On Theater, Class and the Playwright

I don't want to leave a mega-long comment over at Parabasis, so I'll take up the laptop on this topic again here at Gasp. There are a slew of strings attached to the issue of class and theater, but I'll try not to ramble too much.

As far as I can see right now, self-producing is the only way to go. Because I've never really had the funds to do it, I don't exactly know how. I'm fairly certain once I worked it out, I could be good at it. The problem is when you don't come from money, don't have money, then working with money in that way is a daunting challenge.

What would you do if you won $20,000? Pay off your student loans or produce your play? Take care of your survival needs or promote your work? It's a tough decision, and it makes me wonder what people from various financial backgrounds would say.

(On a side note, part of my problem with spending that money on theater is the intangibility of it. I could spend money on publishing a book because its a physical object. Theater is purely experiential, and with my background, it appears harder to justify spending that money. Maybe that's just my hangup though.)

I don't think grant money is the answer, at least in terms of how grants are given these days. As I said before, I didn't wait for grants to research and write my play about 1968. Generally speaking, grant money appears to go to those playwrights who are already institutionally accepted. It seems that once playwrights become institutionally accepted, then money is readily available. If you don't have institutional backing, then grant money isn't available.

It's good for those playwrights who are institutionally accepted to step back and ask themselves how they gained that acceptance. At what cost did they arrive at that acceptance? Does being an institutionally accepted playwright make one a better writer? Obviously, institutional acceptance helps this financial issue.

Several people have mentioned that coming from a moneyed background provides advantages, such as time. There's even been a comment about writers from upper class backgrounds, as if brilliance and money are tied together. It's not just a working class ethic to believe that hard work pays off. Female writers throughout history have had to balance family, housework, and children while working on their novels and plays. Time and money do not equal brilliance. Neither does public exposure, for that matter. It's a false premise.

I believe it's important during this discussion to be cautious about not blaming the poor, as our society has a tendency to do. Poor people are constantly told, through a variety of means, that it's their fault that they aren't rolling in the dough. The worse slap in the face is being told that there is something morally wrong with them. Good writers come from all backgrounds. Where there's a will, there's a way.

There's a sense of entitlement with our generation. In poorer countries, theater is done without costumes. It's done without a stage or grants or anything. It only requires people. That's it. People. Actors and audiences.

I've also noticed that the theatrical blogosphere is preoccupied with a certain kind of theater - urban, smart, directed to a certain audience. The fact is that other audiences for theater exist. There's community theater, theaters in churches, smaller professional theater, regional theater, colleges, among other places. These places attract a variety of people. I've even heard that writers can make significant money in those venues. There are hotbeds of community theater throughout the country. These people take their theater very seriously. And they're good at what they do.

I talked a while back about how playwrights outside of NYC can dedicate themselves to the local scene. Every state has a local scene, and like missionaries, theater people have a responsibility to spread the art. There's no reason why the public can't be more involved with theater. Of course, it would require all of us to give up our elitism...

In terms of NYC theater, I have no answers. I'm no longer a part of that scene, and I'm relieved. I don't have a whole lot in common with that world, personally, and if people with trust funds can make it work for them, all the more power to them.

An immediate solution is, of course, to talk about it. In that way, Isaac is to be commended for observing this issue and bringing it up. It's a challenge, and requires plenty of self-examination. That isn't an easy thing to do.

Comments

[Slay]

Here, here! I'm shocked by the pretensions some people have exhibited in this discussion. I'm beginning to wonder how many of us really have experience making theatre happen, as opposed just doing plays in provided circumstances. Were my assumptions wrong? Entitlement does seem to be the word for it.

You put this list up - "community theater, theaters in churches, smaller professional theater, regional theater" - I wonder how many of us even consider working in those venues. Then again, how many of us do, but won't blog about it?

I contributed to this discussion a few days ago right here:
http://www.avltheatre.com/forte/2007/04/lets_talk_about_class_1.html#more

[Laura]

Wow, first of all, great site. I'm really amazed by it. Fabulous. You are duly added to my links.

I think what I like best about it is how you've made it national. I agree, theater isn't just one thing. It's a bunch of different ideas and forms.

I'm willing to bet that a lot of us do other types of theater, but don't write about it. Hmmm.....

[Patrick]

Great post, Laura. I'm finding this entire discussion very interesting, though it's hard to keep up across all the different blogs.

Your point about sinking in your own funds struck a chord with me. Back in the 90s, I did that sort of thing a couple times, helping start two different theatre companies. I put in my own money and worked as countless hours as producer. It was a blast. And I was lucky to have a very supportive spouse.

However, now that I've got two kids and I'm a little older, I don't know that I have the energy or time to start a new company. The tricky thing is, as you point out, that the results are so intangible.

As for other types of theatre, I think many playwrights ignore the community theatre, to their peril. You can be sure that the play publishers (who are the people who actually make money from theatre) don't ignore it. Unfortunately, often our regional theatres look to New York and Off Broadway for material, rather than looking in their own neighborhoods for regional writers and material (and taking more time to grow their own).

Another area of theatre that many writers don't consider is high school students. My short plays have been read and performed by thousands of students over the years. I get paid. And the audience I'm reaching, though perhaps not as diverse as I'd like, is certainly far broader, in terms of class and geography, than I could reach otherwise.