And I agree with Josh’s comment about the term “provocative” – as if any play that engages in provocation is “merely” provocative, and has no larger goal or meaning beyond pissing people off.

First, it seems like as entertainment choices become more vast, and theaters panic about losing their audiences, it sets off a vicious cycle. Smaller theaters that were created to take artistic chances chase commercially “viable” plays and end up producing second rate material. In turn, they alienate their audience and panic even more, setting off another cycle of flacid productions. It’s interesting, because I don’t think blatantly commercial productions like Spamalot really concern me as much as the middling, sort-of-commercial small play.

Secondly, I think to call a play “provocative” has become almost pejorative, or at least, kind of condescending. It’s like, “oh, look at the young playwright and their ‘provocative’ little play.” I think it’s bullshit. It’s as if somehow “to stir” an audience, as you put it, is cliche, or trite, or too simple.

I don’t know what the answers are, but I believe the pendulum will start to swing back the other way.