Out of the Missed

On the heels of the staggering O'Neil fest, the Goodman has a new event going on this month. Taking the Stage. I'm not as impressed as some folks are. Of course, I'm rarely impressed by the palace on Dearborn. While it is easier to conceal mediocrity in production values, it's still far from a meritocracy. The O'Neil fest was the first time in nearly a decade I've lived as a Chicagoan that I remember any real excitement about what was going on there. Folks who never go to theatre were coming up to me and asking me about it. Like their marketing says, there are some things only the Goodman can do. The O'Neil festival was the first time I really felt that was true.

The two events pit what the Goodman could be continually capable of under better leadership vs. what they self-servingly do as the norm. Taking the Stage feels much more like the Goodman back to business as usual. Kerry Reid has an article in Performink about it. Now for any regular readers it shouldn't be a huge surprise that I have great respect for Reid. Even though I don't always agree with her, normally she does a hell of a job. This article, much like the "celebration," is disappointing. (I also don't think she'd be surprised to hear me say this.) There are a lot of things in it that I'd like to write about; however, one thing in particular kinda stuck in my craw.

For the first time The Goodman is producing two plays by women, directed by women. So they did what every institution does and tried to capitalize on that brave new risk they are taking. However in order to do so they needed to co-opt the work of several smaller companies and take credit for the Goodman's greatness. A few satellite readings, a panel discussion, links to storefront shows and a hearty pat on the back does the trick. Although not out of character, it's kinda laughable to me that the Goodman is trying to promoting this as some great feat.

A critic in town once told me, "the sad thing about the Goodman is they truly believe they are on the cutting edge of the conversation. Because they are the kind of people who believe everything people tell them."  They probably believe this is a great brave sign of leadership.  Now, contrast them including info on Babes with Blades' production of MacBeth in Pilson with bringing Aguijon downtown into the Owen to perform for the Latino Fest, or bringing Toneelgroep from Amsterdam. It's not even in the same ballpark.

From Performink:

It is probably worth noting that only those affiliated with the Goodman appear in the story, so the "marginalization" is not bound by gender or forum. I don't get how women are marginalized by working in smaller theatres any more than male artists are. I don't think Ann Filmer is more or less marginalized than Adam Webster. (Maybe my maleness blinds me.) Smaller theatres do a far better job of hiring and producing women with a miniscule share of the resources. More support for those organizations already supporting women artists would make more sense to me; however, most funding models are designed to reward size with size. So instead of giving 10 small companies $40,000 apiece to continue the work they have been doing, the current system gives the mammoths $400,000 to start doing what they've neglected for generations.

As far as these artists "struggling in these smaller companies," there are two things that could be done to change that. One, instead of putting a link on a website, actively and publicly supporting smaller companies--promoting them whenever possible. The largest houses will probably always have the largest share of the audience pie, but can only really grow (hell, maintain) their own support by actively working to enlarge the pie. The other is by actually hiring some of these directors. But that will probably never happen because needing suitable stature is more important to houses like the Goodman, who offer a link and a pat on their own backs.

Last week I was reading a story about the Detroit Tigers and their corporate sponsorships. I grew up in Michigan and am a life long Tigers fan. I rooted for the Tigers in the American League and The Cubs in the National League. If you're not a baseball fan needless to say I'll probably never have to worry about deciding who I would root for if they played each other in the World Series.

Now Detroit's not exactly having a great half-century as a city. The whole state lives and dies with the big three. The automakers, I'm sure you're aware, aren't having a great time right now either. GM had a pretty big presence at Comerica Park where the Tigers play. This season they ended their sponsorship. The costs and risks of pissing off lawmakers whose help is needed for survival was too great. The Tigers made a bold decision. Instead of finding new sponsors for a couple of bucks to fill that ad space, they decided to keep the GM advertising up. 

I'm sure they could have gotten enough from those spots to pick up some sorely needed help in the bullpen. But they decided that it was more important to show solidarity with GM and help them maintain as much visibility as possible. It sounds good on the PR level, but it was probably the most forward thinking move they could have made. The reality is if the big three go down, there won't be anyone to buy a ticket to a game in a decade. Helping GM stay visible and employing Tigers fans is an absolute necessity looking at the long term.

Now while I take issue with the posturing of Taking the Stage, promoting smaller companies and supporting artists well before they have significant stature should be part and parcel of what the largest theatres do. Not out of altruism or a PR pat on the back, but out of the sheer need to survive in twenty years. Soaking up the majority of resources in an ecosystem ends in death every time the largest do not support the smaller.

Now audiences are shrinking every year. Most young professionals, and young parents especially, cannot afford to buy tickets to the Goodman. They won't suddenly start going to theatres once the disposable income goes up when the kids leave the house. Younger audiences can afford to go to the theatre in smaller storefront venues. But there is a problem of visibility. Far fewer people know about the 240 smaller theatres that the 10 largest. 

Baseball figured out a way to cure this a century ago. There were clubs in towns of all sizes across the country. Early on they united and affiliated into the major and minor leagues. The designation was simple. Huge clubs were the major leagues and smaller ones were the minors. The major leagues knew that they couldn't just throw someone into Wrigley field out of high-school. They needed somewhere to develop. Those minor league teams had to be supported or there would not be athletes ready to play. But ballplayers don't suddenly get a college degree (let alone a terminal one) and step out into Wrigley Field. They come up and work out with the team in the spring, go back down until ready. The most promising ones are called up in the fall to take another crack and make the adjustments needed to become an everyday player. They go up and down until ready; but can never be ready without a shot or two or three.

Sometimes the rookies will catch fire, sometimes they'll head back down for another season. Often the best managers and coaches didn't make it all the way, but the ability to bring players back and forth a few times allows them to develop into the players the team needs. In theatre there is little back and forth between the largest houses and the smallest for directors. Someone won't get hired without "suitable stature," ie someone else who is big enough has hired them already. You get stagnation and a generation of artists left "struggling in these smaller companies." (I don't see this as an issue that only affects female artists.)

In the time before TV the minor leagues also supplied another major part of the equation for the big leagues. Fans. People would grow up watching the game and become fans. They would go and have a game of catch with their kids, who would become fans.  By supporting the smaller teams, they ensured their own survival through developing players and a fan base that would renew itself each generation.

In ten, twenty years, without artists of suitable stature or an audience, more and more huge institutions will collapse under their own grandiosity if nothing changes. By using their huge resources in a smarter way; by supporting smaller companies and talented artists working on a smaller scale;  by being less selfish and more self-sustaining, the major houses could go a long way towards developing their roster and their future fan base. Both are critical for their institutional self-preservation.

If institutions feel there is far too much to risk to develop artists and audiences for the future, than good luck in 25 years.

PS. I do agree with Ehre's " “Writers like Maria Irene Fornes—I was just talking about her with Henry Godinez [Goodman artistic associate and curator of the Latino Theatre Festival]—she never gets produced, and she’s brilliant.” Hence.