More on Women Playwrights.

From Bloomberg:

Let’s call this drama: Many Women Playwrights in Search of a Stage. Because if you write plays and have the wrong chromosomes, you’re in for a lot of frustration in New York.

I’ve touched on this before, then again, then again, and I still think it’s a great and important conversation to be having.  My points remain the same:

1. It’s a travesty that more women aren’t produced, especially in New York.
2. It’s ludicrous that more plays with female protagonists aren’t produced.  Every time I write a play like The Elaborate Entrance of Chad Deity (which calls for an all-male cast), I’m drawn to write a play about women in counterbalance.  It’s a personal and emotional decision, not a social one, and I can’t expect anyone else to stick to the same standards, but at base, the idea is that “women’s” stories (whatever that means to you) are just as vital as the same old male stories we hear all the time.
3. All that said, and this is my major major major bone to pick with the whole discussion: this isn’t just a question of men vs. women.  People of color, male or female, are drastically underrepresented on the stage.  Period.  And take it further: all we see on a great many stages, especially on the New York stage, is an educated (often highly educated) white moneyed male’s view of the world.
   

The Bloomberg article cites Oskar Eustis (for whom I have a lot of respect–I think he’s doing a great job at The Public) as saying (and I’m quoting the article here, not him): people tend to associate with those they’re comfortable with; among artistic directors that often means male playwrights they’ve worked with before.  This is true, for sure.  John Patrick Shanley can get a new musical done because of his track record.  A new John Guare play is going to programmed into a major company’s season — and it should.  Theaters cultivate relationships with playwrights, not just plays, and that’s a good thing for the health of the art form.

But.

Look at the new writers being cultivated and produced throughout the city (and the country): they’re young.  They’re white.  They’re men.  They’re straight.  They’re of a certain economic class.  They’re products of the big schools.  And look: I like a lot of their work.  I know some of these guys, and I dig them as people.  I’m not begrudging anyone their success.

But there are great playwrights out there, female and African-American and Asian and Latino and gay and lesbian and so on and so on, and theaters have relationships with them, and are even developing some of their work, but that work is not being produced.  Punto.  There’s something else at play here.  Yes, artistic directors tend to associate with people they feel comfortable with, but that comfort doesn’t just come from having worked with a writer before.  People tend to feel comfortable with people who look like them, speak like them, share some kind of cultural background with them.  Punto.

There’s a lot at work here, and a quota system doesn’t fix the problem.  Here are some things that will help:

1. More women and people of color in decision-making and decision-shaping positions (not just Artistic Directors, but all throughout the administrative side);
2. Willingness from Artistic Directors to trust the instincts and value the opinions of these folks in the decision-making/season-planning process;
3. Willingness from Artistic Directors to produce seasons that reflect the make-up of the United States (and New York City), not just their current audiences.  The audience myth is a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you program shows that appeal to a particular audience, of course they’ll be the only audience that shows up;
4. Break away from the slot system: everyone can’t do their “Black” play in February.  It’s bad business, for one thing.  It’s offensive, for another.  It doesn’t build sustained new audiences, for a third.
5. Develop new audiences.  Really.  Aggressively go out and build new audiences.  Cultivate relationships with communities, with young people, with folks that don’t traditionally go to the theater all that often.  Find out what they like.  Find out what they need.  Work with them.  Theater should be a populist art form.  Populist does not mean dumbed down.  It does not mean a lowering of standards.  It means doing work that actually matters to someone, that impacts them.  I walk out of 50% of shows saying some variation of “that was fine, but why should I care?”  If you’re asking people to pay five-to-ten times as much as they’d pay for a movie ticket, you better be giving them a reason to care.

This went on way longer than I planned.  I’m sure we’ll come back to it.

Broadway: Best of Times, Worst of Times.

Michael Riedel wrote an article today about the grim state of the Broadway stage.  His argument is tied, not surprisingly, to the recently announced closings of Hairspray, Spamalot, and Spring Awakening.  Each of those shows was expected to run a lot longer than it did.  I’ve seen the first two shows, and think they’re great Broadway works, and it’s a shame to lose them prematurely.  (I’ve still got a Hairspray post sitting around someplace — I’ll post it before they close, I promise.)  I haven’t seen Spring Awakening, but I’ll find a way to sneak into it before it’s gone too.  Even so, each of these shows have had respectable runs, if shorter than hoped (although even there, I’d say each of these shows did a bit better than might have been originally expected).

Riedel also cites three shows (13, Boeing Boeing, and A Tale of Two Cities – see what I did with that title?) as being “in the quicksand,” finding themselves in danger of closing soon.  As a point of fact, I’ll just mention that none of those three could have been considered sure things at any point in their runs or development by any stretch of the imagination.  Boeing Boeing might even have overperformed, thanks to its Tony win; it has recouped its investment and is sending out a tour.  The other two shows were each trying to capitalize on existing monster hits (High School Musical and Les Miserables, respectively), at least in terms of perception, and I wouldn’t consider it a shock or an aberration for either to close quickly.

The situation is bad, yes.  Money is tight all around.  Broadway costs are high (I mean the costs of putting a show together, not tickets — although that’s applicable too).  Broadway audiences tend to come from out of town — so what happens when the US economy tanks?  There are lots of concerns, for sure, and we haven’t seen the worst of the crisis.

But.

Riedel says: “New shows will be arriving in the spring – “Hair” will go to the Shubert – but there’s very little on the horizon that looks like a “Wicked”-size smash.”  I’m not so sure.  Take a look at what’s opening this season:

9 to 5 — Certainly not a guaranteed hit, but a Dolly Parton score, a good cast including Allison Janney, and a woman-centric storyline.

American Buffalo — Mamet with stars.  Stars that appeal to different ethnic groups — Leguizamo and Cedric will drive tickets for sure.   Open-ended run, meaning that new stars can slide in and out to keep tickets moving.

Billy Elliot — Juggernaut in London (although I hated it).  Maybe it won’t translate to the US.  Maybe it will.  If it does, it could be a monster.

Shrek — If this isn’t a potential juggernaut, I don’t know what is.  (I resisted the urge to call it a monster hit, but you know.)  Big title, great creative team, big-time Broadway cast.

Vanities — Okay, now this one looks like it could close fast.  No big title, no huge stars, pretty small and low-concept.  Then again…it’s a three character musical (which means it’s a cheap musical), it’s intermissionless (which makes it a fun, quick night at the theater, which should help word of mouth), it’s about women and friendship and nostalgia, and it’s been a hit (in play form) everywhere it’s been before.  If this was an NFL fantasy draft, this would be your sleeper RB pick.

Waiting for Godot: Limited time JUG GER NAUT.  Nathan Lane in Beckett?  This could be the not-for-profit event of the year.  And as I mentioned before, Bill Irwin is the really exciting part of this whole project.  This will be a huge hit for the few months it’s up.

West Side Story — MONSTER.  There’s no guarantee, of course; the last Broadway revival was in 1980 and ran for only 333 performances.  But it’s West Side Story, for god’s sake.  I just hope that it and In The Heights can coexist.

You’re Welcome America: A Final Night with George W. Bush — Will Ferrell on Broadway.  Playing W.  Limited run.  Spamalot will have already closed.  This is THE boy musical of Broadway for those two months.  Anyone who gets me tickets to this wins at life.

And that’s not mentioned Spider-Man, which, truth be told, could be the biggest financial disaster in Broadway history, or could make $300 million and change the way things are done at that scale.  Nor does it take into consideration Godspell, for colored girls…, Brigadoon, or Nice Work If You Can Get It, all of which have technically “postponed” their runs and could pop back onto the radar with open theaters (and an aggressive investor or two).

Nor does it mention any of the Off-Broadway shows that could end up as transfers based on buzz; I’ve heard buzz for Taking Over, Danny Hoch’s genius one-man show (read: Danny Hoch’s genius “cheap” show), and Beau Willimon’s Farragut North (which was originally rumored to open on Broadway with Jake Gyllenhaal.   Who knows what else could pop up?  Last time Mos Def and Jeffrey Wright did a show together at The Public, it moved to Broadway.  They’re working together again on a John Guare play.  Think that’s not a contender?

Nor does it mention the new TKTS booth in Times Square, or the new one in Brooklyn, both of which should help a steady stream of discounters find their ways to the struggling shows.

Yes, I understand that not all of these will hit.  Not all of them will recoup.  Some will flame out spectacularly.  And yes, there’s a lot of star casting involved, and movie remakes, and all the stuff that folks hate about Broadway (although no jukeboxes, interestingly).  And yes, there will be huge financial hits to come, and Broadway will suffer as the rest of the country suffers.  Who knows what will happen to investors?  To audiences?  To the city itself?

But a disaster?  Maybe I’m I’m being a little too Tracy Turnblad enthusiastic/naive, but I don’t see it as a disaster just yet.

(Oh yeah…I forgot Dirty Dancing too.)

The Public Theater’s 08-09 Season

The Public just announced their 08-09 season.

For me, the big news is (unsurprisingly) that Danny Hoch’s Taking Over is going to have its New York premiere, finally. For those who don’t know, Danny is one of the fathers of hip-hop theater, and his solo work is one of my major inspirations as an artist. And he’s a good man, and a heck of a cook. I absolutely cannot wait to see this show.

There are some huge names in this season: Guare, Sondheim, Wolfe, Sher, Glass, Akalaitas, Durang. Am I disappointed to see no new names, no Latinos, no Asians, two African-Americans, and only two women represented? Of course. Do I think it’s a defendable season? Probably–these names are likely to sell tickets, and The Public needs to be responsible on that front. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that smaller projects (Under the Radar, the LAB, the various readings) as well as the creative casting that the Public does so well will flesh some color back into the place.

Still, it’s very, very interesting to see a season like this, especially when NYTW is condensing their output. Who is going to be doing new playwrights and new playwrights of color especially?

If not The Public, then who?