We know the article is a couple of days old.  (We also know that we haven’t blogged in a while.  We’re erratic bloggers.)  But we do want to respond to Charles Isherwood’s article from this past Sunday’s “Arts & Leisure” section in The New York Times.  Isherwood finally says something nice about Off-Off-Broadway (and it’s not even in the context of Chicago theater) and writes about the cross-pollination that may or may not be occurring between Off-Off-Broadway non-profits and Off-Broadway non-profits.  (He calls Jenny Schwartz’s God’s Ear “adventurous”.  That’s a compliment, no?  He says that voices like Jenny Schwartz’s need to be heard more often.  Again, a compliment, we think.)

He does raise some interesting points in his piece.  From our perspective (the perspective of one of the many Off-Off-Broadway non-profits), the biggest issue is this: How do the Off-Off-Broadway non-profits retain their identities in light of their collaborations with the larger Off-Broadway non-profits?  Isherwood briefly mentions this when he quotes Dan Sullivan, who, regarding MTC’s collaboration with Ars Nova  on From Up Here, says that “[t]here could be some trepidation on the part of smaller organizations in sharing with the larger ones, the fear that the big dog eats the little dog…” Apparently, though, the concerns that Ars Nova may have had were addressed since Ars Nova was with MTC “for artistic decisions of all kind”.  That’s only half-the-story, though, in the big dog/little dog scenario.  How can/does an Off-Off-Broadway non-profit truly capitalize on this situation?  How does an Ars Nova, a Page 73 retain its brand in these situations?  And are these true collaborations?  Does each company have equal say in the marketing strategy of the play?  What about the artistic decisions?  What if Ars Nova and MTC disagreed about the casting of a particular actor?  Who has the last say? (In the From Up Here scenario probably MTC, given that Ars Nova is getting “in association with” billing.)  And do most MTC audiences even know that From Up Here is a collaboration with Ars Nova, given that Ars Nova’s billing is in such small font (a function of the financial contribution of each company, most likely)?   We just wonder how these arrangements are set up.  From the Off-Off-Broadway non-profit perspective, these collaborations are great because they help sell tickets; the larger Off-Broadway non-profits usually (always…) have a subscriber base, which Off-Off-Broadway sorely lack.  But after the show has closed - then what?  Do the smaller shops retain the mailing list?  Can they approach the subscribers of the larger non-profits?  And will the subscribers remember the small non-profits?  And how do you quantify the success of these collaborations?  Certainly, through the satisfaction felt by the artists - the co-mingling of the companies’ resources should increase the tools available to the artists and hopefully heighten the artistic quality (from a physical production perspective, at least) of the play that is co-produced.  But what about the smaller non-profit?  How does it protect itself?  Hire a good lawyer, I guess.

Lincoln Center Theater has jumped on the bandwagon and recently announced its newest initiative, LCT3 - a space for productions of works by emerging playwrights.  There’s an interesting post on the McCarter’s blog about the recent trend at larger non-profit institutions of setting up a separate stage for productions of plays by untried new playwrights.  It’s all well and good - and I actually think it’s a great thing.  I hope we soon see works by Jason Grote, Krista Knight and Quiara Hudes at LCT3. (Too many organizations with the number 3 in their title - 13P, P73, etc.  What’s that about?)   I guess, this begs the question: Why not produce these new plays at the Harold and Miriam Steinberg Center  (w/re: to the Roundabout) or at the Newhouse?  Knee-jerk response (I’m guessing): The economics don’t make much sense - it’s harder to get audiences to see a new play by an unknown (when do the economics in non-profit theater make sense, though?) - and critics (primarily Charles Isherwood and Ben Brantley) are less likely to villify a new work by an emerging playwright when that writer’s play is not produced at a theater like, say, the Newhouse or the Steinberg Center.  (I’ve heard this latter argument before.)  Is that really it, though?  Are citics really less likely to trash a show when it’s being produced by a small non-profit in a basement in a downtown walk-up.  (Not really… I’ve read some pretty nasty reviews of shows produced on a shoe-string budget.)  And then I see how, in the same season that Isherwood gave that horribly dismissive (and unduly harsh) review of Mr. Marmaladeat the Steinberg Center, he gave a similarly dismissive (and again unduly harsh) review of Bach at Leipzig at New York Theatre Workshop - in a less established, more downtown (much more downtown) venue.  So what gives?  Is it really about real estate?  If a show is produced in a 60-seat basement theater, is it less likely to get crucified by the Times?  Would the Roundabout’s Speech & Debatehave received reviews that were as good if it had been produced at the Steinberg Center?

Regardless, I think this is a great trend.  The bottom line is that, because of these new initiatives, there will be additional theater spaces that are specifically dedicated to productions of new plays by emerging playwrights (I know.  People dislike that term - “emerging” - immensely and I apologize for using it.  Here at Page 73, we’ve replaced it with “early-career”.  Whatever that means.).   A stage for productions of work by new playwrights?  Honestly, I can’t think of anything better. 

Literally. 

Marsha Norman blogs about August. If you haven’t seen the play, don’t read her post. But she mentions something very interesting:

“…Finally, at least for this go-round, I like what this play represents: a life-long association of a writer with a group of actors and a theater. This is why Shakespeare wrote so much, he had a whole gang of actors waiting to do his work. Go down the list — the writers who wrote a lot of wonderful plays were always associated with a community of actors they could write for: Shepard, Chekhov, Brian Friel, Alan Ackbourne [sic], David Mamet, Lanford Wilson, Caryl Churchill, Richard Foreman, Wendy Wasserstein. Playwrights who live apart from theaters and actors have a lot of trouble getting their work done. Playwrights need to be around actors, need to be a part of a theater’s life…”

We were recently thinking about this - a playwright’s association with “a group of actors”. It would be wonderful to structure the fellowship so that the same group of actors could work with our fellow on his/her play for the course of the fellowship year. Of course, we’d work around the actors’ schedules - but wouldn’t it be exciting to creating some type of acting company? (Obviously, we’d only set this up if the fellow wanted it.) I think about Elliot, A Soldier’s Fugue and how in the rehearsal room the roles in that play became so indelibly associated with those actors, their speech patterns, their postures.

We’re hosting a benefit at In The Heights this evening. We’re having a little soiree at Angus McIndoe prior to the show. Naturally, we’re stressed out. Are people going to show up? Will there be enough food, etc.? Will people like each other? Party-planning is always so stressful.

The readings happened. I think everyone (Tommy and Andy) was happy with them. We really lucked out with the casts for the readings. Mia Barron, Adam Dannheisser, Barrett Doss, Mary Jane Gibson, John Rolle and Brian Hutcheson were in The Wife. Michael Chernus, Zabby Guevara, Dick Latessa, Marsha Mason, Paul O’Brien and Brenda Wehle were in Mother Earth. Thank you, Zoe Rotter (for The Wife) and Daniel Swee (for Mother Earth). We really do think that casting directors are lifesavers.

We’re working with Zoe again on a second reading of The Wife. The reading is going to be probably in the second week of March. Tommy and May (Adrales) have asked that the cast meet for a couple of hours of rehearsal in the morning; they’re then going to present a reading to a very small invited audience in the afternoon. Tommy wants to gauge initial audience reaction. The play is dark dark dark. It’s quiet and funny at first (after the first reading, one of the actors emailed us to tell us that she thought the play was “Pinter-esque”). But then it takes a turn and becomes fairly dark. (By the way, the blurry camera photo on the left shows Tommy’s back, May’s profile and Barrett in mid-reading.)

Of course, we’re still hoping that Renee Zellwegger agrees to star in it when it’s produced on Broadway.

By the way, this totally depressed us.  The first few paragraphs reminded us of that profile in the Arts & Leisure section of The New York Times about struggling artists in the New York City Off-Off-Broadway scene.  Nothing like a good cheer-me-up on a gloomy February afternoon.

Jason Grote takes on new play development/production. Again. His blog entry is fascinating and I agree with him on many points. I just don’t have the time, right now, to write a thoughtful response. But I agree. And share his frustrations.

I’ve been hearing that non-profit theater is entering another “New Play” craze. Theaters around the country are chomping at the bit to get in on the action (and limited funding). At least, that’s what we’ve been told. I don’t know if I believe it, though. But there do seem to be a lot of new play opportunities (e.g., lab development programs, playwriting fellowship, etc.). But, like in the business world, everything in the theater is cyclical. Let’s see how long this trend lasts. (I’m waiting for the largest non-profit in the country to get in on the game now. Won’t be long, I’m sure.)

Blogging is tough. It requires dedication and time.  And, lately, we’ve been short on time.  In addition to board meetings and grant writing, we’ve been casting two readings.  Readings baffle us.  Producing a reading is a pain, but casting a reading is the worst. 

We’ve come up with a haiku, celebrating the hard work and tenacity of the two casting directors who have been working on these readings (The Wife by Tommy Smith, directed by May Adrales; Mother Earth by Andy Bragen, directed by Jackson Gay).  Really, the following haiku is dedicated to all casting directors who, as far as we’re concerned, are the unsung heroes of this business:

Angie, Gwyneth, Reese,
Emma, Meryl, Cate and Madge —  
They do theater, no?

We’re largely non-partisan here at the Page 73 blog.

But we do like to have a laugh (or two) at the expense of our crazy primaries.

Some theater sites (this one and this one) have picked up the news about Tommy, which is nice (even our favorite picked it up). And this one. Just kidding. One day maybe. A girl can dream.

Like any good citizen, each morning, we spend the first thirty minutes of our day reading the newspaper and trolling the Internets for some entertaining blog postings relating to the Theatah.  Some of our favorite posts often appear on the craigslist of the theater community, Talkinbroadway.com, where theater’s number one fans ask the really hard questions (”Who’s going to direct the film version of Follies?”  “Was Kristen Chenoweth really wearing hair extensions at the Kennedy Center Awards?” “Whose Mama Rose is better? Patti’s? Or Bernadette’s?”). 

We sometimes come across rare TQ gems.  This morning, a poster wrote an impassioned inquiry about the climactic scene in Hello, Dolly!

“Both Jerry Herman and Carol Channing talked with great reverence about the title number in Hello, Dolly! Apparently it is the moment that Dolly decides to rejoin the human race.

Am I totally missing something? She seems like a pretty lively presence from the first moment we lay eyes on her, and no one would ever guess that she isn’t living life to the fullest. I would never describe the character of Dolly Levi as someone who was hiding from life…”

Apparently, Harold Bloom made a mistake when he forgot to include Hello, Dolly! in The Western Canon.