About Me

My photo
Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Community Board Meeting for Small to Mid-Sized Theaters

DPDATE: Read John Clancy's view from the panel. Good, honest stuff. I think there is a sobering message here: talk is talk. We need a plan and to take action. John's ideas at the bottom of the post are good ones to start with. So is his evident frustration. To which I say: sober is a good way to view this problem. Sober but undaunted.

Last night, I stopped by the Community Board Meeting for Small to Mid-Sized Theaters, hosted by Community Boards 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 at the Player's Club. I was only able to stick around for the figurative cup of coffee; I left around 7:30pm, just as the actual panel discussion was beginning. I did get a chance to hear the opening speakers, and hear a bit of the tone of what was forthcoming. Take, though, my impressions as they are: there was an hour of panel discussion and then, I'm sure, several hours of conversation afterward that I missed. (Where did I have to run off to last night? To see a small-to-midsized theater in action; the Vampire Cowboys production of Soul Samurai. Awesome. More on that later.)

It was, without a doubt, amazing to sit in the Player's Club and have it packed wall to wall with members of the theatrical community. It was a diverse room, by both age and income, and it was genuinely encouraging to see so much passion and interest for engagement with the political and planning process.

The various speaks who began, including Judith Malina from the Living Theater and the Borough President of Manhattan Scott Stringer, all said everything right. Ben Cameron, from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, spoke passionately about 'arts ecology.' Everyone seemed to be channeling a bit of Barack Obama. You could tell that some of them were positively thrilled to be in a room of artists and talk about the arts; as opposed to, I'm sure, some of less pulse pounding meetings they're obligated to attend. We were spoken to about the urgency of the moment, thinking about our problems in a new way, the shifting culture, the challenges that existed before the economy went into full blown crisis mode, and were encouraged to think in terms of city planning.

All of this is vital. The action that's being taken is exciting, and that sense of excitement is necessary, because the actions to come, the challenges to come, are absolutely daunting. I applaud organizations like ART/NY, The League of Independent Theater, Paul Nagle, 3LD, everyone. I applaud the community boards. We need, without a doubt, to get ourselves into the habit of lobbying on our own behalf.

Just before I left, I did hear a theme that gives me pause. I hope we'll quickly cure ourselves of it, or that it was discussed last night.

The idea presented (and I've heard this) is that smaller theatre companies, those without spaces of their own or large budgets, are in less peril than their larger peers who have troubles with endowments, missing grants, paying rent and keeping the lights on. The logic is flawless of course: if you've always been on a shoestring budget, you're still on a shoestring budget.

The problem I have with this is that it encourages an already bent and bowed band of undernourished artists to think small to avoid the risk of success. We need to think in terms of new strategies for success, as opposed to thinking of being bare-bones as a blessing. The grass is always greener of course: I'm sure a larger company who are battling their landlord imagine going back to the days when they just rented space and rehearsed in the evenings and life was simpler. I'm sure smaller companies want the opposite: a home, a sense of permanence, the idea that they have a future beyond their next Showcase Code (or non-Union) production.

One other very telling distinction heard last night was from Kevin Cunningham, Executive Artistic Director at 3LD. He said that in the last few months, very quickly, companies attitudes have moved from "strategic to tactical." I think that resonated strongly with me.

If anyone reading this was there, I'd love it if you'd share your thoughts in the comments section. I was only there for a short while, so my response is limited. I would say, though, that those who are excited by these types of events and actions should go here and sign up for the mailing list.

One of the questions put to the audience last night was an important one, and I'd love you to consider it yourself. (Or comment on it below.) What is it that a theater company brings to its neighborhood or community that cannot be replicated or done better by another organization?


RLewis said...

Just wanna say that I really like your ShoeString Theory. I am hurt by that argument every time -- that I never had anything, so I'm better positioned to continue on with the same abundance of nothing. I could care less about the funding that I'm not going to get now that the economy has tanked. I care about the dreams in my head (and heart) that will be denied or extremely delayed. And all the opportunity for my artistic growth that would have resulted from mounting those dreams will now never be offered. I value that more than any grant.

On another point, I wonder if "It was a diverse room, by both age and income" is really accurate??? I'm not sure how you know the income of the folks in that room, but it was dissapointing for me to see such a homogenized group. I'd bet that 90% of the room was within a few years of their 30s, and almost entirely white affluents. Diversity was not our best asset last night.

Freeman said...

I dunno. I was lodged into a corner so I didn't get a good sense of the room on the "diversity" angle. I didn't say racial diversity (you'll note) but I did see a good mix of younger and older, and I know some of the younger ones: We're Poor.

That being said, I think diversity is important in a sense that it's ALWAYS important, but it's really a side issue. Worthy of its OWN discussion maybe.

RLewis said...

Yes, I agree that this is its own discussion, but what bothers me is not the young people are poor, I got that in spades; it's the assumption that just because you're older, as I'm gettin', that you have money.

I'll bet that the older people in that room last night live on about the same amount of dollars as the young folks. I know I still live on the same sad budget that I did 20 years ago. More young people should know this - it might make them consider a different career field. Save yourself - it's too late for me.

Really, it was great that so many folks turned out, really, really great, but it's hard to miss that we are basically a community of white privilege.

DPS said...

"The idea presented (and I've heard this) is that smaller theatre companies, those without spaces of their own or large budgets, are in less peril than their larger peers who have troubles with endowments, missing grants, paying rent and keeping the lights on."

I'd refer you back to your own post about the NYIT Foundation OOB Venue Study:


"The 8% of OOB companies from the study that have been producing for over 20 years represent a wide variety of company structures, genres and locations. However one common factor that all of these companies share is that they have been presenting work at the same location for at least 15 years."

I think that study suggests that companies with their own space tend to survive economic downturns better than gypsy companies working on a shoestring. Sure it's tough and it's painful and it takes a lot of work, but they find a way. I would assume it's usually because they've been able to build up a community of their own who can come their aid -- if not with money, then with grassroots fundraising and word-of-mouth campaigns.

At the same time, I think gypsy companies can react more quickly and change HOW they do things, if they're willing to bend with the wind in times of trouble. So, it's a trade-off.