Centralized KoolAid: Problems and Solutions Facing the American Stage

American theatre is broken. If this point hasn't come across in any of my previous posts, please take the time to embrace it now. It is simply not accessible. It has become a privileged exclusive art form, as oppose to a readily available local tradition. How do we break the trend and return the art form to its traditional local roots? This exactly what I decided to explore this week. In my exploration, I found two posts that I found particularly interesting and insightful as to where we have gone wrong theatrically as a nation and how we might go about fixing it. The first is titled, "The Wal-Marting of American Theatre (Part 2)" from Scott Walter's blog, "Theatre Ideas" where he address the problems surrounding the current and destructive focus being placed on the centralization of theatre in New York. The second is titled, "Drinking the Theatrical KoolAid" from Tom Loughlin's blog, "A Poor Player" where he discusses the lack of effort of placed on calling for reform among theatrical artists, particular at theatre conferences. My comments to both these well written posts can be found below as well as at their respective sites.

The Wal-Marting of American Theatre (Part 2)
Comment

Scott, you insightfully write, “Theatre by definition is a local art form, not a mass medium; a performance exists only in one place at one time.” I could not agree more. Actually, it would be impossible for me to disagree since the fact is ingrained in the basic definition of theatre. More importantly, I agree that this fact must be embraced. It was one of the key characteristics that truly sets the theatre apart as a unique art form. Quite simply, theatre is not film. A theatrical performance will never reach as many people as a cinematic one and thus, theatre actors should not try to be movie stars. They should strive to serve communities with this gift of localized art. Contrary to popular belief, New York City is definitely not the only community that needs or is worth serving.

Thus, the only way to reach more people with the power of theatre is to decentralize. But what is our first step? It seems to me that education would be a good place to start. As a soon to be graduating theatre student I can offer insight from my personal experience that it has long since been ingrained in my mind that the only places to seriously pursue a career in the theatre are New York City and Chicago. It has recently dawned on me that this train of thought is not very fair to the thousands of other communities in our country. Perhaps if our theatrical education systems made a point to equally encourage alternate, nation-wide career paths in the theatre, then we can begin to reverse the this harmful trend of centralization, and, like you wrote, minimize the loss of young talent.

However, wherever the performance happens to take place, I believe what must be served first and foremost is the community of our humanity – that is, the universal human condition. It is a localized system in itself, and an equal “sense of place” that we should strive to represent – while of course respecting and honoring the natural and specific location of a particular production. In doing so, and in order to bring out the truths of a script, it may be necessary for an actor to transform him or herself by the dictates of the truthful excavation of the text – and if this is best done by switching to “neutral” or changing a particular accent then so be it. As you wrote, it is by no means necessary to erase an accent completely. After all, the wonder of regional dialects is an equal part of our humanity and it is thus profoundly beautiful.

Drinking the Theatrical KoolAid
Comment

Your post raises some very valid and relevant problems that face that the theatre right now. It has also been my experience that there are few people who want to truly address what is wrong with the American stage and how we can make it right. I find it incredibly fascinating and unfortunately insightful that your experience with the keynote address and Beth Leveal was dominated by discussion of how to “succeed on broadway and be like her.” I think that we can agree that American theatre does not need any more Beth Leveal success stories. What it desperately needs is radical success and reform stories, and this is what should be addressed and encouraged in any theatre conference. From my experience, your discussion of theatre majors is right on the nose. As a soon to be graduating theatre student myself, I have been exposed to several instructors and several working and successful guest speakers. Not one of them has ever pointed out anything wrong with theatre or offered any encouragement or advice on how to fix it. It has consistently been advice and encouragement of how to become successful in the current and broken theatrical model.

I am eager to hear your future thoughts on the issue and how you think we can go about changing. To me, it seems that theatre education is one of the best (If not the best) places to begin addressing the problems. If instructors and guest speakers can begin planting seeds that may inspire students to think twice before drinking the “Theatrical KoolAid” as you put it, I think then we may start seeing reform and revolution against the current flawed system. As far as what that reform entails, I tend to agree with Scott that the decentralization of the theatre is one of the major necessary reforms that will allow theatre to reach its full life-changing potential. Any thoughts you would like to share on the issue are always welcomed.

The Global Stage Celebrates: Thoughts on World Theatre Day

For this week’s post I decided to discuss the recent celebration of World Theatre Day on March 27th. (See below, left) Being extremely relevant to the scope of this blog I could not ignore the exploration of the holiday's implications. In my search, I found that the perspectives of the celebration were actually quite controversial. It seems that some actually look down upon the holiday, viewing it as a feeble attempt to inflate the importance of theatre. Though they raise legitimate points, their arguments fail to acknowledge the ill state of the under-inflated theatre that is very much in need and deserving of a day dedicated to eye-opening recognition. Coinciding with the rise of color television, the holiday was originally created in 1961 by the International Theatre Institute. It seems that theatrical artists felt the pinch of potentially becoming obsolete in favor of a colorful living room box, and thus created the holiday to give the theatre an extra boost in hopes of surviving the new technologically advanced mode of entertainment. Each year on March 27th the day stands to continue this tradition and special theatrical events are produced all over the globe.

Providing dimension, our lead celebratory antagonist - our literary party-pooper, Kelly Nestruck, argues in his post titled, “Who Cares About Theatre Day?”, that the celebration of World Theatre Day is counter-productive to the survival of the theatre. In his post he argues, “[World Theatre Day’s] existence implies that theatre is in crisis.” He claims that there is no need to have a specific day of celebration because that celebration occurs every time a play opens its curtains to its audience. He continues to say that such a celebration screams, "Save Our Thesps." much like Earth Day screams, “reduce, reuse, recycle!” Nestruck believes that theatre is in no way in a state of demise - that because it has survived the collapse of ancient Greeks, the golden years of Egypt, the Puritans, and even the infamous Oliver Cromwell, it will most likely outlive the wonder that is television. The reason for his negative opinion about World Theatre Day perhaps might be summed up in Nestruck’s following sentence, “…when theatre proponents aren’t fretting about the death of their beloved art form, they’re inflating its importance to preposterous levels…World Theatre Day’s organizers invite a ‘figure of world stature…’ to share his or her reflections on the theme of theatre and a culture of peace.” Nesturck's low opinion of theatre in general may truly lie at the heart of why he sees no need to celebrate this art form. Therefore, it is this attitude that may be a deeper problem with the understanding of theatre and its uniting life-changing potential.

Not surprisingly, I disagree with Nestruck's cynical perspective. Rather, I prefer Brazilian Theatre director, Augsto Boal’s outlook as he delivered the 2009 World Theatre Day message on March 25th. In his address he optimistically describes the importance of the theatre, and thus the importance of such celebrations to recognize it. He says, "One of the main functions of our art is to make people sensitive to the “spectacles” of daily life… By doing theatre, we learn to see not what is obvious but what we usually can’t see because we are only used to looking at it. What is familiar to us becomes unseen: doing theatre throws light on the stage of daily life.” If any institution has the goal of enriching people’s lives – of opening an audience’s eyes to the wonder of life and humanity around them, then I believe it deserves all the celebratory holidays it can get. It deserves all the attention and recognition to bring a greater awareness of its profound and saving power – not unlike a religion. World Theatre Day is not an inflation of theatre's importance, as Nestruck would put it, but rather an attempt to raise awareness to its already present sacred and monumental importance. 

Then where have we gone wrong as a nation? As I have written in other posts, theater in this country is suffering as an art form, with 85% of the theatre-going population made up from the top 15% of America's economic class. It is simply not reaching the populations it needs to in order to carry out its greater purpose. In taking a close look at World Theatre Day, I saw it as a great opportunity to examine how other countries around the world approach theatre, which may shed some light as to how we can fix the American stage. Classic playwright, Arthur Miller (Pictured right) offers some wonderful insight as to what exactly is wrong with theatre in this country. In an article titled, “Subsidized Theatre,” he writes that the problem facing American Theatre is the fact that business has taken theatrical control from artists. He insightfully writes, “...the businessman is doing the artist's job. He is selecting both the plays and artists who will direct and act them. This is the inevitable result of the prime wrong, namely, that the only people permanently attached to theatrical production are the businessmen. Standards of art are therefore their standards. The artists are merely ‘called in,’ like the ushers or the box office men.” He claims that in returning the decision-making power to the artist, it will return a sense of competition among theatrical practitioners everywhere that will inevitably lead to better and more prominent theatre. I completely agree with Miller that the insatiable quest for money is truly harming the potential of theatre. But does that mean that capitalism is the enemy of theatre? Can the two traditions coexist successfully? No it isn't and yes they can. I embrace capitalism, and I am very thankful for the American way of life that it has paved. Art and theatre, however, could and should be a nice break from this "Money, money, money" mindset. It is a sacred time to remind an audience of the basics of life, to lift the curtain of daily monotony that inevitably falls between us and what is truly fundamental and important to our existence - our universal humanity, relationships, the roses, etc. etc.  

So we must liberate the theatre from the grip of capitalism. This is tough, as a commitment to art over a commitment to financial gain can make it quite difficult to sustain oneself. In a perfect world, and perhaps one day, this priority commitment to art and the audience will be respected and recognized and this recognition will be reflected in audience attendance, allowing the artist to sustain himself. But we have to get there. In the previously mentioned article, Miller points to the common European approach to theatre as a potential guide for America. He recalls examples from the French, Russian, and English Government subsidized theatre, claiming that financing for the theatre, "... could come from the city government or it could be raised privately and run privately." The models set forth by these European theatrical traditions, such as the city and regional subsidized theatre companies of Great Britain and Germany, are possible examples of ways to provide American  artists with the essential artistic freedom from money-minded business men that is necessary to save the theatre and its artists from the dictates of capitalism. I stand with Miller and Boal and feel that these are some definite changes that must be made to allow theatre to exist as what it truly is - something to celebrate. 

The Poor Playhouse: Making Theatre Accessible During Economic Crisis

After last week’s discussion on the accessibility of art and its perpetuating roots in our current education system, I turn my attention this week to the more specific accessibility of the art of theatre in American society. Though always a prevalent topic of discussion, the issue takes on new shades of gray under the light (Or perhaps lack of light) of our current economic recession. It seems with the introduction of any sort of budget cut that funding for the arts is the always first to go. This lovely trend masterfully captures the imbalanced degree of priority given to the arts, as discussed in my preceding post. I would like to further examine this misperception in terms of theatre, particularly under the context of our rapidly changing economy. I believe that the theatre’s accessibility lies at the heart of the problem and it must be changed now more than ever.

As Scott Walters discussed in his interview on Theatre is Territory, the basic and sad reality of American theatre is that 80% of the theatre-going population is made up of the top 15% of America’s economic class. This, to say the least, is a problem. The solution, with all inherent complexities considered, is definitely not as clear-cut as what the solution is not. The solution is not to cut back theatre productions in response to a declining economy. The solution is not to centralize theatre in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles. The solution is not to minimize government funding for the arts. Rather, with the aid of government funding, we must spread the magic of theatre everywhere. Especially necessary during the isolating hard times of economic recession, theatre wields the power to bring communities together. We must thus redirect our focus to smaller productions and more of them. These productions, with corresponding smaller production costs, should be performed everywhere – in towns across the nation, and anywhere – outdoors, indoors, on the subway, wherever. This will cut ticket costs dramatically and offer the general public a realistic alternative to the weekend cinematic flick, while simultaneously bringing people of a community together in a community-exclusive form of artistic expression and entertainment. I read two blogs recently that offer further insight on this issue. The first is a post titled Tough times are no time to cancel shows by Chris Jones from his blog, Theater Loop where he discusses the recent counter-productive cancellations of shows on the Chicago theatre scene (Pictured below right) in response to the economy. The second is titled Obama’s NEA (Pictured below left) by The Playgoer, where he discusses an insightful solution to government funding for the theatre. I have commented on both these posts, which can be seen below as well as at their respective sites.

Tough times are no time to cancel shows
Comment

This is a great post that raises some truly valid points. The parallel between Chicago Theatre and Hollywood is extremely telling in itself. I agree that theatre in general must find someway to make ticket prices consistently as low as movie ticket prices. Along with a community-based advertising campaign that more closely mirrors that of Hollywood movies - that is, it finds a way to reach the greater public, I feel that more shows need to be produced in this spirit of reaching the masses with theatre. Understanding that high-production costs in no way reflects the high-art of theatre, more theatre artists must strive for low-budget productions that find ways to create theatre anywhere and everywhere. As you said in your post, the current era requires more simple productions. These efforts at simplicity will liberate theatre from the expensive proscenium, allowing for more affordable ticket prices that will help open the art form to the mass public. Big budget productions will still always have their place. The top 15% of America's economic class that currently dominates theatrical audiences can continue to frequent these shows, and the rest of us can continue to indulge every now and again. But I firmly believe that until theatre finds a way to reach the other 85%, its purpose as an art form cannot truly be fulfilled.

As you wrote, there are currently several productions out that closely reflect the price of a movie ticket. I am curious to hear your opinion of why these productions are failing to reach the mass public. To me it seems to be an issue of advertising. I know that here in LA, the only productions I ever hear about (without going out of my way) are the big commercial hits such as Wicked and Rent. This is truly a deceptive representation of the available theatre, and it pains me to know that public simply is not aware of all the many productions that carry great artistic value. We need to find a way to get the message out, and we need to make sure that it’s an affordable one so all can benefit from the truly profound power of theatre.


Obama’s NEA
Comment

This is a very insightful post that offers a realistic and practical solution to the problems facing theatre and the economy today. I very much appreciated the quote from Paul Almedia to open your post as it provided a wonderful sense of contextual hindsight before laying down the points of your argument. I completely agree that the power of government funding for the arts is best left in the hands of the state. Under the control of the Federal government, I fear that theatre would run the risk of becoming oppressively political, as you exemplified with the potentially controversial federally funded productions of plays such as The Larimie Project and Angels in America. It seems that artistic creation would inevitably have to battle political institutions to make any sort of controversial stance, which would no doubt be harmful to the voice of theatre. I also agree with Rlewis above that the United States is simply not ready for any type of cabinet level arts position. As a nation we are not anywhere near the level of appreciation for the value of the arts that is necessary for a position of this nature to be taken seriously.

Especially during our current economic struggles, something must be done to make theatre more affordable and more accessible to the masses. Your proposed state-level funding may just be that something. It would allow for a more appropriate appropriation of funds, given each state’s unique artistic identity. However, as you wrote, state funding for the arts is unfortunately being placed on backburner during this recession. This is quite expected considering the level of priority given to the arts in society, which is an entire problem in itself. Until this general misperception of art is challenged and reversed, I don’t foresee any real change coming from government level in increasing theatre’s accessibility. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, as well as how you think we can begin to break down these incorrect notions of theatre and the arts to pave the way for a greater acceptance by society and a greater availability for society.

The Luxury of Art: Accessability, Value, and Perception

K-12 public education in the United States is unquestionably dominated by the pursuit of math and English. Though it is further supplemented with regular doses of science, history, and foreign language, it is clear in examining any public education curriculum that math and English reign supreme and are valued above all other subjects. Art is quite a different story. It is quite simply valued the least and given an unacceptably minuscule amount of educational representation. This trend of shafting the arts from developing members of society begins in the classroom and blossoms into a full societal lack of appreciation for the value of the arts. The recent congressional introduction of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act as a part of the economic stimulus package places the issues of art in education and society directly in the spot light. The act includes an increase in budget of $10 million for the National Endowment of the Arts, providing an important step in the right direction. More, however, is needed. Much, much more. The issue is not simply a financial one. What is truly necessary is a society-wide paradigm shift in artistic philosophy. The intrinsic value and nobility present in the pursuit of the arts must be excavated out from under the oppressive forces of ingrained neglect. This change must begin in our collective approach to education and must further spread to our societal values as a whole.

But how to implement this change? Beginning with education, in deciding a curriculum the question to be asked is, “What is important for our children to learn?” Somewhere along the line somebody said, “Not art,” and sometime shortly after a lot of people said, “I agree.” I write this blog to state strongly that I do not agree. I, in fact, disagree. To provide an answer to the question at hand, I propose a more encompassing curriculum. In no particular order, my answer would read something like, "ART, English, science, history, math, and foreign language." I fully agree that the base subjects that are currently being taught are extremely important and should continue to be a strong focus in education – the world will always need literate doctors, historians and engineers that can communicate on an international level. The world, however, also needs art. It is not simply a matter of extraneous fluff – it is not frosting on the cake of life. Art represents the bready part of the cake just as much as the next professional field and it should be treated as thus. It is the quest find and share meaning in our humanity, and I am forever thankful to artists who take on this responsibility for the benefit of others and the betterment of the world. It is beyond me how the pursuit of art has become devalued to a degree of so little importance, but something tells me that it has to do with money. In my opinion, education should not simply be about training moneymakers, but rather preparing young minds to dedicate themselves to what is important in life. Art is important, and we should thus nurture artists with the same intent as the current accepted curricular subjects. It is a great injustice that it is given so little attention and the fact that art it is in some cases cut out entirely from education is nothing short of a crime against humanity. The superintendent of public instruction of Arizona State, Tom Horne, summed it up beautifully: “When you think about the purposes of education, there are three: We're preparing kids for jobs. We're preparing them to be citizens. And we're teaching them to be human beings who can enjoy the deeper forms of beauty. The third is as important as the other two."

Beyond the issue of underappreciated representation, there is great evidence to suggest several benefits are to be derived from arts education. According to a study published by American for the Arts, Children who regularly participate in a comprehensive arts program are four-times more likely to be elected to class office, four-times more likely to be in a math or science fair, and four-times more likely to win an award for writing (See right). So whether policy makers share my philosophies on the merits of art or not, it is clear that implementing regular education in the arts is a win-win. I believe that the seeds planted early on in making art an important part of a child’s scholastic curriculum will eventually lead to a society-wide greater appreciation for the value of the arts and its pursuit. Currently, the tiny amount of time dedicated to nurturing art in the classroom makes a clear-cut statement to the student: Art is simply not as important as the rest of their studies. This mentality becomes ingrained in us at such an early age and is naturally carried on throughout our adult lives. I truly believe that making the change of how art is taught in our educational system is the first step to reversing this imbalanced and harmful societal perspective.

Finding Art: Philosophies and Perspectives

I can think of few philosophical questions that are as stereotypically loaded as the following three words: What is art? Perhaps it is a close second to the existential questioning of the meaning of life. Convoluted connotations aside, defining art and its role in society are not easy tasks. With the amount of stuff in the world today, separating earthly creations into categories of art and non-art will inevitably seem unapproachably daunting without the presence of a firm philosophical artistic perspective. Since the scope of this blog revolves around the arts, I felt it necessary and conducive to clearly define my own personal perspective on art and its sacred role in society.

For me, the artist himself must begin with a perspective. This perspective, dealing with a particular facet of life or even life itself, dictates the artist’s creation. It must be created with the goal of communicating a philosophical point of view to the audience. When this has been accomplished, art has been created. When this investment in artistic communication has been neglected, what is created can be labeled as entertainment at best. To shed further light on artistic ideology, I decided to explore this question in the blogosphere and interact proactively with fellow bloggers in the theatrical field. I will first examine a post by Scott Walters (Pictured below, left) titled, “It’s Not About You” from the his blog, “Theatre Ideas,” where he uses a recently published career guide to articulate his own ideas of art and the role of the artist. Next I will consider a post by Tom Loughlin (Pictured below, right) titled, "On Awards" from his blog, "A Poor Player," where he examines the implications that award ceremonies have on the arts. My responses to both posts can be found below as well as at their individual sites.

"It's Not About You"
Comment:


This post is simply a breath of philosophically charged theatrical fresh air. It is truly great to hear the focus being put back on the audience. I completely agree with your view of theatre as a gift to the audience. In my training as an actor I have unfortunately seen that far too few people in the field carry this humble perspective, and as a result the creation of truthful art on stage becomes severely underscored with ego.

I must thank you for the beautiful analogy of the artist lifting the scrim that has fallen between the audience and life. It is a wonderful visual metaphor that truly captures what I have felt in my heart to be my role as an artist. In considering art as an act of generosity, I have come to recognize the nobility of the artist's mission. It is a great shame that the quest is not better respected in society, but as you stated in your post, we have a plethora of egotistical "artists" to blame for the reputation. I look forward to doing everything in my power to fuel the New Renaissance that this artistic credo, if embraced, might inspire.

I am curious to how you believe this perspective applies to the world of avant-garde theatre. I understand the importance you place on risk taking and failure in the theatre, but, as I am sure you are aware, the attempts at abstract and experimental theatre often leave the audience behind in a spectacle of self-indulgent shapes and talking lamps. Do you believe it is possible to include the audience in an abstract theatrical journey - to give the gift of art through abstraction - or is it by nature a self indulgent form? If you believe it can be done, what stipulations would you place on a production to ensure its success?

"On Awards"
Comment:

This post raises some very interesting and relevant issues. If art is to be a humble act of generosity then the pursuit of awards doesn't seem to quite fit in. Personally, I feel that awards ceremonies send two conflicting messages: On one hand they recognize artists who humbly create art as a gift to their audience. The work of these artists reflects a strong commitment to the service of the play of film above themselves, and rightly they deserve the recognition that an award brings. On the other hand, as you have written in your post, it does a great deal of harm to the creation of art. With the grand spectacle that accompanies most ceremonies, it seems to place a huge, enticing focus on the obtainment of awards. Thus, acting and theatre suffer as emerging theatrical artists adopt this ego-driven award-mentality and choose to showcase themselves before giving the audience the gift of art. If awards could simply exist as byproduct of the humble and generous creation of art then I would fully support them. Unfortunately they all too often become an end in themselves and the true purpose of theatre and the arts, the audience, is forgotten.

I would love to hear an elaborated opinion of what harm you believe award ceremonies to be inflicting on professional theatre and the training of actors. I'm also curious if you see any possible way to give the deserved recognition to true artists while not encouraging ego-driven pseudo-artists. If not, do you believe that award ceremonies should be abolished completely? I also found your discussion on the lack of truth found in the money-driven movies emerging from Hollywood fascinating and I feel it could be easily paralleled with the big money-makers on Broadway. Considering the power that money wields in society, this struggle between art and entertainment seems to be an inevitable issue that unfortunately won't be going away anytime soon.

Colorful Casting: Racial Insight Through Mamet’s Oleanna

David Mamet, master playwright himself, has raised some eyebrows in his time. Though it can be argued that this is the success of all great playwrights, Mamet is quite a unique case. His success in controversy consistently extends past the themes found within the pages of his literary and dramatic achievements such as Sexual Perversity in Chicago and American Buffalo. His fiery approach to the productions of his plays seems to inspire just as many, if not more, headlines than the plays themselves. Case in point: Oleanna. The Los Angeles journey of his three-act, two-person drama is not only controversial but also extremely telling in itself. It sheds important insight on relevant racial issues that continue to surround both society and theatre, raising heated questions of the appropriateness of color-blind casting. Though some thoughtfully and rightfully fight for equal opportunity amongst racial divides in the theatre, it is a practice that most often results in the tragic loss of thematic truth. Oleanna, as our case study, reveals these concerns while, interestingly enough, carrying virtually no racial themes on the page.

To begin with the end of this journey, it was announced last week that Mamet’s play will finally be produced at the prominent Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles as the third production in the Taper’s 2009 season. Considering Mamet’s prestigious reputation, this feat was much easier said than done and did not come without the struggle of a 15 year effort. To recap, we must rewind to the year 1994. Mamet had finished his new work, Oleanna, and it was scheduled to premier at the previously mentioned Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. Controversy ensued with a battle between Mamet and the Taper’s artistic director, Gordon Davidson, over the casting of the leading male role. Mamet insisted that Lionel Mark Smith (See left), an African-American actor, play the role of John – an entitled professor who becomes accused of sexual harassment by one of his students. Davidson refused to give Smith the role, presumably arguing that the part should not be played by a man of color. Amongst talk of racial bigotry and the role of non-traditional casting, Mamet eventually gave up and took his play elsewhere to premier in a much smaller venue.

A decade and a half later, the play is once again scheduled in the Taper’s line up. Under a new artistic director and a more “traditional” white cast, the recent announcement of the upcoming production undoubtedly stirs up old sediments and places the questions raised by Mamet’s original attempt at non-traditional casting back in the spotlight. It grants us the opportunity to examine our social progress in terms of racial stereotypes and inequalities since 1994 and allows us to further define the current role that race plays in the controversial element of casting. The question to be asked is simple: From today’s perspective, a Tuesday morning in the winter of 2009, to what degree should directors consider race in the casting of a play? A question likely to inspire vehement and opposing opinions, it is my personal belief that the answer is, in two words, a lot.

The practice of color-blind casting – essentially disregarding race completely when casting a show –must be employed with great caution. Proponents of this approach argue that it is a legitimate way to increase employment opportunities for underrepresented minority populations in the theatre. The Alliance for Inclusion in the Arts (See below), formally known as the Non-Traditional Casting Project (NTCP), is a non-profit organization that advocates these causes and works for the greater theatrical representation of these populations. In their mission statement they declare their aim is to, “…promote inclusive hiring practices and standards, diversity in leadership and balanced portrayals of persons of color and persons with disabilities. The Alliance considers diversity a comprehensive issue which extends to the participation of those who make up the artistic team…” These are noble quests that I am ready to commend with the single stipulation that the efforts made in the name of racial equality do not in any way undermine the thematic truth of a play, which seems to occur all too often. I agree that diversity is an important and comprehensive issue in the arts, and more plays should be produced to explore these themes. But if a play is not about racial diversity, I believe it is innately wrong to push this theme upon it . Which is precisely what happens as directors, time and time again, overstep their artistic position of interpretation and superimpose racial themes on a play through unexpected racial casting. Through this practice, the director is unarguably making a political racial statement that most often undermines the playwright’s work while selfishly serving his or her own political agenda.

Again, more plays should definitely be written and produced about these underrepresented populations, and it is unfortunate that they’re not. The solution, however, is not to sacrifice the audience’s understanding of a play in order to provide work for actors. As an actor, I believe wholeheartedly that the theatre is not about my paycheck, it's not about me getting the job. It's about the audience. Of course it is my goal to support myself within this art form, but if I see that there is somebody else who can better serve the story, I would gladly step aside - for the benefit of the audience. One of the most obvious examples of this trend is the color-blind casting of siblings or family members of mixed race. The brains behind this casting argue that an audience member will get used to the inconsistencies, thus providing more work for underrepresented actors. This non-traditional approach, however, accomplishes one of several things:

A. It confuses the audience
B. It suggests a back-story that is not present or supported in the playwright’s original text
C. It undermines the themes of the play with racial political agendas
D. All of the above

No ticket-paying audience member should ever be put through this. It is an unjust sacrifice the audience is asked to endure for the benefit of the actor. In my opinion, this is one of the major theatrical fouls an artist can commit, as the theatre, at its heart, is never about the actor. It should always be a gift to the audience, given with humility so the audience can explore the wonders of their own lives. Every decision in the industry should thus be made with the collaborative and humble intent of communicating as clearly as possible the truth of a play to allow for this exploration. It’s not about giving actors work. It’s about giving the audience the gift of examining life.

Going back to Mamet, would the casting of an African-American for the part of John have undermined the play? Most likely not, especially considering that the playwright himself was the one pushing this casting. A key point to note in this case study is that the character of John was not written as a white man or a black man. He was simply written as a man, and consistently there are no racial themes found in the play. Thus the specifics of the actor’s race should be given little, if any, weight. The problems with color-blind or non-traditional casting arrive when a character is specifically written with a particular ethnic background. Though not always the case, the decision to alter the written race of a character most often leads to the loss of the playwright’s thematic intent. On the other hand, there are times where non-traditional casting can actually further support the themes of a play. In these instances, departures from the traditional in casting should actually be encouraged as it may perhaps reinforce the universality of a play or support some other embedded theme. Though not as common, it is an important possibility to note as it again places the focus on finding and protecting the truths of a play, and thus helps define when this type of casting is appropriate. As Jack Marshall clearly articulated in his essay, Non-traditional Casting, “…the key questions are what the objective of the work really is, and whether non-traditional casting helps it, undermines it, or makes no difference at all.” The recent events surrounding Oleanna reminds us of these delicate decisions that must be made in determining a cast for a production. I believe that as theatrical artists we must always strive to serve the play for the greater service of the audience, first and foremost. It is my hope that in the future, audiences and playwrights will unconditionally be given this deserved respect, but with the amount of politically driven artists in the world today, the temptation to meddle may forever be too strong to resist.

Setting the Stage: The Beginnings of Theatrical Presence in the Blogosphere

Firstly, I am humbled and honored that you have taken the time to read the opening sentence of this inaugural post. Thank you. In turn, it is my sincere hope that this blog will come to bring you nothing short of inspiration - entertaining and illuminating inspiration.

I myself have found great inspiration in my training as an actor at the University of Southern California. I have discovered a deep appreciation for the arts as well as a newfound respect for the sacred role that theatre holds in society. The exploration of this role, as well as the broader concerns of the arts in general, will be the basic scope of this blog.

I begin this journey with a gift: my linkroll. I have searched the wide and worldly web, using prominent internet directories and search engines, for the most relevant sites to this theatrical area of inquiry and have added them to the linkroll section (See right). I have included only sites of the highest quality, following two established sets of site-judging criteria. The first is the guidelines set forth by The Webby Awards (See left), which evaluates web sites based on content, structure and navigation, visual design, functionality, interactivity, and overall experience. I used a second set of standards, the IMSA, to judge the quality of any included blogs in the linkroll. The IMSA defines a clear and concise rubric to evaluate the validity of any blog, an important tool when considering the astronomically large number of blogs currently circulating the blogosphere. The sites that made the cut include commercial sites such as Playbill, individual blogs such as The Clyde Fitch Report, and group blogs such as Culture Monster, and are all here for your curious and intellectual convenience.

Let the show begin.