Ed

“I don’t think of theatre as entertainment. We as a society have said theatre and art are entertainment and it’s not, it’s not … I think of it more as a town hall meeting”

http://www.podcast.net/play/76007/62

In the same interview she grouses about how few productions some of her plays get. How can you expect otherwise when you say your plays are not entertainment? Do they charge admission to town hall meetings?

Making a statement in the theatre is fine; sacrificing the entertainment value for that message debases the theatre, in my opinion. The situation of the past, where there were few outlets for expression no longer obtains; these days we have a plethora of media by which to make statements, and the form of the statement needs to match the medium. An essay, a speech, a lecture, a film, a newspaper editorial, a rally, and so on - all these things need to be done the right way for themselves, and so does the theatre. If you need money for your theatre and you charge admission, then your production needs to meet the first, most basic requirement of the theatre - the requirement Paula doesn’t understand - it needs to be entertaining. If you can make a challenging statement and still be compelling, interesting theatre, then the money will come. This doesn’t have to be the same thing as making the art “palatable”.

You never posted your further “conundrums” from this ? Are you going to ?

Critical Questions
Posted by Edward Sobel on 8/03/2006
The plays are presented in an advanced stage of development, but not necessarily in their final version. On the other hand, (at Steppenwolf we always juggle with three hands - it is a job requirement) we are presenting the work publicly and charging admission. Critics may feel a responsibility to “review” them.
This conundrum led me to some provocative questions, which I will share in a later posting, but for the moment, I’d like to ask your opinion. To what extent, if any, do critics matter to you?

Thank you for lifting your self-imposed exile from the blogosphere - you’ve summarized neatly the problems that theatre faces today in trying to fit into an economically successful mold while trying to retain its basic function as a place to explore our experiences and question our assumptions.

I think the Town Hall is a good model to have in mind, and (to answer Ed’s final question) I do think Chicago Theater fits that description, but only if you’re looking at a wide range of Chicago theaters, most of whom are struggling to survive on a daily basis. You’ve got theatre companies challenging audiences; hosting discussions, workshops and symposiums; interacting through blogs, and collaborating with one another to include more voices and perspectives.

The problem is that the money, and to a large extent the audiences, are going to the “safe” shows - revivals, happy musicals, etc., instead of taking the risk of coming to the theater to have their life “judged.”

Me, I want art to help me judge my life. I think that’s one of the most important functions it has. But that story from the lobby of “Living Out” begs the question: if people don’t want to see challenging, provocative theatre that makes them examine society and themselves, why do we keep thinking that we need to do that kind of theatre? And what right do we have to bitch about the fact that people would rather go see that show where they sing all the ABBA songs?

I think in its quest to insure career longevity theatre has turned away from its duty as a platform for ideas and discussion, and become more or less a retailer for entertainment. I wont be so zealous to say that this is the fault of the practitioners, as I feel our intentions and endeavors are across the board honorable and rooted in a passion for telling great stories, and I also know that there are huge exceptions, but in our charge to “save theatre” from the large external forces threatening to make it extinct, we seem to make the work malleable to our audiences comfort zones; we make the art palatable.

And who can blame us? In a country that each year whittles away at the meager funding opportunities arts organizations are able to compete for, where the community at large looks as theatre as a luxury of the upper middle class, when arts programming in schools seems to be the first to shoulder the brunt of budget cuts, of course we are going to insure a future for ourselves. But this is what silences the conversation. It becomes less of a “talking with” our audience, and more of a “talking for.”

A Town Hall denotes discussion, and debate. It involves negotiating. I think theatre at its best poses questions, and doesn’t always answer them. It presents flawed characters, that you have to decide whether you like or not. It requires you to bring your humanity to the table; I think that also means being led outside your comfort zone.

I saw a performance of Lisa Loomer’s play “Living Out” at The Seattle Rep a few years back and had a jarring experience. “Living Out” tells the story of the complicated relationship between a Salvadoran nanny and the white lawyer she works for and delves into the complicated nature of race, class, and family; very topical and pointed. While drinking my coffee during intermission, I witnessed a patron storm up to a House Manager and say “I am leaving. I don’t come to the theatre to have my life judged.”

And why not? Maybe judge is too harsh a word. Why shouldn’t theatre be a little indicting? Nonetheless, it made we wonder: what does the community want? Escape? Beauty? A good laugh? Has re-orienting ourselves with our values become invasive? Can theatre still be a place where we can change our minds? I hope so.

I am also an idealist, like Mr. Yew. I hope that theatre can further imbed itself into our national complexion. I hope that seeing a show is less and less of a “night out” and more of a civic duty; a citizen’s responsibility to participate in the arts. As an emerging artist, I see it as our duty to keep offering work that challenges our experience, that asks you to look yourself straight in the eyes; that asks you to change your mind. I think then we can start seeing our theaters as Town Halls.