The Wal-Marting of the American Theatre
[Note: Welcome to those of you referred here by ArtsJournal.com and Leonard Jacobs' "The Clyde Fitch Report." I hope that you will explore the archives, where you will find many other posts conerning the need to decentralize the American theatre. In response of Leonard Jacobs' post, I have elaborated on the ideas contained in this one in "The Wal-Marting of American Theatre (Part 2)" above. Again, welcome.]
In Chapter 2 of The World Is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman's celebration of the global economy, he lists as "Flattener #7" what he calls "supply-chaining." He writes:
I was reminded of Friedman's chillingly gee-whiz paragraph when I was listening to Beth Leavel's keynote speech (or, as Tom Loughlin calls it, "performance") at the Southeastern Theatre Conference (SETC) last Friday, specifically when she responded to a question about Chicago with the following corrective: "All I know is that if I want to work in Chicago, I have to be in New York; if I want to work in Seattle, which is a great theatre town, I have to be in New York; if I want to work in my home town of Raleigh, I have to be in New York."
It occurred to me, as I watched a sea of youthful heads register her implicit advice about what their career destination should be, that New York City is the Bentonville of the theatre world. As in Friedman's description above, theatre educators across America, from high school teachers to undergraduate departments to grad schools, represent the "thousands of different suppliers" who ship their "products" (i.e., their students) from all parts of the nation to New York where they feed the theatrical conveyor belt "like streams into a powerful river." The business of theatre educators is to export a "quality product" that will be accepted by New York headquarters. Once there, if the product is "lucky," it is plucked from the big conveyor belt and shipped to the specific theatre that needs that particular product, wherever those theatres are. Once that product is plucked and successfully consumed at its final destination, the call is communicated back to the student's originating theatre department to create another one like him or her, and as Friedman says "the whole cycle will start anew." Advertisements will appear in American Theatre Magazine crowing "our graduates work," with a picture of the successful product prominently displayed as proof. If we did it once, the ad implies, we can do it again.
The effect of the Wal-Mart supply chain on commerce is well-documented: local businesses are destroyed, money is taken out of the local economy to flow back to headquarters, wages are depressed, and unique cultural products are replaced by homogeneous national brands. Go to any Wal-Mart in America and you will find basically the same products displayed in the same way and at the same low price. The Wal-Marted theatre scene is no different.
Instead of local arts organizations run by and staffed by artists whose lives are made within a specific community and whose artistic vision is informed by that community, Wal-Mart Regional Theatre and Touring House imports generic artists from NYC to do generic plays for a short run after which they depart never to be seen again, taking the community's money with them. This is the system being celebrated by Beth Leavel and every theatre instructor who dazzles their young charges with visions of Tony(tm) Awards.
Wal-Mart isn't good for America, nor is Wal-Mart Theatre. And like the business leaders and legislators who promote Wal-Mart as an economic engine bringing jobs to depressed areas despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, theatre artists and educators who continue to promote this system are promoting a lie.
Seth Godin, in his latest book Tribes: We Need You To Lead Us, draws a distinction between faith and religion. Faith is an inner quality, a belief in certain values that is held in the heart and "leads to hope" and "overcomes fear." "Faith is critical to all innovation," Godin writes, because it is only through faith that one has the courage to step into the unknown.
Religion, on the other hand, "represents a strict set of rules that our fellow humans have overlaid on top of our faith. Religion supports the status quo and encourages us to fit in, not to stand out." Godin goes on to point out that there are "countless religions in our lives" beyond those normally considered when that word is used. "There's the IBM religion of the 1960s, for example, which included workplace protocols, dress codes, and even a precise method for presenting ideas (on an overhead projector). There's the religion of Broadway, which determines what a musical is supposed to look and feel like. There's the religion of the MBA, right down to the standard curriculum and perceptions of what is successful (a job at Bain & Company) and what's sort of flaky (going to work for a brewery)." While religion at its best "is a sort of mantra, a subtle but consistent reminder that belief is okay, and that faith is the way to get where you're going," religion at its worst "reinforces the status quo, often at the expense of our faith." It isn't insignificant that the metaphor Tom Loughlin used to describe what we had both seen at SETC was "drinking the theatrical KoolAid," a reference, of course, to a horrible example of religion at its worst.
Godin promotes the heretic, the individual who opposes a specific religion without losing his basic faith. Martin Luther, for instance, is an example of a heretic who opposed the religious system of the Catholic Church without losing his faith in Biblical Christian ideals. But as Godin notes in the title of one section of the book, "Challenge Religion and People Wonder If You're Challenging Their Faith." This was certainly the case for Luther, and it is also the case for those who would challenge the religion of Wal-Mart Theatre.
Theatre people have a lot of faith. You can see it powerfully whenever someone writes on their blog about the power of theatre to imagine a different future, to express a deeper truth, to tap a deeper joy, to release a flight of fancy. Such faith is the cornerstone of our actions in the face of the barriers to creativity and imagination that our society erects.
But it is the religion of theatre that must be challenged, the rituals and irrationalities that support a destructive system that ultimately robs people of their faith. Theatre-religion schools and organizations, such as most theatre departments and organizations such as SETC, serve the same function as fundamentalist "Jesus Camps" documented in the film by the same name. They are places where the young are brainwashed and indoctrinated with the New York Myth. Like the young people in that film, the young people at SETC seemed happy and content -- they have a clear and simple-minded worldview to which they whole-heartedly subscribe and which provides a "heaven" to aspire to (Broadway) and a mantra that they are encouraged to cling to that all it takes to "make it" is "passion" and "commitment," and that the talented will inevitably rise to "the top." Theatre done in areas other than New York will be described instrumentally (Leavel referred to a year spent doing dinner theatre in Pennsylvania as "paying dues"), and those who fall by the wayside are characterized as "not wanting it enough." It is a horrifying fundamentalism.
"When you fall in love with a system," Godin writes, "you lose the ability to grow." That has certainly been the case in the theatre, which has lapsed into a state of repetitive motion that leads to creative carpal tunnel syndrome. We are in desperate need of a theatrical Reformation that will shatter the indoctrination of the young and awaken a creative Renaissance by returning artists to their foundational faith and the arts to their roots in community. The theatre, like Friedman's world, has become flat -- lacking in effervescence. There is no future for the American arts in Wal-Mart.
In Chapter 2 of The World Is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman's celebration of the global economy, he lists as "Flattener #7" what he calls "supply-chaining." He writes:
"I had never seen what a supply chain looked like in action until I visited Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas. My Wal-Mart hosts took me over to the 1.2-million-square-foot distribution center, where we climbed up to a viewing perch and watched the show. On one side of the building, scores of white Wal-Mart trailer trucks were dropping off boxes of merchandise from thousands of different suppliers. Boxes large and small were fed up a conveyor belt at each loading dock. These little conveyor belts fed into a bigger conveyor belt, like streams feeding into a powerful river. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, the suppliers trucks feed the twelve miles of conveyor streams, and the conveyor streams feed into a huge Wal-Mart river of boxed products. But that is just half the show. As the Wal-Mart river flows along, an electric eye reads the bar codes on each box on its way to the other side of the building. There, the river parts again into a hundred streams. Electric arms from each stream reach out and guide the boxes -- ordered by particular Wal-Mart stores -- off the main river and down its stream, where another conveyor belt sweeps them into a waiting Wal-Mart truck, which will rush these particular products onto the shelves of a particular Wal-Mart store somewhere in the country. There, a consumer will lift one of these products off the shelf, and the cashier will scan it in, and the moment that happens, a signal will be generated. That signal will go out across the Wal-Mart network to the supplier of that product -- whether that supplier's factory is in coastal China or coastal Maine. That signal will pop up on the supplier's computer screen and prompt him to make another of that item and ship it via the Wal-Mart supply chain, and the whole cycle will start anew." (151)
I was reminded of Friedman's chillingly gee-whiz paragraph when I was listening to Beth Leavel's keynote speech (or, as Tom Loughlin calls it, "performance") at the Southeastern Theatre Conference (SETC) last Friday, specifically when she responded to a question about Chicago with the following corrective: "All I know is that if I want to work in Chicago, I have to be in New York; if I want to work in Seattle, which is a great theatre town, I have to be in New York; if I want to work in my home town of Raleigh, I have to be in New York."
It occurred to me, as I watched a sea of youthful heads register her implicit advice about what their career destination should be, that New York City is the Bentonville of the theatre world. As in Friedman's description above, theatre educators across America, from high school teachers to undergraduate departments to grad schools, represent the "thousands of different suppliers" who ship their "products" (i.e., their students) from all parts of the nation to New York where they feed the theatrical conveyor belt "like streams into a powerful river." The business of theatre educators is to export a "quality product" that will be accepted by New York headquarters. Once there, if the product is "lucky," it is plucked from the big conveyor belt and shipped to the specific theatre that needs that particular product, wherever those theatres are. Once that product is plucked and successfully consumed at its final destination, the call is communicated back to the student's originating theatre department to create another one like him or her, and as Friedman says "the whole cycle will start anew." Advertisements will appear in American Theatre Magazine crowing "our graduates work," with a picture of the successful product prominently displayed as proof. If we did it once, the ad implies, we can do it again.
The effect of the Wal-Mart supply chain on commerce is well-documented: local businesses are destroyed, money is taken out of the local economy to flow back to headquarters, wages are depressed, and unique cultural products are replaced by homogeneous national brands. Go to any Wal-Mart in America and you will find basically the same products displayed in the same way and at the same low price. The Wal-Marted theatre scene is no different.
Instead of local arts organizations run by and staffed by artists whose lives are made within a specific community and whose artistic vision is informed by that community, Wal-Mart Regional Theatre and Touring House imports generic artists from NYC to do generic plays for a short run after which they depart never to be seen again, taking the community's money with them. This is the system being celebrated by Beth Leavel and every theatre instructor who dazzles their young charges with visions of Tony(tm) Awards.
Wal-Mart isn't good for America, nor is Wal-Mart Theatre. And like the business leaders and legislators who promote Wal-Mart as an economic engine bringing jobs to depressed areas despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, theatre artists and educators who continue to promote this system are promoting a lie.
Seth Godin, in his latest book Tribes: We Need You To Lead Us, draws a distinction between faith and religion. Faith is an inner quality, a belief in certain values that is held in the heart and "leads to hope" and "overcomes fear." "Faith is critical to all innovation," Godin writes, because it is only through faith that one has the courage to step into the unknown.
Religion, on the other hand, "represents a strict set of rules that our fellow humans have overlaid on top of our faith. Religion supports the status quo and encourages us to fit in, not to stand out." Godin goes on to point out that there are "countless religions in our lives" beyond those normally considered when that word is used. "There's the IBM religion of the 1960s, for example, which included workplace protocols, dress codes, and even a precise method for presenting ideas (on an overhead projector). There's the religion of Broadway, which determines what a musical is supposed to look and feel like. There's the religion of the MBA, right down to the standard curriculum and perceptions of what is successful (a job at Bain & Company) and what's sort of flaky (going to work for a brewery)." While religion at its best "is a sort of mantra, a subtle but consistent reminder that belief is okay, and that faith is the way to get where you're going," religion at its worst "reinforces the status quo, often at the expense of our faith." It isn't insignificant that the metaphor Tom Loughlin used to describe what we had both seen at SETC was "drinking the theatrical KoolAid," a reference, of course, to a horrible example of religion at its worst.
Godin promotes the heretic, the individual who opposes a specific religion without losing his basic faith. Martin Luther, for instance, is an example of a heretic who opposed the religious system of the Catholic Church without losing his faith in Biblical Christian ideals. But as Godin notes in the title of one section of the book, "Challenge Religion and People Wonder If You're Challenging Their Faith." This was certainly the case for Luther, and it is also the case for those who would challenge the religion of Wal-Mart Theatre.
Theatre people have a lot of faith. You can see it powerfully whenever someone writes on their blog about the power of theatre to imagine a different future, to express a deeper truth, to tap a deeper joy, to release a flight of fancy. Such faith is the cornerstone of our actions in the face of the barriers to creativity and imagination that our society erects.
But it is the religion of theatre that must be challenged, the rituals and irrationalities that support a destructive system that ultimately robs people of their faith. Theatre-religion schools and organizations, such as most theatre departments and organizations such as SETC, serve the same function as fundamentalist "Jesus Camps" documented in the film by the same name. They are places where the young are brainwashed and indoctrinated with the New York Myth. Like the young people in that film, the young people at SETC seemed happy and content -- they have a clear and simple-minded worldview to which they whole-heartedly subscribe and which provides a "heaven" to aspire to (Broadway) and a mantra that they are encouraged to cling to that all it takes to "make it" is "passion" and "commitment," and that the talented will inevitably rise to "the top." Theatre done in areas other than New York will be described instrumentally (Leavel referred to a year spent doing dinner theatre in Pennsylvania as "paying dues"), and those who fall by the wayside are characterized as "not wanting it enough." It is a horrifying fundamentalism.
"When you fall in love with a system," Godin writes, "you lose the ability to grow." That has certainly been the case in the theatre, which has lapsed into a state of repetitive motion that leads to creative carpal tunnel syndrome. We are in desperate need of a theatrical Reformation that will shatter the indoctrination of the young and awaken a creative Renaissance by returning artists to their foundational faith and the arts to their roots in community. The theatre, like Friedman's world, has become flat -- lacking in effervescence. There is no future for the American arts in Wal-Mart.
Comments
But boards are almost always local citizens (typically of a certain hue and affluence). When the local citizens in charge of governance are complicit in they system, how much is it groups like SETC that push students to NYC, and how much of it is the boards for their complicity?
I mean I can pretty much guarantee if the boards demanded hiring local artists, you would see that happen. But that is not the case as of yet.
Shifting the blame to the boards, while more comfortable for artists, is at best a way for artists with KoolAid stains on their lips to pretend they're not to blame. Time to step up and shoulder some responsibility.
The fact of the matter is right now there are folks who see the world as it is and those who see a hopefully better future.
Now I work in Chicago because I want to live in Chicago, not because someone told me I had to got there.
However, I have yet to see an idea (from anyone) for a solution for decentralization that included a proposal for funding. Even your idea for del-tec homes requires a pretty significant amount of start up cash.
Once things are up and running is a different story.
Starting out on something new takes money, something that many young (or old) artists do not have. That's where boards come into play.
Unless you're telling students to go not where there are few jobs and a ridiculous amount of competition for places with no competition and no jobs?
At the end of the day people will migrate to where jobs are. So either pioneers need to have the cash to start out, or those already outside of NYC need to hire locally.
But make no mistake, if the board of NC Stage hires a different AD who thinks differently, you'd probably see a change.
My <100K Project, by the way, should it get off the ground (I will hear about my NEA grant by April 1st, which would start the planning process) is set up to provide seed money to cover the first few years of salary for people starting a theatre in a place with a population under 100,000. After those first years, the artists (and their boards or supporters) would take over.
Other than location how does that model differ from the ford foundation/regional theatre model way back when? (ie seed money to start that would then be followed up hopefully?)
I would disagree slightly about being cheaper to start up in rural areas. Most small companies (mine included) are itinerant. We're able to take advantage of the infrastructure and spaces that already exist so the initial start up costs are pretty small in comparison to having to build-out a dedicated space. One reason so many companies start up in Chicago every year is because you can do so for a couple hundred bucks.
I'm differentiating between starting a company and building a theatre which may be a negligible difference for you. or it may not.
I can't speak for NYC but a lot of young artists come to Chicago because they can get up and running cheaply due to the infrastructure in place.
I am trying to come up with a model where a young group of artists can do many different events of different kinds as a way of reaching different groups of people in a variety of ways. Some might be full productions with only company members, some might be readings of short stories ala "Selected Shorts," some might be projects that involve community members, or story circles, some might be educational, some might not be theatre at all but local bands or choirs or craftspeople. This requires a year-round space dedicated to the group. How to pay for it? In my mind of late, I keep coming back to health clubs where you pay an annual fee and can then partake of whatever is available. Or a church, where the events are free but you contribute money as a member.
The problem with Ford is that they wanted their money to be used to achieve scale -- the biggest disaster of that kind was what happened to the Oklahoma Mummers, the biggest success was the Guthrie. Unlike Ford, my idea of scale is to stay small, like small country churches. And it will likely involve the members of the company providing additional income through non-theatre undertakings (ideally, operating some sort of small business). I think it is good for artists to split their time between creating art, living a family life, and doing non-artistic work. For instance, I think it would be a good idea if the company committed some of its available land to a vegetable garden and possibly even a small flock of chickens, which would reduce living costs by providing food for the company.
Obviously, this is a different idea of how to live an artistic life, and is also why it is more suitable to a rural area or small town than a metropolis.
Just wanted to say this essay is beautifully written and thought-provoking, and I agree with I think almost all of it (I'd have to reread it not on my blackberry to have more to say, which I hope to do later).
One of the things seldom talked about in all of this as a side note is how the current model is actually bad for new york theatre as well. Iknow, cry me a river, right? But its worth discussing.
I think part of my issue w/r/t all of this is that quite simply the idea that you would want sonething as localized as theatre to submit to any one-size model (particularluu one thought up by one dude at the ford foundation in the mid 20th century) is crazy. NYCs anf Asheville's needs, and resources and aesthetics are different, why would we assume the same model would work for both?
You are exactly right: NYC is a specific place just like Asheville or Whitesburg, and it should have a theatre scene that fits it. All theatre is local -- we all know that in our hearts. It is part of what makes us commit to theatre more fully than other media.
We may not be able to untangle the whole ball of string -- we may have to start a new ball, I don't know. But the first step is to recognize the ways things are isn't serving the current situation. After that, we have to figure out a different way -- which is both scary and exciting.
It seems to me that Beth's point was that she knows where most of the Casting Directors work. They are the ones that regional theaters come in town for. And they are the ones who send Actors out to the rest of the world. I imagine that they played the biggest role in Beth's success, but in a town without commercial and film work to cover what they lose casting theater, I don't know how their businesses survive.
Instead of beatin' down ADs, EDs or Actors, how do you get beyond the ususal theorical bs and get Casting Directors to decentralize, so that Actors have to go somewhere other than NYC? Believe me, we have more than enough Actors here.
Alex
Thanks for a great post. I am in agreement with much of what you said, and am myself in favor of fiercely local theatre. I do have a question, though. You mention the problem of theatre programs/professors perpetuating the problems inherent in the system, even going so far to say:
"The joy of telling a story to people is then twisted by teachers and the media who propogate the myth of fame into this strange pursuit of acclaim that you mention."
Can you be more specific about the bad practices you are referring to within training programs? I'm trying to get a hold of exactly what kind of program would look bad to you, and what kind would look good. For you, what are the qualities of a good professorate when it comes to guiding the next generation of theatre artists? ...And I guess I'm asking because the critique feels fairly general at the moment, and I'd like to understand your argument more fully. (Perhaps I'd have more insight if I'd been at SETC.)
Regional theatre hasn't all been Walmart-ized, and sometimes the most vibrant home-grown theatre communities aren't where you'd expect. There is hope. One of our local Equity theatre has a resident company made up of solely local actors. We've had a few new theatre companies formed in the past couple years by 20-somethings that are really making names for themselves. We have many actors here who have chosen to work professionally and create art in their own community, and it's a joy to see.
Thanks for this post, which I'm going to link to on our newly-launched blog, http://balttheatre.blogspot.com. And I've added your blog to my RSS feed.
Anonymous -- I will endeavor to elaborate, perhaps in a full post; it is simultaneously a obvious and a subtle thing. Generally, it is communicated in the orientation toward auditioning instead of ensemble, NYC theatre history over regional (including the historically inaccurate idea that the "real" American theatre starts with O'Neill), teaching (and usually doing) only those American plays that have been done on Broadway (esp the American musical), taking spring break trips to New York, and so forth. Each element is partial in itself, but together they validate the idea of NYC as Mecca for theatre people.
I actually moved to Baltimore 2.5 years ago after I got my BFA from NYU Tisch Drama. I'm not from here, but I moved here to do a doctoral degree in clinical psychology (which I later left to return to acting and study theology). When I moved here, I thought Baltimore was a po-dunk little town with very little going on. I had that NYC snobbery. Boy, was I wrong. The vibrant and supportive theatre community here quickly became my favorite part of Baltimore. I've been able to work constantly and make most of my money in the theatre, something which would have been much more difficult in the teeming barrel of fish that is New York.
It would have been great to meet you at TCG, but you've got good priorities. Congratulations to your stepson!
I'm currently in graduate school in New York City, and maybe will be here through a PhD. After that, though, I am sure I'll end up teaching in some small town. I'm beginning to think that at that point I am going to have to step up from dramaturgy to artistic direction, and found my own theatrical home. I love the rep company model, and think local theatre is vitally important.
Vivien Lyon
By the way, I do remember you, I believe. You were very intelligent with a quirky imagination, if I am remembering correctly. What are you doing these days?
This is not to deny the allure and power that NYC holds over much of the theatre world. But while a Minneapolis-based actor I have worked in Chicago, Cincinnati, San Diego, Boston and Palm Beach among others. It is possible to build a national career outside of the Big Apple. It takes time and effort to build relationships, but it can be done. Coraggio!
Generally, I don't take much comfort in your ability to work all over the US. I am in favor of local theatre with local actors who perform locally. Commitment to place.
~Justin
One play I chose with an entirely local cast in mind (yes, last season I brought about 50% actors in from both NY and LA). Only 1 local actor is cast for this season.
Our problem is also that we are only a summer theatre, so actors cannot survive on a 2 month contract and have other jobs they are unable to take leave from. (A local dinner theatre closed last year, forcing many of them to abandon performing).
I would welcome any input - during the upcoming season (which is costing me a bundle in travel and housing, as you can imagine), I would like to survey the small population to find out HOW they can make theatre part of their lives there and still make a living.
My board hired me with a mandate to reach out to the disenfranchised local arts community. But at what point does one assess what form our Local Theatre takes? We have a community theatre that produces one fall play each year and garners much local support.
Welcome discussion and curious to know if anyone else has this problem.
My preferred model is a theatre with a small group of full-time artist/facilitators who work year-round to both create work themselves and to facilitate creativity with and within the community. But that requires a different approach to theatre (and the other arts) and a different conception of the role of the artist.