Monday, August 06, 2007

in seattle

h/t daisey

"When the play finally opens, the actors will be exhausted by their
schedules and broke due to the costs of transportation, parking,
meals, and in some cases babysitters and loss of income due to time
off for the show. On stage they will probably wear at least one
garment from their own "costume wardrobe" at home, and very likely
shoes that they have provided. They will wear makeup they bought. They
will pay their way to and from the theater every night. And still they
will not be paid for their work."


mbh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mbh said...

I can't agree more with hickwithmaster about the actors. I love them, they are all underpaid (and don't forget the tech crew also...).

Some of the best theatre I've seen was done at a small local theatre and some of the worst also (not to say I haven't seen clunkers at the 'professional' theatres where the actors ARE paid).

But theatre IS done despite this and while it would be nice that everyone was paid for their talents, claiming money should be local is very parochial. Who is to say the Intiman is not worthy of the money they are asking?

I don't know, I don't live in Seattle and have not seen the other theatre hickwithmaster speaks of. I will assume she and I agree artistically.

But if I had 500K to donate to a theatre (ah, my dream), I wouldn't give it to the Intiman for one reason, the one listed in the final paragraph in the Seattle Times article;

"Sher insists he is not threatening to leave the company if the funding goal is not met. But he clearly wants to keep mounting world-premiere plays (including the current Craig Lucas work, "A Prayer for My Enemy," and a commissioned script by novelist Sherman Alexie), larger-cast classical plays and historical drama cycles at Intiman — programming that, insists Penn, is endangered if the theater can't meet its November and April funding goals.

"I believe Intiman can find a way to keep Bart here for many years," Penn said, "if we can support his artistic vision."


While Sher's brilliance and star power may be absolute, it strikes me that the 'artistic' vision of large cast shows is going to sink the theatre faster than losing Sher's attachment to the theatre.

Yes it would be awesome that large cast shows can be done on a regular basis, but right now that is not a realistic notion.

To take hickwithmaster's thought a step further, let Sher go and let Sher bankrupt some other theatre company.

But I don't run a theatre... so what the hell do I know?

Adam said...

thanks Michael. I don't run a theatre either, but if i did, I suspect it would contain a season of my own work.