Theaters’ creative collaborations are signs of real change

When I had my first job as a theater critic, in the 1980s at a daily newspaper in South Florida, I found myself continually surprised at how competitive and suspicious of each other the local theater companies were. 

In spite of being a small and necessarily interconnected community, they did not want to collaborate. I don’t remember them ever sharing resources, especially not mailing lists. The bigger ones did belong to a group called the Florida Professional Theatres Association, which held mass statewide auditions every year and sponsored workshops on administrative and artistic topics, but the members tended to snipe about each other’s shows behind their backs and operate as if each company was a sort of walled city-state with a completely unique audience.

The best (worst?) example I can think of is the summer about 25 years ago when three companies within my paper’s main circulation area all produced Jean Kerr”s “Lunch Hour” during the same summer.  Clearly, they thought no one coming to their own theater would be going to anyone else’s  – and made sure of it, too. You’d think at the very least they would have realized that a bored and exasperated critic is an unhappy and vocal critic.

So I’ve been elated in more recent years to see theaters and other arts groups everywhere slowly discovering the value of working together. Though it’s taken the hardship of shrinking financial resources and the danger of collapse to get them to join hands, a great many groups are not only finding ways to help each other make ends meet, but have also realized that collaborating artistically can create fresh ideas and more exciting projects than one group can by producing stuff in perpetual isolation.  

The Cleveland, Ohio, area has some pioneers of this sort, most notably Cleveland Public Theatre. An alternative company started more than 20 years ago, CPT has always lived the mission of creating theater for and with people on the fringes of society and of art: the daring, the eccentric, and the at-risk, from urban teens to convicted criminals. The company was built to reach out to others and has, with educational and therapeutic programs and special production series featuring emerging, local, theater and dance artists and companies. 

Even so, CPT’s co-production of “Nickel and Dimed” with Great Lakes Theater Festival a few years ago was a shock and a milestone – a sign that CPT’s influence was growing, yes, but a more stunning indication that a change in the theater Zeitgeist was transforming even large, glittering, professional theaters such as Great Lakes from artistically exclusive enclaves into involved, accessible, artistic partners. 

That’s why, for me at least, it was bell-ringing news this week that the august Guthrie Theater - probably the U.S.’s most artistically revered regional company – is showcasing innovative productions by young, emerging Twin Cities troupes that are its neighbors. Instead of regarding upstart companies as insects to be disdainfully flicked from their brocade skirts, maybe America’s greatest arts institutions have finally realized that collaborations and nurturing next generations of organizations will help and not hurt them.

Incredibly, theaters seem to get it now. I can only hope that major orchestras get a clue soon, too.

What the Guthrie plans is a series called Singled Out: A Festival of Emerging Artists that will be presented in the Dowling Studio Jan. 14-24. The companies featured include the Four Humors Theater, Sandbox Theatre, Lamb Lays with Lion and the New Theatre Group. Benjamin McGovern, the Guthrie’s associate director of studio programming, curated the line-up – and his reasons for creating the showcase and for choosing these particular companies represent what I hope is a changed philosophy for American theater.

“When the new Guthrie Theater building was built [in 2006], the Studio (which I program) was meant, in part, to be a place where other local companies would present their work,” McGovern wrote in an e-mail to me Tuesday. “There is a kind of synergy that comes from having such a diverse group of artists under the same roof – emerging talent, new and innovative aesthetics, new approaches to making theater. Our staff inevitably interacts with and is inspired by the artists that perform in the Studio, and that ultimately permeates the entire organization and enriches the work that goes on our other stages.

“There is also a considerable value to nurturing younger theater groups and offering them a wider exposure. The Guthrie relies heavily on the strength of the local artistic community and the enthusiasm of the theater-going public. The more we bolster and inspire both of these, the more effective and relevant the Guthrie’s work will be.”

And what made him select these specific young companies?

“I chose these four companies based on a number of different factors. Essentially I was looking for companies that had some history of quality work and were exploring a new theatrical vocabulary. I also wanted a mix of aesthetic approaches,” he added. “My goal was to present some representative work of younger artists that are working outside the mainstream, but whose work would relate in some way to the work that we produce here at the Guthrie.”

A few days later, after I asked whether or not the young companies’ types of work had anything in common, McGovern sent this further comment: “I wouldn’t say that the styles and vocabularies of these companies amount to a trend. In fact, I was specifically looking for companies that were focused on developing different aesthetics and approaches. One company is working in an unusual narrative style and a highly visual form of storytelling, while another is working in a fairly traditional theatrical convention, but thematically pushing the envelope. My interest was not in pushing forward any particular trend or style, but in providing a platform for energetic and promising young companies to get their voices heard.”

Twenty years ago, most American theaters the size and reputation of the Guthrie probably wouldn’t have admitted that worthwhile local start-up companies even existed, much less have invited them to share their space and audience.  It looks like, though arts groups in this country may be in growing economic danger, they’re also growing up.

Creative risk pays off for the Guthrie

Jackpot.

If a well-planned theatrical event were a slot machine, Minneapolis’ Guthrie Theater would be up to its roofline in nickels. Its April 18-June 28 Kushner Celebration, which featured three special productions of plays by Tony (”Angels in America”) Kushner as well as talks and classes about the playwright and his work, accomplished something astonishing in this awful economic period: It met goals for ticket sales, attracted 90,000 visitors from around the nation and world and drew press attention from the New York Times  to the Minnesota Monthly. 

The rich rewards of the Guthrie’s creative dare may have an even farther-reaching result: They may startle other arts organizations awake with the realization that hard times are the right times to increase artistic invention and marketing efforts – not cut back on them. 

“Recession, depression … that’s the time to take artistic risks, do work that’s engaging and compelling,” said Guthrie communications director Melodie Bahan by phone yesterday from her office in the theater’s stunning, three-year-old riverfront building designed by French architect Jean Nouvel.

She called ticket sales for the celebration “thrilling” – especially because the Guthrie, like many other theaters, has had to substantially reduce costs in recent months.  

But the company was determined to go ahead with the complex Kushner event that artistic director Joe Dowling had been planning for years. “Ever since Joe Dowling first envisioned this new building, he had the idea that this would be the perfect venue” for a themed festival of plays, Bahan said.

Kushner and his work were Dowling’s first choice for the focus of the event. The Guthrie commissioned the playwright to create The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Capitalism and Socialism with a Key to the Scriptures and to literarily knit together several of his existing short pieces in a work he titled Tiny Kushner. Those plays were produced, along with Kushner’s 2004 Broadway musical, Caroline, or Change, during the 10-week celebration, which also saw Kushner awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Minnesota. 

The programming was first and foremost an artistic project that focused an “unprecedented” level of attention and exploration on one writer, Bahan said. But, she added, even though offering local audiences a unique experience of  intellectual and emotional substance was the top priority, “we also knew something like this would be a theatrical event that would attract attention … outside the Twin Cities.” 

They were right: People came from all 50 states, from Canada, Europe and Japan to experience the Guthrie and spend their money in the Twin Cities; Tiny Kushner was “wildly successful,” Bahan noted; and all over the city, the Kushner Celebration was the topic of conversation. Despite the financial and artistic risks – Kushner is a lot edgier than Rodgers and Hammerstein – the Guthrie board of directors fully supported the project.

 The event’s combination of team effort and terrific art worked so well that the Guthrie is considering doing something else like it before long.  

“Joe was absolutely right,” Bahan said of Dowling. “This building, this institution, works great at this kind of celebration. It’s really exciting to think of doing it again.”      

Photo by Michal Daniel / Courtesy of the Guthrie Theater

Michael Esper, left, and Stephen Spinella in the Guthrie Theater world premiere of Tony Kushner’s play “The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Capitalism and Socialism with a Key to the Scriptures.”

If Equity got creative, could stage actors earn a better living?

It seems like a good time to ask this question: Why, when theater companies and stage artists generally have trouble surviving even in the best of economic times, is Actors Equity Association still preventing them from making potentially lots more money off their own work  by selling recorded versions of it?  

It’s an issue that’s bothered me for some time, specifically since the First National Performing Arts Convention that took place in Pittsburgh in 2004. I was there reporting on the convention for a newspaper and, at many of the workshops, heard discussions about how nonprofits were having to explore for-profit-style ways of earning income because  – and this is even more the case now – there were no longer enough private grantors and donors or government funding sources to keep all the organizations alive. 

Many, such as orchestras and opera companies, had been doing this for a long time, making commercial recordings that earned them revenue for years afterward. Dance troupes were beginning to think about it, too.

The only performing discipline that apparently couldn’t plan to take advantage of this source of income was professional theater. And that’s because the stage actors’ and stage managers’ own union forbade the making and distributing of recorded stage performances. 

The original idea behind this, I gather, was to prevent artists and their work from being exploited by the mass media – i.e., denied pay for their own recorded work – and also to protect the vital live quality of stage performance that keeps at least some people buying tickets to theater productions. It seems Equity didn’t want America to be able to see plays performed on TV, because it was thought that if stage shows could be accessed there by everyone for free, no one would come to the theater anymore.

This is a position still held by some professional theater artists, I find. Even the unionized Norwegians subscribe to it. Or did. I have to say I think it’s outmoded. And I don’t think I’m alone: In recent discussions with theater artists around the nation, I’ve detected a rueful kind of resignation – numbers of them really wish they could record and sell their productions, but don’t think Equity is going to budge.   

It was an e-mail I received today from Minneapolis’s Guthrie Theater that got me wondering again why Equity doesn’t change its mind. The message announced that, through the NT Live  broadcast series, a live stage version of Phedre produced by Britain’s National Theatre would be screened twice at the Guthrie as a high-definition re-broadcast on July 8 and 9 (and as a re-broadcast or live simulcast on other dates at other selected stage theaters across the U.S.).

Now, why can the National Theatre do this mass-media thing apparently without danger, but American theaters have to be protected from it? 

National Theatre Director Nicholas Hytner, who is also directing Phedre, says in a release, “The NT Live events are designed to bring what we do on the stages of the National Theatre to a far greater number of people than we would ever be able to reach otherwise. Through high-definition broadcasts, we have the technology at our disposal to present our productions beyond the four walls of the National, to reach passionate theatre-goers all over the world, and to do it really well.”  

Do Equity members disagree with that?

To me, the pros of selling recorded shows appear far greater than the cons. First and most obviously, the better-known theaters could make a lot more money and the lesser-known theaters could make at least a little more money and also raise their profiles. Second, all theaters could reach global markets made up of people who will never be able to get to most of the in-theater performances in faraway places, but might yearn to see the work of companies they’ve heard about – theaters’ followings and paying audiences would grow and their likelihood of survival would increase. Third, safeguards could be put in place to protect theaters from losing audiences that could actually come to see the live shows on stage – how about releasing the DVDs only after the run of the production or tour has ended?  Four, to paraphrase The King and I, might Equity not be protecting actors out of all they own by refusing to adapt contracts so union members could get residuals from recorded work? I mean, the film industry does it – why can’t theater do it, too, and let its artists make better livings? 

And five, a lot more great productions would be preserved instead of lost, providing unique artistic, entertainment and educational experiences to countless numbers of people who otherwise would never get to benefit from them.  

It might be a bit painful for the theater industry to go through the thinking, negotiation and adjustment periods necessary to get a policy and new contracts in place, but unions are adapting to changing member needs and industry circumstances all the time. It took a while, but symphony orchestras and the musicians’ union finally got around to dealing with streaming performances on the Internet. 

Finally and most obviously, if the likes of the National Theatre and New York’s Metropolitan Opera can find ways to get their work to the world through mass media, there has to be a way for American theaters to do the same.

Or does Equity really want most of its members not to be working in their field full time and most theaters to be in constant danger of closing?

Is it alive? Part 2: The nonprofit side of creatively surviving the economy

The Guthrie Theater and Florida Stage differ in size, geographic location and audience demographics. But they’re identical in their determination to get creative about cost efficiency while keeping up the quality of their work.

Though ticket sales remain on target for both so far this season, neither is taking anything for granted. At Florida Stage, a small professional nonprofit theater launched 22 years ago in South Florida’s Palm Beach County, founder and producing director Louis Tyrrell has cut a few positions and decided not to fill others, even though his critically acclaimed company enjoyed robust attendance at its two fall shows and is 60 percent subscribed for the season.                                                               

He knows the margin of survival for a theater is narrow in the best of times – maybe only one failed production – and that in today’s economy, even the healthy need to be prudent. So yesterday’s tactics alone won’t do.

  Tyrrell

“It goes a step beyond that for us and our industry,” Tyrrell said. “You have got to think out of the box.” 

Along with trimming staff positions, Florida Stage has begun telemarketing for the first time.

“We’re being very aggressive in our fund-raising … and using the Internet a heck of a lot more,” said Tyrrell, who has taken on the additional task of development since the company downsized its annual budget from $4.1 million to $3.4 million.   

The company does more TV ads, cuts better deals and “so far, it’s worked fine. But it’s really only an interim step,” he noted.

His company has been in the same space for 18 years and the rent keeps going up. “That’s when you have to start circling the wagons and looking for ways to collaborate. Those are the kinds of innovations the survivors are going to have to make if they expect to be here next year.”

While Tyrrell is getting busy talking with other producing and presenting groups in the Palm Beach area, the famed Minneapolis-based Guthrie - a major, 46-year-old, nonprofit regional theater that is one of North America’s finest -has already teamed with The Acting Company on an upcoming Guthrie run, and national tour, of Shakespeare’s “Henry V.” Their first-ever collaboration blends artistic and educational aims: The New-York-based Acting Company serves as professional training company for students and young professionals actors, while the Guthrie shares a bachelor of fine arts program with the University of Minnesota. Young performers from both companies will fill the “Henry V” cast.

Trish Santini, the Guthrie’s external relations director, said that teaming up for a production and tour was just one of the methods the theater is trying in order to live within a smaller budget. With revenue on track, the Guthrie still made budget cuts in November. It increased efficiency by such means as limiting the number of hours the theater store is open when no shows are running and it added consumer value by creating reduced-price ticket packages for concurrent productions – all what Santini calls “smart, incremental” changes that add up to impact. 

“Normally, we don’t bundle,” said Santini of their new marketing approach. “That’s a whole different creative look for a campaign.”

But even while they’re inventing new means of saving money and bringing in more, both the Guthrie and Florida Stage remain committed to producing top-quality work.

For Tyrrell, full houses are “really just a function of a 22-year relationship with a community” whose members have come to trust Florida Stage’s quality, he said - if a show get good buzz, 4,000-5,000 single-ticket buyers will turn up.  That’s why he went ahead with Florida Stage’s December-January show, “Mezzulah, 1946” a 10-character play by Michele Lowe whose size and cost were risky, but which is paying off artistically and financially.

 ”The play was so wonderful, and by the time we decided to change it, it would have sent the wrong message. It was worth it” to stage “Mezzulah,” Tyrrell said. But he acknowledged that, for next year, his company will be sticking to smaller, less expensive plays.       

There was a ruefulness to his tone that Santini echoed. “I think everything’s vulnerable right now” from size and number of productions to peripheral programs, she said. 

But whatever else the Guthrie may end up having to cut, it won’t compromise the theatrical excellence for which it’s famed.

“I think it comes down to a diligence about your mission,” Santini said. “And at the end of the day, it’s about protecting the  work on our stages.”

Poster design by Kevin Sprague

      Poster design by Kevin Sprague                                                                                          Poster