It hasn’t been long since we all learned that major components of the American Voices New Play Institute were leaving Arena Stage — and DC — for Emerson College in Boston. At the time, as I recall, there was more than a little concern about what the change might mean for the new play sector in our city. Some focused on the loss of David Dower, Polly Carl, Vijay Mathew, and Jamie Gahlon, all of whom have made our city richer for their presence in it. Others were worried about the loss of the programs they’re taking with them, from the New Play Map to NewPlay TV to HowlRound, although (to be fair) those are virtual endeavors that don’t actually “live” in DC. Still others lamented that DC was losing something vague and undefinable: a kind of “new play luster” associated with all of those people and projects put together.
All of that may come to pass — as I write this blog post, no one and nothing has left town yet — but I expect we’ll find that our fears, while natural, are unfounded. Those of us committed to making new plays in DC will continue to be enriched by their presence in our lives, though perhaps a bit more virtually than before… and we’ll still be facing the same challenges we’re facing right now.
What are those challenges? What is the state of the new play sector in DC? What opportunities and assets do we have? What’s it like to tell new stories in our nation’s capital? How do we start to think about moving the city forward? These are questions with which I have become thoroughly obsessed. I have decided to make it my own personal mission to coax this city in a new direction — to help build capacity and interest and excitement around new plays — and if that’s what I plan to do, I thought, then I really ought to start by taking a snapshot of where things stand today.
The subject is far too big, in my mind, for a single post, so here’s my plan. For the next few posts — this one and two others — I’m going to focus on the three biggest things I believe we need to overcome. (And they are big.) Then I’m going to look at all the things we’ve got going for us… and there’s more, I think, than we realize. Abundance is real: we just need to notice it.
So, with no further preamble… the first challenge:
The Audience Problem
Recently, when I was leading a panel discussion at Theater J about the State of the DC Playwright (yes, the “state” meme seems to have gotten the best of me), I asked the following question:
In DC, audiences have grown absolutely fat on Shakespeare, chestnuts, American classics, and Shear Madness. Most of the “new†work in the city has already had productions elsewhere, particularly New York, which means it arrives here with a road-tested seal of approval. The goal seems to be to minimize the sense of risk associated with going to the theater. “This is a good product, a known quantity,†we seem to be telling our audiences. “You have nothing to fear.†So how on earth do we begin transforming audience expectations, after decades and decades of messages like that, most of them subtle and insidious? How do we start to develop an atmosphere that’s welcoming to new plays?
To be honest, I was shocked by how little my fellow playwrights responded to my question. I consider this the single most insidious factor against which we are working in DC. Of the two million (or is it 1.2 million?) theater tickets sold last year here in the metropolitan area, only a small percentage were for plays having their first productions. The percentage gets larger if you consider plays that are new to the DC area, but that’s missing the point: those productions come with reputations attached to them. They’re like snowballs rolled downhill at DC from elsewhere (typically New York), having already accumulated size and expectations. As a playwright, that does me no good, unless of course my plays get produced elsewhere first and return home to DC, like an Amish teen after rumspringa, to be welcomed back into the family. If I had to guess — and I do, because I don’t have the data I wish I had — I’d say no more than 70,000 tickets (including SOME of the 30,000-ish sold by the Capital Fringe Festival) sold last year were for brand new plays. That’s not, if you ask me, nearly enough.
(Too many similes in that paragraph. I apologize. I get myself worked up about this.)
But it’s not about the numbers. It’s about what’s behind the numbers: a city of people who expect familiarity from theater. Who go to see productions of plays they’ve already seen or that others have already seen and told them about or that they’ve “heard” are good from reviews of productions in other cities or the titles of which they recognize from the American canon. What, I wonder, do stories that meet one or more of those criteria have in common? I suspect that what they share, in large measure, is an inability to surprise us and disrupt our lives and cause turmoil, either emotional or intellectual or (goodness forbid) political. I’m not saying this is true of everything we see on our stages, mind you… but almost.
Is it really that surprising? Think of where we live — or, rather, think of the psychological profiles of the people who buy those two million theater tickets, many of whom toil either inside or in the shadow of the immense hierarchical bureaucracy of the United States government. These are (largely) people who either implicitly or explicitly endorse the stability of that enterprise, or who at least consider it a given circumstance. They may not be looking for disruption, at least not overtly, in their visits to the theater.
On the other hand, I sincerely believe that in all of us there exists a desire for revolution of one kind or another, a desire that does need to be kindled from time to time, and periodically stoked into full flame. Are we taking care of that need with the stories we’re telling here in DC? Barely, I believe. Insufficiently. I think we need to get better at it. We need to choose stories for that part of the human soul much more often than we do. We need to learn how to market those stories to people, too. We need to expand this city’s understanding of what going to the theater can be: not only familiarity, but discovery; not only comfort, but a healthy rattling of the cages.
Hell, to whatever extent our work can refresh and reinvigorate the minds of the people who make up our government, we owe it to the rest of the country to be trying like mad to do so right now.
Next post: A Lack of Civic Pride
Gwyddion,
We’re all grateful for your taking up an important call here — keep advocating and keep pressing the case and the questions. Â But I want to push back a little (a la David Dower who too loves to “push back”) and ask, as I did at the Jan 29 panel you led, that you get your numbers in good shape, especially now, as you really go public with the case. Â At the Jan panel, I suggested you were severely under-counting the number of new play productions that happened last year in and around this city, in one production form or another. Â And as the testimony came in that day from Glenn Alan, playwright and founder of the DC Black Theatre Festival, it could well be that we were and are not taking notice of all the productions and presentations happening here. Â When we do, it will go a long way toward supporting your leading thesis in your preamble, that “there’s more, I think, than we realize. Â Abundance is real; we just need to notice [and accurately quantify] it.” Â The New Play Institute wasn’t doing that for DC — nor is the National New Play Network, based here. Â But Theatre Washington should have access to some of these figures — unless they’re not counting Fringe productions, or DC Black Theatre Festival showings, or other performances not qualifying for Helen Hayes Award consideration. Â Anyway, I don’t think we should talk about numbers until we get some real research under our belt. Â We don’t want to be over-looking vital sectors of our community.
Push back yourself now! Â Or let’s push forward together! Â And see you tonight at Laura Zam’s MARRIED SEX, with party to follow at Hank’s!
ari
Well, I will push back… but only a little. For now.
I do think better numbers would be critical here. I’ve used the best I could find for the total ticket-sales number, which comes from theatreWashington. (The discrepancy between 1.2 million and 2 million comes from conflicting reports.) You’re right to note that I can’t vouch for what’s baked into that count (Does it include the DC Black Theatre Festival? I hope so, but I wonder…) But it’s the best I have. I’ve asked (not quite as directly as I might have, but I have sent word) for access to theatreWashington’s database, but I haven’t been given the keys to that castle quite yet. What more might I do.
The Fringe festival sales number I quote is an average (roughly) of the last two years, so that’s accurate, too. The only number that comes purely from my own estimation is the 70,000 tickets-to-new-plays number. Differ with that if you will — I’d love to be proven wrong there, or to be magically given a more accurate number — but I’d be very surprised to find that I was off by a game-changing amount. I’m willing to wager that my general assessment is accurate.
Numbers aside: I still think we have an audience problem to address. But that’s more a matter of opinion than fact. Do you have a different opinion?
See you tonight at Theater J and Hank’s!
so in response to the numbers thing, I agree it will be difficult to get accurate numbers in general for this process since no one in particular has been breaking down the information in such a way that is completely useful.
From my point of view using your estimation is where we fall in to that tricky area. Â During the discussion at Theatre J you used a general estimate of how many new plays were being done in DC in a given year, and there were a number of people (including myself) who disagreed with your estimation of how many new plays were being produced in DC. Now we could argue how many new plays are actually being done, but thats not the point of this blog post you are getting at. Â What I am saying is at the heart of the matter is that you are comparing 1.2 mil or 2 mil tickets sold a year to a guess in how many were for new plays. Â I could guess that 500,000 were for new plays (although I am sure the number is much lower)? Â Could either of us be proved right or wrong…with the data that we have, I don’t think so. Â So this makes proving your thesis in your blog tough.
I think it might help your thesis (and prove your discussion closer to correct) if you used an example formula. Â So your thesis is that DC audience want the familiar and not the new, that they aren’t trained for wanting to see new plays or being able to experience them, that new stories aren’t interesting to them, but road tested stories are. Â So it might help me understand and prove your thesis correct if you took an example such as “The Religion Thing” at theatre J and compared it to a more road tested show done at a theatre of similar size like “Time Stands Still” at Studio or maybe “Pride and Prejudice” at Round House. Â Taking an example of a completely new work and comparing it to a road tested show at another theatre of similar size and around the same time (not sure if there is an other example). Â But collect a couple of those and comparing might illuminate the issues with the Audience that you are seeing. Â
I only bring this up because you were debated with by another playwright on the panel that she has great audiences for her new works and that there isn’t an audience issue.
That sounds like an interesting blog post. I suggest you write it. 🙂 (In all seriousness, I’m not sure what validity a one-to-one comparison like that would have…)
In any event, I wrote this post, and I stand by it. As I said to Ari, I’m pretty sure I’m not off by enough to undermine my argument. I also think focusing on the numbers misses the larger point, to some extent, though I understand (given how forward I put them in my post) why you and Ari are responding to them so directly.To clarify a bit where I got my estimate:Of the 70,000, 25,000 are tickets sold to new plays in the Fringe Festival. (Note that not ALL Fringe shows are first productions; I estimated 25,000 of this year’s 28,000 tickets were for new plays, which might even be high.)
That leaves another 45,000 tickets. On the panel, I estimated that there were 7 other productions of new plays in DC last year. Others in the audience disagreed, so in the spirit of making a conservative estimate here, I doubled that number (plus one) for a total of 15 shows, then assumed an average of 3,000 tickets sold per show. That’s 200 tickets a night for a 15-night run: a very healthy box office. Again, I wanted to be conservative.
So… do any of those numbers seem LOW to you? Since we don’t have data to look at, estimating is all we can do. Let’s get to a better estimate together, then see if my larger point still holds true or not. I’m betting (as I’ve said) that it does.
You are right if I want numbers I should do it myself.
The only reason I suggested the other method is because its gets closer to your thesis os whether audience members prefer tried and true plays to new plays. Â
So yes according to your numbers of 200 tickets a night for a new play those numbers don’t seem low. Â It seems Audience do love new plays. Â That is a sizable SPT or low LORT House numbers…better then a lot of shows do. Â
So maybe its not audiences that are only making it so 45,000 tickets are sold for new plays (not including Fringe), but perhaps its that they aren’t given the opportunity to see more? Â (this is where I think you and I see eye to eye on the subject more then anything!)
That’s a good point, actually. A REALLY good point. And when I get to the positive part of this series of blog posts (which I promise IS coming over the next few weeks) I may have to revisit it. Is it that new plays ARE actually selling and WOULD sell even better if we gave them a chance? I like that angle!
But remember that my 200 number is also just a very conservative guess… I could be wrong the OTHER way, too…
But I hope not!
I’m going to write a longer comment when I have more than two minutes to rub together. But I’ll guess that there were more than 15 new plays produced in DC last year (not including Fringe, and I don’t know why we would so quickly discount that vector for new work).
Bright Alchemy produced a full run of A CREATION STORY FOR NAOMI in January; Active Cultures produced my play, THE RESURRECTIONIST KING in March; Imagination Stage produced OFF A BROKEN ROAD (developed by myself, Jessi Burgess, and the New Works Performing Ensemble that, while it only ran for a weekend, had a professional design team); and there was a workshop production of Bright Alchemy’s WHEN THE STARS GO OUT at Flashpoint in September.
While I’d like to think the world revolves around me, I don’t think I was responsible for 28% of new plays produced in DC last year. I think there’s a lot of new work being done that isn’t getting factored into the math.
I, too, will respond in more depth later. But I explicitly NOT excluding Fringe. They are IN my 70,000.
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
—–Original message—–
I meant that they weren’t included in the 15 shows total. Again–replying more later. And in a separate comment thread, ’cause this is getting kinda thin.
Awesome. Already started a new thread for you and everything.
But your point about not including the Fringe shows in the 15 is sort of (sorry) a distraction. I was just showing my math. I’m counting Fringe.
Okay: longer response, which I’m starting in a new thread because the skinny columns are getting to me.
(I think you may be UNDER-estimating your importance to the DC new play sector. There, I said it.)
Let’s try this another way. Assume that I’ve actually got it wrong by ANOTHER factor of two. Let’s say that there weren’t 7 productions of new plays last year (as I said on the panel) or 15 productions of new plays last year (as I suggested above), but a whopping 30 productions of new plays here in DC last year, each averaging what I still think is a VERY generous 3000 tickets sold. (How many tickets did Bright Alchemy sell to the entire run of A CREATION STORY FOR NAOMI?) That would be 90,000 tickets overall, plus the 25,000 sold by the Fringe Festival (which I am NOT discounting), for a total of 115,000 out of 2,000,000, or just under 6%. Would you be happy with that number?
I would not. And I would not be concerned merely with the size of the number, but with the fact that new plays are generally being produced (and this ought to be its own blog post) by our smallest companies and by the artists themselves. Even if that 6% number of tickets sold IS accurate, you can be DARN sure that 6% of our city’s total theater budget isn’t going into those new plays. I won’t speculate on a percentage, because y’all will protest again — by the way, I’m trying to HELP here — but it’s definitely low.
You want to turn the tables and ask me when I’ll be happy with the numbers? I don’t know that I have an answer. I’ll know it, perhaps, when I see it. We aren’t there yet.
Finally… I think it’s fascinating to note that, in a very similar piece on HowlRound today, Minnesota-bsed playwright Cory Hinkle is getting a very similar response to a very similar piece. People are rushing to cite counter-examples, to make sure (it seems) they get noticed for the good work they’re doing (and they deserve to be). But this isn’t an indictment of new play makers here in DC, or (really) of anyone. It’s not about artists AT ALL. It’s about audiences, and what I believe they expect when they go to the theater. A different subject entirely…
Yeah, I think the #s were a distraction, too. At least from
the main topic of your post. Didn’t mean to spend so many comments on it.
Â
I think you misrepresent how your fellow playwrights (myself
included) responded to that question. It’s not that we were indifferent. It’s
just that we disagreed with your premise. From personal experience, I find that
when I put on new work, the audience is there. The success of THE RELIGION
THING at Theater J (which sold wonderfully despite a crap review in the Post)
and the continuing growth of CapFringe also point to this.
Â
However, if you’re going to look at percentage of tix sales
as the biggest factor, then you’re right. New work likely makes up a relatively
small percentage. Of course CREATION STORY didn’t sell 3,000 tickets. We didn’t
even have a total of 3,000 seats over the course of the run. Even RESURRECTION
KING didn’t have 3,000 seats. I had five new plays in DC in 2011 and I doubt I
sold 3,000 tickets combined. Not because the houses were vacant, but because
they were very small houses and only one had a 16-show run.
Â
This imbalance in new vs. known is because the largest
theatres in town—the ones with the most seats and the most productions of the most
shows—are also the most expensive. And when it comes to cost, it’s a lot more
palatable to spend $ on a known quantity (even if it’s just from a single Off
Broadway run) than a brand new play. Because on a case-by-case basis, new plays
are more likely to be stinkers. Audiences are willing to risk $30 on a possible
stinker. But $80? Not so much. And I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t want to spend
that much either. Not unless I get to wander through a deserted hotel and get
kissed by witches.
Â
So, here are the biggest challenges I see when it comes to
tackling that imbalance: Convincing existing theatres to take chances on new,
local work.
Â
Convincing them to make it affordable to see that work.
Â
Promoting wherever possible larger theatres’ support of
smaller companies—the ones who do a lot of the new play development and charge
a lot less and get new plays in front of audiences. (see #neverbedark)
Â
And if there is a tendency of audiences to choose known,
safe work over challenging work despite cost, there is no better argument to be
made for that new work than to do more of it in accessible ways and to do it
well.
So… if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that audiences are interested in new work, they just don’t have many options to see it?
And, by extension, if our bigger theaters were to start producing more new plays, they audiences would show up for them? In other words, you don’t think there’s an audience problem at all… you think there’s a programming problem?
That’s interesting. (If I’m reading you correctly.) The implication is that artistic directors need to wise up and do more new work, and the audiences will follow. But I would counter, on behalf of the city’s ADs, that experience has shown fairly definitively that new plays do NOT sell as well as, well, “replays,” as I like to call them.
I’m guessing your experience is really just that: your experience. Audiences showed up for your work… in small theaters. Would they have shown up for Resurrectionist King in a 299-seat house for a 16-week run? (I know: you’d love a chance to find out. I would, too.) I suspect not. And I suspect the reason for that is that in the main, we still have a lot to do to enculturate audiences to new plays… as I said in my post.
And I do think ticket prices are part of the problem. It’s definitely a lot easier to drop a speculative $30 than a speculative $80. But (and I think MORE importantly) it’s about what audiences THINK when they go to the theater. Do they think “This better be good” when they walk in/buy tickets, or do they think “What is this going to be?” I believe we need to teach them to think the latter… though I do not know how.
I agree with that last thought…Almost. I think the mindset we want in an audience is one of willing experimentation rather than set expectation.
However, I don’t know if the two thoughts you cite are entirely incompatible with each other. I know when I walk into a show, my first thought is “Wonder what this will be” and my second thought is “Hope it doesn’t suck.”
Maybe the mindset we’re trying to get rid of is one where the audience is paying for a very specific experience; where they’re going to a show because they know already what they’re going to get. And instead we should promote the idea of going to a play w/out knowing what you’re going to get. But still with the expectation and/or sincere hope that it’s going to be good.
And I still think tix prices are a big part of that mindset. It’s much easier
to have that open mind if you didn’t just spend a day’s salary on a
ticket. Having a bad experience with a new play or a new theatre after you’ve just spent some stupid amount of money on tickets can put you off new plays or that theatre for a while (see: Steve’s first experience w/ opera).
As to how to teach that mindset, I don’t know if “teach” is the right word. We can’t tell a community that something that has never been a priority for them before should be a priority and expect them to incorporate that. Except maybe by teaching by example. Putting up as many good new plays in as many venues as possible and experimenting with innovative ways of marketing them. ‘Cause it’s no good having a new play if no one knows it’s happening (paging Alli Houseworth).
BTW, the above comment was in response to Gwydion, not Lee (who snuck his comment in before mine).
sorry about that…I am sneaky…like a ninja koala bear.
Willing experimentation vs. set expectation. I really love that. And you know what? I wish there were a huge marketing campaign for “theater,” nationwide, that started to change that perception: to make it seem exciting. And I wish theatreWashington would do a smaller-scale version of that here in DC. That’d be the single best thing I think they could do (for me, at least).
And yes, teaching is a difficult concept: marketing might be a better one. And leading by example, too, as you say… by putting LOTS of GOOD new plays into the world, again and again, until people notice.
So a little anecdote from an AD that I liked working with.  Jim Petosa out at Olney used to break down his seasons a little differently.  For most of the 2000’s he said his system was simple.  If he had a 7 show season he would choose 3 shows he was pretty sure would be guaranteed hits (Cinderella, Agatha Christie, The Foreigner, etc).  He would then choose 2-3 shows that would be probably successes.  They may not make a huge profit, but probably break even or  lose a little money (Rabbit Hole, Brooklyn Boy, Democracy) They may not be risks to all, but to that community they were considered risks.  And a lot of the time those shows did very well, but in preplanning they were pretty risky.  The final 1-2 slots were left open for something of a genuine risk.  Something they were pretty sure was going to fail but Jim loved it.  “King of the Jews”, “Jaques Beril”, there was even a co-production with Theatre J while I was there of a new play.  Now they weren’t always new works, but they were works a lot hadn’t heard of and were pretty risky.  They usually lost money, but everything else in his seasons made up for it.  It was a way for him to take a calculated risk. Â
Now of course this isn’t for everyone, but its an example of an AD taking risks on new stuff and starting to pull his company out of great debt at the same time, since Olney was about 20 mil. in debt during these years. Â Still could they have done more, of course…but what would happen if every theatre saved one of their slots for a new work risk? Â Would the numbers go up? Â Would audiences get used to seeing new things and want more? Would AD’s feel more comfortable saying that their audiences like new things and take more local risks? Â Maybe. Â
Ultimately for me its the chicken/egg syndrome. Â Why aren’t there more opportunities for new plays. Â Well AD’s say audiences don’t like them, and often times they don’t sell as well. Â Audiences say there aren’t enough opportunities and when they are there they aren’t given full resources to be as good as the remount of “Les Mis”. Â So who changes the cycle first.
From what I am getting from this article and what I assume are future articles you are saying both need to change at the same time. Â Both need to learn to take risks and learn to appreciate the others riskiness.
On the financial thing…well you both are right. Â Its easier to plop down $20 on something I may not like then it is to plop down 80 bucks. Â Perhaps more theaters should try dynamic pricing when it comes to new works. Â Like the dreaded “Sleep No More” did. Â If you see it during its preview run its like $20 dollars, then when the reviews come out it goes up to $40 (if its successful), then when people are raving about it everywhere it goes up to $80. Â For a show that we know is good start it at $40 and go up from there. Â America is used to paying a variety of prices for a variety of things based upon like. Â If we know we like it we are willing to pay more for it. Â If we know we like the iPod we are willing to pay $300 for the iPod or iPod 2. Â We don’t know if Zume is going to be as good so making us pay $300 for it is too much of a risk if it sucks.
What I am saying is that you are right we need to help an audience change its mind from “It better to be good” to “whats it going to be?” On the other side of that equation is that as producers and AD’s we can’t expect an audience to pay the same price for something that we know is good and they love for something that they may hate…just needs to be a different pricing structure. Â
Jim Petosa sounds like he was doing it pretty close to how I think it should probably be done. Or close to how I’d do it, anyway. And I hope whomever ends up the next AD does similarly good work. If anyone asks, I’ve got a strong candidate to suggest…Â
I know applications have already been sent in and I don’t know where they are in the process…but that person should send their stuff in.
That person has 🙂
And before you ask, no, it’s not me!
I didn’t think you were.Â
I know a couple people who have applied…but not sure I would wish the politics of that place on anyone new.
 Question for you — are you counting productions of new plays in the DC-area (including suburban Maryland, etc)? Here at Imagination Stage we commission at least 2 plays per year and work with the same playwrights, designers, actors that work across the region. This accounts for 40% of our annual work and approximately 30% of our ticket sales and 40,000 tickets (as noted — new plays are always a risk . . .).  I would say that our audience loves the familiarity of the space and the ability to see something new. For an excellent example, currently running on our stages is P.Nokio by Psalmayene 24, a second commission of his work by our company.
Hi, Brett. Thanks for weighing in… and HUGE thanks for sharing some real numbers. About which, please indulge me for one clarification: are you saying that you sold 40,000 tickets to world premieres… or 30% of those 40,000, which would be 12,000 tickets?
To answer your question either way: yes, I was including Imagination Stage in my estimate. You all are an absolute city-wide leader in developing new work with DC-based playwrights, and you are absolutely to be commended for that. (I should have done so, and in a bigger way than this small comment, long before now. My apologies.)
The same is also true, I believe (though someone please correct me if I’m wrong) of Adventure Theatre… which leads me to wonder whether we shouldn’t just be considering theater for young audiences a bright spot in the DC ecosystem and figuring out how to copy its successes elsewhere. There are probably one or two future blog posts in there… for which inspiration I thank you.
Gwydion, thanks for maintaining a theater blog that is consistently insightful (and inciteful!), and that continues to tackle the hard questions confronting playwrights today.
On this topic, i just want to point out that i don’t think the relative lack of new play production is (1) specific to D.C., or (2) a recent phenomenon. It is simply a matter of risk; producers would prefer to sell a known (rather than unknown) quantity, just as they would rather be able to cast stars than not, and it has always been thus. These criteria are important for commercial producers, since they have to raise investment money with the only criteria being their projected rate of return. However, the problem is that non-profits have become just as risk averse, despite the fact that (1) they have a subscriber-based audience, giving them a certain percentage of guaranteed income per season, and (2) they are tax-exempt and can receive corporate, govtl and private donations, grants, subsidies, underwriting, and they get this status partly for the charitable purpose of developing new playwrights and presenting new work! So they meet these obligations by “workshopping”, or “developing” or “reading” new works, but rarely ever producing them.
I don’t mean to bash non-profit theater… the current economic conditions have put them under intense pressure just to survive, and their boards want “hits”, so they don’t have to continue to underwrite losses. But if they aren’t going to fulfill this aspect of the charitable purpose for which they were formed, then who will? I think they need to work more closely with playwrights in their communities to develop new ways of marketing, promoting and presenting new plays to their audiences, to encourage risk-taking by audiences as well as theaters, and playwrights need to take matters into their own hands and develop theatrical families that are self-producing in small spaces in their areas.
Please continue to speak out and let us know what your thinking, and what you think we can do to help.
Best,
Ralph Sevush
Dramatists Guild
Thank you, Ralph, for those VERY kind words. I’m honored and grateful.
I agree: this issue is neither specific to DC (see the current blog post on HowlRound, in fact, for the Minneapolis/St. Paul version) nor recent. And I also agree that the leaders of non-profit theaters have something to answer for here… and my next post in this series is going to take that on. (Check back in on Thursday!) But inasmuch as I am working in DC and at the present moment, I’m trying to do what I can (as I know you realize) to push things in a new direction here and now.
I do find it interesting that many of the comments here are addressing artistic directors, rather than my actual subject: audiences. Yes, I think it’s hard to tease the two factors apart, but… I want to try. Because even if we could magically change how EVERY non-profit theater in DC programs its seasons overnight, we’d still have to devote significant resources, I believe, to re-training audiences. After all, they’ve been living with the current system or a long time now, as you note… and changing expectations are all that time can be really difficult.
Thank you again, Ralph, for weighing in. Your insight here is most welcome.