans to see Paragon's LaMancha next week. No surprise, but I'm playing the bad guy. I only sing a few lines, so you won't have to cringe for too long but I am acting on stage a little longer, so then again........you may be cringing after all.
Adam- Call me!
(please)
I think it is time to start a new topic...read this...this is the worst news I have ever heard
http://www.lexingtonshakespeare.org/
Post a Comment