More Nylachi(dc)

The Model Already Exists, Scott

Yesterday, over at Theatre Ideas, the Prof, DevilVet, Paul Rekk, and I got into a headlong debate over The Prof's Nylachi(dc) beef. I don't doubt for one second his sincerity in seeking out a solution to the problems that we all pretty much acknowledge exist in the world of theater in America. His prolific writings on the tribal model, the lack and inequity in the national funding of the arts, and the absence of a decent standard of living for practicing theater artists are all intelligent and provoking texts. My difficulty with the decentralization argument Scott proposes has been trying to wrap my feeble brain around the specifics of the idea and how to rectify his overarching theories with my own practical experience performing and producing theater for the majority of my lifetime.

Here's what I glean from his proposal thus far:

The Decentralized Theatre Company must:

* Be a group of artists who are interested in working together for a while, and who are creative enough to think outside the box a little.

* Be a group of artists who want to learn by doing -- who feel that being in front of an audience, no matter whether it is reading a short story or in a full production of Hamlet, is a way to develop their talent and fulfill their need to create.

* Be blue-collar, lunchpail types who don't feel superior to their audience because they have a BA in Theatre and live in the community, coach a Little League softball team, and work out at the Y.

Further, the Decentralized Theatre Company must truck in theater that directly acknowledges in their artistic choices the needs and desires of the community from which they inhabit. The art must reflect the community - like the Wooster Group reflects Manhatten or Steppenwolf reflects Chicago but in areas not branded so much as Theater Capitols to further spread out the cultural wealth that is American Theater.

The Decentralized Theatre Company uses local talent rather than staff and talent imported from the NYLACHI areas.

The Decentralized Theatre Company adopts an all inclusive business model that resembles the collective model and provides a decent standard of living for all involved.

With the sole exception being the last requirement, it occurs to me that this model already exists. It's called COMMUNITY THEATER and there are thousands of them peppered all over the non-NYLACHI areas. The vast majority are self-funded but pay no one but the leadership and administration but in all other aspects, these community theaters fit Scott's description to a T.

******

I once worked as the Musical Director for a Southside Chicago Community Theater. They produced two shows a year, in the summer, and ran both for two weekends apiece. The cast and staff were a group of artists who were interested in working together and had for years. They were a group of artists who wanted to learn by doing. They were blue-collar, lunchpail types who didn't feel superior to their audience. And the artistic choices that were made directly reflected the tastes of their community.

I was with them for three years and I left after I realized that the production of Cy Coleman's City of Angels and Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance (both were shows that I fought aggressively to get on the program) had garnered more complaints of both elitism (some folks couldn't fathom us doing opera) and offense (the language and situations in City of Angels was just too raw and bawdy) and lost the theater more money than any two productions in the organization's twenty year history. When, in reaction to those two shows, the risky production was scheduled to be Do Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up I was gone, gone, gone.

I didn't resent the decisions that were made - they had to A) pay the bills and B) put on shows that reflected the tastes of their community - but I wasn't interested in the very pedestrian work they were committed to. Perhaps that sounds harsh - pedestrian - and perhaps elitist or condescending but I don't intend for it to be so. The choices made before I got there were extremely conservative and my experiments in pushing the artistic envelope were met with nothing less than hostility from the community. The audience was more interested in entertainment that was both nostalgic and, like their Southside churches, avoided challenging their own choices very directly and told them in no uncertain terms that they were just fine. That not being the world that I see, I found the choices of producing yet another production of Anything Goes or Singing in the Rain to be nothing less than pedestrian and self-congratulatory.

******

As I reflect upon the simplicity of the solution to Scott's notion, that his model already exists, I realize that at the heart and soul of the NYLACHI problem was that these community theaters were not being funded by the government and that that was a big part of Scott's beef. The one difference between the sum total of Scott's writings and this model was the money. The NEA virtually ignores these regional troupes and that's what is really pissing Scott off. There is the fact that there are just more theaters in NYLACHI and so it just makes sense that these areas receive a larger percentage of that ever shrinking pie, but the lack of attention on areas that perhaps need live theater more than ever is discouraging.

And with that realization, I come to the conclusion that none of this is about the artists in either NYLACHI or Suckhole, OK. This is about federal dollars. Scott's call to arms is misdirected at students and artists and needs to be heard by Congressmen and women, the very folks who allocate that meager stipend to the arts. The simple fact is that we could expand the artist ratio in all of these non-NYLACHI community theaters and still no one makes a living doing theater (a BIG issue with our North Carolina provocateur).

As Nick points out:

Best to have trust funds or endowments or a good day job when producing theatre in either NYLACHI or Camel Hump, WY.

Roadside Theatre earns only $40,000 of its $1.5 million yearly budget from box office. So the theatre needs 96% of its income from someone/somewhere other than Whitesburg, KY. Both Dell Arte and Bloomsburg Theatre Ensemble are schools probably more than theatres. And they both tour their productions outside their towns. So the populations of Blue Lake, CA and Whitesburg, KY and Bloomsburg, PA are not the actual “communities” supporting these theatres. The Noh school of BTE has little to do with the residents of Bloomsburg, PA.

It isn't about the model at all. It's about the funding of a tribal model that is already in place.

I also get the impression that there is a strange bias at work underneath this whole discussion. In the comments section, there are two comments that bookend the dustup.

Laura Sue writes:

If it takes the population base of a megalopolis to get 99 people in to see a play, then maybe something is wrong with the play. Don states what we local yokels have known for years: the theater community thinks we're stupid and don't have any taste. Gee whiz. I wonder why we don't go to the theater more?

And Ben writes:

I'm an actor/director/producer from Tiny Town. In my experience, 90% of Tiny Town residents would rather see The Music Man than The Pillowman. They're not stupid, they're just conservative...90% of them.

It seems that while on the surface this argument is about regionalism and the lack of substantive representation in the more rural areas of the country of federal arts dollars, underneath the argument is more about the kind of theater that is produced and what that says about the specific audiences who support them.

Scott writes:

My mission, even though you choose not to accept it, is to allow theatre people another alternative to Nylachi. I don't care what shape that theatre takes -- that's for the artists and their audience to decide. I personally don't like Richard Foreman, the Wooster Group, or Dada because I personally value art that communicates meaning, so I wouldn't promote them, nor will I use them as the yardstick to measure success.

It looks increasingly like the alternative Scott proposes is less about regional funding and more about the content of what gets funded; less about where the theater takes place and more about what theater he thinks is worthy of being funded.

Scott continues:

Theatre artists like you get all bent out of shape when the whole conversation isn't about fulfilling YOUR desire. "I've got a vision." Well, I'm sorry, but I think the phrase is "We've got a vision," meaning me as an artist and you as an audience member. It is about us. And if you think that having respect for your audience is a sign of insult, then you are more screwed up than I can ever imagine.

There isn't any question that theater is a conversation between the audience and artist. No question. But this excerpt reveals a genuine disdain, not for the region or the environment or the funding, but for the kind of art that certain kinds of artists create.

And that is the reason that Scott feels so much resistance to his idea - it isn't a truly honest discussion, it's a lecture. A truly honest discussion of the NYLACHI problem would deal with this cultural divide and deal with the content and themes of the work rather than the regional disparity in funding.