OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE
First, congrats to Eli Clark. We’re so excited to be working with her this year. It’s going to be an amazing year.
Second, much Internet-noise on an article in the Times today about Todd London’s book Outrageous Fortune. We haven’t read it it — the article will certainly increase sales (I hope, for Todd’s sake). The article links to a review of the book by the theater critic Chris Jones; the most interesting part of the review is the online commentary that it has solicited. On the whole, Jones’s review doesn’t seem very thoughtful or helpful (we can’t really judge, though, since we haven’t read Outrageous Fortune yet). There’s much to say — and much that has been said — about making a living as a playwright. Sadly, it’s virtually impossible — any playwright (established and emerging) can tell you that. The truth, though, is that this reality applies pretty much across the board in the non-profit theater world. Actors, directors and administrators, for the most part, have a tough time making ends meet financially. The theater business model (from a non-profit perspective — we can’t really speak to about the one in respect of commercial theater) is one that makes little sense today (at least when you’re working in this sector in NYC). Or has it ever made sense? We’re non-profit. I have friends who work for other non-profit (non-theater related) organizations and they face similar financial conundrums; they can’t work in their field *and* live in New York without taking on freelance jobs. So maybe this issue (the one re: making a livable wage) applies to non-profit industries, as a whole. That’s not to diminish the argument that one can’t make a living from playwriting and that the system needs to be reformed to support these writers and to prevent these writers from running off to L.A. or law school or business school, etc.
David Adjmi posted a link to the Times article today and Jason Grote provided a very funny/sad response. It reads:
“…Staffs usually aren’t paid very well, but artistic directors at the bigger institutions often have ridiculously huge salaries commensurate to those organizations’ budgets. Just like most other corporations, nonprofits, and universities in this goddamn country.
And in terms of audience appeal: does Eustis really think that anyone wants to see anything Suzan-Lori Parks has written in the past decade? What no one is acknowledging is that “bad plays” are often the result of tacking on a big name to sell tickets and ignoring artistic merit. Risky, “unknown” playwrights often do the best work because they still actually care about what they’re doing.
But I agree that we playwrights should stop whining. I think we should quit. Or, more precisely, I think I should quit — I wouldn’t presume to tell anyone else what to do. But I’m definitely ready to join 99% of the rest of the country in not giving a shit about theater.”
January 14th, 2010 at 10:00 am
We need OUR OWN Martin Luther nailing his theses to the TKTS booth. The theatre powers have been usurped by near-total venality. This isn’t just about theatre, this is about culture, and the future of art in general. Does ANYONE running these theatres actually care about art anymore, and by extension the psyches of human beings and souls? Or do they only care about buillding their instutitions and Sienna Miller and Tony Awards and prefab-looking-yet-new 4 million dollar lobbies?
The Space is all but foreclosed, people. Theatre Producers DO NOT own the theatre. The artists are the true stewards. Maybe that’s why this is happening. We need to be or own saviors. We need an exorcism.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:34 am
This is prob highly cynical (and certainly impolitic in my part) but, when you own real estate (a theater) in NYC and when you run a multi-million dollar org, at some point, a lot of it does become about the economics and figuring out a financial model that works for you – in the case of certain institution, yes, that means programming plays that feature prominent Hollywood stars and producing only plays by established writers who sell tickets.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:44 am
I guess that’s fine, but then why are these theatres taking public subsidies and calling themselves “non for profit” — which is not just a pro forma consideration but — well i thought — was about an ethos and about the shepherding of artistic work.Let’s call a spade a spade: MTC and the Roundabout are commercial theatre. Right Todd? Right Lynn? Give the taxpayers back their money, and free that money up for theatres that are doing the actual work.
January 24th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I always feel a twinge of regret throwing theater under the bus, knowing that people who have been generally supportive (like you, Asher) will wind up reading it. It makes me feel ungrateful, or like a bad investment.
You can take comfort in the fact that it will probably be many years before I leave the theater. One of the great ironies of our business is that it’s the most rewarded — the Pulitzer and Obie winners and Broadway hitmakers — who can most easily make the jump into Hollywood and who frequently don’t return. I will continue to write the best work I can, but that will be happening out of necessity (i.e., I need the money, as meager as it is), and largely in spite of the nonprofit infrastructure. In other words, theater and I are stuck with each other for now.
But I do have my reasons, most of which I shouldn’t share online. What I can and will say publicly is that I’m determined to not become one of those angry, bitter middle-aged dudes with a permanent chip on my shoulder. I am choosing instead to walk away, though by the time I do I will probably have written about 10 plays I’m happy with, which isn’t too bad.