Saintleo FAS110 Module 6 Discussion Latest 2018 January

FAS110 Living the Theatre

Module 6 Discussion

Decisions

From the readings assigned for this Module, you can see how much thought and consideration goes into the production of a play, especially in the commercial theater industry. Referencing the two different productions of the play: "And the Soul Shall Sing," you can see the varying degrees and elements that differ in set design, style, language and interpretation. All of these elements create an aesthetic to attract a wider and broader audience.

As an artist, one always hopes that the art form will be served and given complete attention and priority. But in the case of several examples posed in the readings, such as The New Birmingham Repertory Theater, a changing of the guards (artistic directors) of the theater, often means a change in policy and program. This change oftentimes leaves former members discouraged and dissatisfied, while attempting to net a wider audience. As in the production of Der Ring de Nibelungen, at the Metropolitan Opera in New York City, traditional opera fans, (most notably Wagner fans) were very displeased with the concept and implementation of a new creation. They wanted and expected traditions to continue and remain as they were. They didn't feel Wagner's Opera needed any new theatrical experiments or trends. However, hiring a director such as Robert Lapage meant there would be change, especially considering his recent directing debut at the Met and his directing experience with Cirque De Soleil. Consequently, arguments were forged, hurled and presented in numerous reviews critiquing the new opera. This criticism wasn't the sole domain of theater critiques, since similar reactions were swirling and transpiring among opera fans who were waiting on ticket lines hours before tickets were released to the public! This kind of controversy often draws a wider audience, but sometimes, it can backfire, as it often does in many commercial venues such as with the New Birmingham Repertory Theater in London.

On March 23, 2015, an article titled: A Fight at the Opera, was published by the New Yorker Magazine. The author, James Stewart vehemently criticizes and blames Peter Gelb (General Manager and Director of the Metropolitan Opera) for the mismanagement of funds and the fiscal crisis that the opera allegedly faces.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/23/a-fight-at-the-opera.

You may have to enter the link into your browser, but the entire article will come up when you do a search.

I highly encourage you to read the article, since it provides an excellent example of what the text and readings for this week in Module 6 is trying to convey about the risks involved when introducing new ideas and trends in contemporary, yet conservative theaters. Questions such as: Who should take the fall, when those "new ideas," don't pan out as well as expected? Also, what happens to the theater and their employees, when wealthy donors (who aren't pleased with the contemporary trends) decide to take their endowments and donations elsewhere?

According to this article, an investor donated $20 million dollars so that Wagner's Ring Cycle could be produced at the Metropolitan Opera House. Unfortunately, the cost was much higher than expected. According to this article, it cost the Metropolitan Opera $40 million dollars to produce the entire Ring Cycle, which was apparently raised by other undisclosed sources.

Subsequently, after this article was published, the New Yorker Magazine received numerous letters in support and also, negating James Stewart's position and criticisms in A Fight at the Opera. On April 6, 2015, three letters were published and posted by the Editor in The Mail. I am pasting those letters for your perusal:

DRAMA AT THE MET

We were disheartened to read James Stewart’s piece about the Metropolitan Opera, which presents a one-sided, negative view of what is, in fact, a thriving, vital organization that is essential to the cultural life of New York, and of the world (“A Fight at the Opera,” March 23rd). The article emphasizes the challenging economics of grand opera and the difficulties of the Met’s recent union negotiations without providing a balanced perspective on a company that is at the height of its artistic powers. Today, the Met is at the fore, making opera globally accessible through our game-changing, live, high-definition transmissions, which have been seen by millions of people, in seventy countries. We’re certainly not suggesting that sustaining the Met is an easy task, but, under the watchful eye of the energetic Peter Gelb, his management team, and our dedicated board, it is a mission that is being accomplished. There is plenty of drama at the Met, both onstage and off, but not as Stewart told it.

Kevin Kennedy, President

Ann Ziff, Chairman

William C. Morris, Executive Committee Chairman

Judith-Ann Corrente, Secretary

Metropolitan Opera

New York City

As the principal union representative of solo singers and choristers at the Met, I was disappointed by Stewart’s story about Gelb’s leadership and the battle over contracts. A chorister’s day might start at 10 A.M. and end around midnight. During this summer’s contract negotiations, much attention was focused on principal artists, and in particular on the plight of the mezzo-soprano Wendy White, who experienced a career-ending injury after falling from a platform. Eugene Keilin, an independent financial expert, advised us on what we had to do to “save the Met,” and he recommended that the Met management save a dollar amount equal to the concessions offered by unions. The unions made concessions by taking pay cuts. The Met saved money not by limiting the number of expensive new productions but by firing and laying off twenty-two employees. The board has failed to rein in Gelb’s out-of-control spending, and the relationship between Gelb and Met employees continues to be antagonistic. A union-driven efficiency committee, a partnership between the singers and the orchestra, keeps track of—and protests—the waste and extravagance that are still the order of the day at the Met.

Alan Gordon

Executive Director, American Guild of Musical Artists, A.F.L.-C.I.O.

New York City

As a longtime opera buff and a subscriber to the Met, I was stunned to learn the extent of the institution’s financial problems. The Met’s operating deficits are so immense that its assets must be pledged to fund them. Gelb’s new “brilliant directors,” as he has called them, have resulted in controversial productions, unhappy opera goers, and a decline in attendance. Opera is primarily a musical genre, and the art form as we know it today is the product of composers like Mozart, Verdi, and Wagner, who had keen theatrical sensibilities. Productions by directors who do not understand the scores, and who seek to reinterpret the story lines, may get good press coverage but do not age well. For a repertory company like the Met, the goal should be to put on productions that enhance the musical experience rather than detract from it. I hope that Gelb goes before the Chagall murals do.

Franklin Bloomer

Riverside, Conn.

I thought these letters were excellent examples as to the variety of ideas, thoughts and opinions out there regarding the very challenges art directors, managers and theaters often have to face, when introducing new trends and ideas into a theatrical landscape that doesn't always appreciate change. Particularly change that costs a substantial amount of money to produce.

As an artist, I feel art (particularly evocative, aesthetically thought provoking art) should take precedence above the cost and above the masses ideas of what is commercially relevant and/or desirable. Probably why I am not the artistic director of a commercial theater (nor would I desire that role)! That being said, what is your opinion? Should art directors/ theater(s) take the risk, presenting new art forms, theatrical conventions and plays if that means losing a majority of your mainstream traditional audience?

The question: "To be or not to be?" That is, should art directors be true (to the aesthetic) to the quality of art being presented, rather than simply serving commercial trends and financial dividends?

Should the art director risk (at all costs) in order to bring to the theater (the stage) and a wider audience something thought provoking, vibrant and new? Keep in mind, by doing so, and by being true and serving the new aesthetic, some theaters would be at risk of losing traditionalists, the audience members who have been consistently supportive both literally and financially (they purchase season tickets and/or are the patrons/donors) of the theater.

Perhaps you are very conservative in your opinion, and believe art directors (theaters) should play it safe, (especially in difficult economic times). Then the new trends, exploratory theater, plays and conventions (though an interesting idea and concept) in the reality of fiscal costs and possible risk is best curtailed and not to be. Although this opinion may not be very appealing to the artist or the new and burgeoning director and playwright, it is the decision that Art Directors of Commercial Theaters often have to make today. They forego new ideas, conventions and trends, in order to serve the mainstream audience and reliable customer (consumer and donor) who for the most part, will continue to purchase tickets and donate money, as long as the productions are traditional, conservative and conventional. Basically what they are familiar with and accustomed to.

Then there is always the middle ground, as was attempted by the New Birmingham Repertory Theater in London. The newly hired art director (to appease the traditionalists and attract a new audience) split the seasons in half. This could be and is an applicable resolution to a much broader dilemma and question that many theaters face today. The question being: How does a theater keep the traditional (reliable) members that you have, while expanding and experimenting to attract a new audience, thus widening the net to bring in much needed revenue?

If you were hired as the artistic director of a commercial theater, you could use this method as a template for your theater's repertoire. For example, during one season, you could produce shows that appeal to the traditional palate (tastes) and conservative audience, while during the next season you can expand and explore by promoting more diverse and exploratory theatrical conventions.

You choose and respond to the following question during the Discussion:

If you were the artistic director of a commercial theater what would you do? Serve the traditionalists, who have buttered your bread (so to speak) purchased seasonal theater tickets, (though you have not drawn in a more versatile and contemporary audience) or would you serve art, for art’s sake, forget about conservative tradition, your theater is changing with technology (and with the times) and will serve a new, exploratory theater?

Perhaps you would like to play it safe, yet also explore. As art director, you can implement two diverse seasons; one to fulfill the traditional, conservative trend, while during the following season cast a wider net, breaking traditional rules. Keep in mind, while doing so, that exploratory season can also turn off the traditionalist audience in the process. By gaining a wider audience, you may also lose the traditional conservative members who consistently show up and support your theater. Either way, it's a gamble, you may win? But you also could lose! Make a decision (as art director) and discuss why you think that is the best way to move your theater forward.

I look forward to reading your ideas and discussion.