In the argument over supply and demand in the theater, I think we’re missing the point.
I think the real problem is that the work we make just doesn’t appeal to the people who aren’t coming to see it. We’re too disconnected from our potential audiences.
We disdain them. We look down at them. We make theater they’re “supposed” to see, that would be “good for them,” that’s “hard but rewarding work.” We’ve made ourselves into medicine, into punishment, into confession, into homework.
Theater should definitely BE those things at times, don’t get me wrong; those things are vitally important. But theater should also be entertainment, inspiration, clowning, celebration, comfort. It’s big enough to serve multiple purposes.
And if we’re going to make theater for the people, we should at least know what the people want. We should focus less on making work for ourselves, to impress each other, doing more and more crazy/extreme things, because we see theater all the time and we get bored by conventionality; we should make theater for people who are going to see it, oh, two or three times a year: not often enough to get bored. Again, this is not to say that we shouldn’t challenge them… just that we shouldn’t talk down to them.
I’m also NOT saying, mind you, that we should do the same old chestnuts again and again, or put on lavish Broadway spectacles with rock bands and trapeze artists… hell no.
I’m saying that we should be paying attention to the issues and concerns of the day, in our communities, in America, among our audiences, and making new plays that engage with those issues honestly and earnestly.
Sometimes that’s going to be provocative and challenging, sometimes it’s going to be humorous and comforting — but it’s going to be real, vital, and relevant, and people are going to want it. If we do that, we won’t have a demand problem any more.
In fact, we don’t have one now, as far as I’m concerned; we have a product problem, and it’s one we can address.
Thank you for this post! I need to do more reading on the discussion over the last few weeks, but this makes sense and hits home. Creating theatre for the audience IS the theatre practitioners role. Knowing your audience means understanding the difference between a chestnut and an experience for a person to remember. Very concise and well said. Thank you again!
Thank you, my friend!
Sometimes it’s as simple as understanding how the work relates to the audience and conveying that properly. We all share the same emotions.
I do think there’s a role for marketing to play, but my larger point is that most of America feels alienated from our art form for both sensible and nonsensical reasons. We have a large gap to close, and marketing will be part of the solution, for sure…
Pingback: Tweets that mention It’s Not a Supply and Demand Problem | Gwydion Suilebhan -- Topsy.com
Great post, Gwydion. Love that you are so passionate, and I agree. To a certain extent it is a product problem, but it’s easier to say that there’s too much of it.
Also, I am having a real problem with the supply and demand argument. When McDonald’s builds a new franchise, you know that a Burger King will soon show up across the street or down the block. Is there such an insatiable demand for crappy fast food that two competing chains need to be close by to handle all the hungry customers?
Could you imagine a NY that only produced “safe bet” theaters like the Roundabout or MTC? Do we get to keep MCC because they produce risky plays but cast big stars, making risk more palatable?
Frankly, with all the supply/demand arguments currently out there, I don’t see any small theater company that would make the supply cut.
I like your fast food argument, because it points out the simple fact that multiplicity of options actually CREATES the demand. It reframes the argument from one in which customers are choosing whether to eat fast food or not into one in which they are choosing WHICH fast food to eat.
It also points out another flaw in the supply and demand line of thinking: theater isn’t a product, really, it’s a service. The best thing we can be asking ourselves is how we can differentiate ourselves from other services (television and film, predominantly) in the marketplace. How can we provide what people need in a better way?
Now there’s a question! I think it revolves around community. Why do people go back to a neighborhood restaurant again and again? Why are we so nostalgic over the corner bar? I think we have created these structures that are good at getting people in and getting them out. But we really need to break the 4th wall pre and post show. Added bonus, if we actually *talked* with the audience (and a “talk back” does not count), maybe we’d have an idea of what they would like to see on stage.Instead of supply and demand, what does the theater do for the communtiy where it lives?
That’s exactly right! There’s a theater here in MD called Active Cultures (they produced my play THE CONSTELLATION) that asks its audience every single night, after the performance, what they want to see next… and they take the answers seriously. Why doesn’t every theater do that? Are we all “too cool” to listen?
Thanks for this post. It’s something I struggle with a lot. When we get into discussions of “the product problem”, I always think of A&E – the notion of arts and entertainment as two almost mutually-exclusive, distinct ideas. Still trying to reconcile my thoughts on this, but I think that art has become devalued because it has become synonymous with “not a pleasurable experience” in contrast to entertainment, which is pleasurable.
That’s exactly right. We need to fold the E back under the umbrella of the A. E is just a kind of A, and it’s not the enemy. A well-balanced meal has some sugar in it, after all.
Thank you for this post. Very thoughtful, and right on target.
Thanks, Ben. Glad to hear from you.