These comments are technically outside the scope of this blog, but the editor did -arguably- open the door to this post in responding to a comment on the "Leading Ladies" post. So, it stands.
BG--
I can’t resist responding to a posting by Actress34, ostensibly in response to a review of a show at ACT, though the focus of the thread had morphed by then. Consider this, then, a review of a review?
I’ll reprint Actres34’s comments here, for the benefit of those who may have missed them:
“The sad thing is that NC Stage could be turning a profit....the problem is that most of us get sick of seeing the same 5 people on stage all the time. Or is it really wise to put the staff in every production? Isn't it called Show Business? If your show isn't turning some kind of profit than I am afraid you are missing the business part of it. I bet the Catalyst shows turn profits because they are using local people on-stage. I mean wouldn't it be nice to see a show with different people in it every now and again?”
She seems to be trying to make two points. One: NC Stage could –and, by inference at least, should-- be making money by casting “local people” and by not casting the “same 5 people … all the time. Two: Catalyst shows probably do make money because they “use local people.”
Ok, I’m long-winded so here is the condensed retort: Seriously?
If you want the full version, here goes:
First let me just say that I agree that variety in casting is usually good. I too like to see fresh faces.
But, with all due respect, Actress34, are you seriously suggesting that NCSC could be making more money by refusing to hire the people they deem best to fill a role, just because they have worked for the company before or are on staff? Seriously?
(And for now, let’s just leave the idea of “making money”… NCSC is a not-for-profit organization, after all, not to mention a small theatre—which almost by definition means not a money maker.)
Of course no theatre can make perfect casting decisions all the time, and not every audience member will agree with every choice, but every theatre in town (or anywhere else for that matter) casts both from a wide net of sought-out talent and a reliable ensemble of trusted collaborators. Without this cadre, it can be prohibitively difficult to create an environment of trust and creativity in a short rehearsal time, and each theatre in town has developed their own reliable –and necessarily fluid—talent pool (with some crossover between companies). Of course, using all the same people all the time can be tiresome, but I personally think NCSC does a pretty good job of balancing that reliable group with exciting new talent from Asheville and beyond. Personally, I regret that you are “sick of seeing” a certain “5” people at NCSC and I hope I’m not one of them, but I still gotta pay the bills, and this is my job. And I love it. And because I keep getting hired by NCSC and other challenging regional theatres, I am able to keep getting better at it, I hope.
And the second point: Catalyst shows make money? And they do so because they “use local people”? Seriously?
As a sometime Catalyst producer myself, let me say that the NCSC Catalyst model allows producers –if they are careful— to not lose their shirts. But as for “making money,” I’ve never heard of a Catalyst show actually turning a profit. In my companies, at least, any earned income goes to subsidize a meager portion of the time my actors, crew, and creative staff have dedicated to the project. A small amount is reserved as a nest egg for the next production. That’s it.
And Catalyst companies are as guilty, if not more so, as any one else in town of relying on the same people for each show. And really I don’t think there is anything wrong with that (see above).
(Also, as a side note here, I can’t help but notice your use of the word “use”, as in “use local people.” Please keep in mind that NCSC “hires” people, local and out-of-town. Which is a huge difference. Again, no use saying more here—that is a separate discussion.)
Actress34, have you by any chance seen any of NCSC’s season this year? Take their first Mainstage show, Doubt: not one familiar face in the cast of four, and not many on the creative crew, either. Take this year’s incarnation of It’s a Wonderful Life: A Live Radio Play: one returning cast member from the year before, one actor who had been in a Mainstage show in 2006, and three actors brand new to NCSC. I could expand my thesis to include the rest of the season and beyond, but it’s not hard to come by season brochures or old playbills, so I’ll let you work out the rest on your own.
Sure, I recognize that I’m hardly in a position to suggest that NCSC stop hiring the same actors year after year: my career would be over. But I think your assumptions about how theatre works –certainly at NCSC— are wrong. I’m not suggesting you should agree with every casting decision, or that you aren’t allowed to not like seeing people return to the theatre year after year, but I do think that tossing around uninformed statements like your original post can be damaging to all parties involved. I’d rather be a part of fostering a real discussion that can ultimately help producers and audience members alike get more out of their experiences at the theatre. Maybe this is part of that. Maybe not. But that dialogue won’t be well served by bitter, absurd accusations on this blog or elsewhere.
Here’s to varied opinions, and informed critique.
Willie Repoley
10 February 2009
Review review
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
First, turn a profit is an interesting term. No NCSC's goal is not trying to create a hoard of money to unleash on that long awaited holographic Hamlet in 3-D for the 2012 season, but they are able to pay their staff to keep working for them. Having owned a 'catalyst company', some of us could easily misspeak and call that making a profit. Anytime I've ever been fortunate enough to pay people on a show even a fraction of what they're owed I walk away feeling as though the show turned a profit. I don't hold so much of a grudge with that part of actress34's remarks because nonprofit means a lot of things, but so does community theatre. Everything's in varying shades of gray of who's getting paid and how much and what's in the bank.
2. "I bet the catalyst shows turn profits because..." It says I bet the catalyst shows. Yes, she doesn't know that catalyst shows don't make money. She's either not a producer or worked on a really successful catalyst show, niether of which makes her ignorant.
C. The repetitive casting thing is an issue on everyone's plate. And it's quite relevant in this town. The majority of our city's theatre companies are cliquier that a high school cafeteria. This is a problem that everyone faces. North Carolina Stage Co. certainly did not bring it to town with them, but I don't think it's fair for ncsc or anyone affiliated with this blog to try and say that they are immune to this problem. It's one we've all got and while we can all recall shows where it happened in our respective cliques to a lesser extent, it doesn't mean we can wipe the rules to those exceptions off of the slate and skip merrily away.
-On a subnote, I think we could all be advised (and I direct this at a few companies) that even constantly holding sham auditions would probably perk up the casting pool morale in this town. That last part was kind of a sarcastic joke...kind of.
IV. And here's a bit of a larger pet peeve. I think talking about things on a show by show basis is wonderful, but we've had three really worthwhile discussions I can recall on this little blog and they all stemmed from show discussions. occasionally, when those discussion take place, sometimes someone cooler than me gets to mutter the words "i don't know if the blog is really the place for this" or some version of that. Well this blog is what we make it and to me, the most lively discussions this blog has afforded relate not to how much someone liked or disliked a certain show but rather our format for discussing theatre, the format of expressing ourselves in theatre and the shape our 'theatre open-mic' night should take, and critiques on our respective ways of doing theatre and a sense of exclusion some are feeling from the process. Now that says to me that people love talking about shows but that there are broader issues some people would like to bring to the table. So yes, start a new thread if you like whenever that happens but if people want to talk about these things then it is relevant. I don't think we should just stick to only discussing shows and not touching on the politics, shape, and direction of theatre in this town and this blog itself. Down that road I really think we'll find a future website that gathers reviews for the shows of about three to five select area companies and that no one outside of the specific shows reviewed reads.
(5). I don't think her comments are bitter or absurd. They're half-cocked, yes, but then so are most of the things here that have actually started conversation. And part of me thinks that if she had thought through her argument more fully she may not have made it, and I wouldn't have made it, and our slightly passive aggressive theatre 'community' (tm) would have sat around waiting to work up the nerve to mention to each other one night in Usual Suspect when no one else was around that sometimes we like having open auditions.
Is she lacking an understanding of what goes on in the office of NCSC and of nonprofit organizations in general? Of course she is (and probably so am I) but I don't think that excludes one from the debate pool. As soon as one needs a background in taxes to discuss likes or dislikes of different area theatres then I think we're all going to have to admit we've given up the fight. :)
thanks all. One love.
Ryan
Well said, Ryan. Not sure exactly what I have to add to this- I've been cast in an open audition setting in this town, I have had open auditions, I have precast shows, and I have been precast in shows. Whenever you're dealing with a group of highly emotional, reactive, and grudge-bearing types (and I think we can all agree that theatre people can easily fit into this category, myself included) there is bound to be disagreement and discussion on the various casting and production practices in town, especially a small one like Asheville. I do agree with Ryan that lambasting Actress789 or whatever her name was for her comment in a separate link doesn't quite feel right, because the most interesting discussions on this forum have occurred in the comments section and singling her comment out almost felt like stringing her up publicly. However, perhaps Willie's efforts were more in line with pulling out a thread from the comments section and attempting to facilitate a discussion of the ideas therein separately from the Leading Ladies show thread, which, I have to admit, I wouldn't have noticed because I didn't see that show (although occasionally I peruse comments threads on shows I haven't seen just to see what the discussion is). Additionally, maybe Willie's efforts were indicative of the potential for separate theatrical community discussions that could happen on this blog, divorced from show reviews. Perhaps a weekly topic, or monthly, about audition protocol, or new venues/avenues for production, collaboration, or even discourse on things like guerrilla theatre and its potential in Asheville. Topics could be pulled from hot issues in review comment threads, even. I'd be into that. Anyone else?
As much as it pains me to say it, I don't think NC Stage should be in any way required to hire local actors. They are a professional theater company. You wouldn't tell a professional basketball team they should hire people from the local courts. There is a certain level of proficiency associated with the label professional. If they want to put on high caliber shows, they're going to want the best people. Would you want to tell the Orange Peel they should cut down on the traveling bands and hire more local acts? Maybe you could, but I don't think it would be in their best interests to do so. The same goes for NC Stage, it probably in their best interest to hire people who are dependable, and have proven they can deliver the goods, be they the same five Asheville actors or new faces from New York.
There are two distinctions worth making clear to the original poster.
One is the difference between commercial and non-profit. A commerical theatre collects money from investors, spends it on putting on a show, takes in money selling tickets, and returns any profit after expenses to the investors. Sometimes the sole investor is the producer.
A non-profit theatre collects money from donors, takes in money from ticket sales, pays its expenses, and never makes a profit that it returns to anyone.
Most commercial shows fail to make any profit after expenses. In fact, taken as a whole, the commercial theatre in America has a balance sheet roughly the same as the non-profit theatre, which is to say the amount of non-earned income (that is, non-ticket income) is the same. Another way of saying this is that the commercial theatre industry as a whole does NOT make a profit. Only individual shows do, SOMETIMES. Sometimes they make a large profit, but most don't. The rate is about 1 in 5.
This is all true because theatre is expensive to produce and has a absolute limit on the number of "units" (i.e., seats) that it can sell. In other words, it can't be reproduced and every subsequent performance incurs an expense that is relatively high compared to the market price for each seat sold.... unlike iPods, for example, which probably now cost apple about $5 cents apiece to manufacture. On Broadway a show might have weekly operating costs of $500K, and, say a theatre with 1000 seats (or 8000 seats per week with 8 performances). That means the show must sell over 60% of their seats at $100 each just to pay for that weeks expenses, not to mention slowly pay back the original costs of putting up the show, which can be several million dollars BEFORE anyone makes a "profit". Most Brodaway shows that do survive take a year or more to pay investors anything extra. Not the easiest way to make money.
A non-profit theatre usually has a mission of providing a variety of offerings over the course of a season, so the run of each show is limited, and so, therefore are the number of tickets. Imagine you had a theatre like NC Stage with 100 seasts. 15 performances equals 1500 seats. If you are lucky enough to sell 75% of your tickets at $20 each (about what people might pay around here), you'd have $22,500 in ticket sales. If you do a show with 8 cast member and rehearse for 3 weeks and run the show for each week, that means you could pay your actors $468.75 per week each. BUT WAIT, you have to pay for their health insurance, pension allowance, social security and medicare, too, so maybe now each actor gets $350 per week. But wait, we haven't paid the director, stage manager, or three designers, have we? Nor have we paid for the materials or labor to build the sets and costumes. Nor have we paid for marketing, or the office staff. Or rent for the space. Or insurance. Okay, so MAYBE we now have enough to pay each actor $175 per week. BUT WAIT, the actors union won't allow that, it's not enough. So what do we do? A show with four people, or with no union members? Does such little pay constitute a "profit" for those actors? No, it's not even a living wage. So what the theatre has to do is BEG FOR MONEY to do what they want to do in service of the community, and register with the government as a charity that can accept donations. Once that happens they are not allowed to make a so-called "profit".
The second important distinction is between amateur and professional. As far as finances go, in professional theatre, the workers get paid. This pay is part of the expense of putting on the show. Professional theatre may be commercial or non-profit, but in both cases, the actors, director, designers and tech staff are paid, along with the managers of the theatre.
Sometimes, people who are normally professionals work without pay because they want to and because there is not enough paying work available for them to get to do it otherwise.
It is important to note that a commercial show can pay out thousands of dollars in pay to everyone and make NO profit, just like General Motors can pay its workders and fail to sell enough cars and so lose money.
NC Stage is a professional non-profit theatre. The workers get paid and no one gets to keep any profit. If the theatre runs its operations in the black, it must use any leftover funds to fulfill the mission of the theatre, i.e., put into more plays, readings or educational outreach. They MUST do this because of their non-profit status. They do not pay taxes because there is no profit paid to anyone, and they ARE NOT ALLOWED to make a profit BY LAW.
Ideally, NC Stage would have local auditions AND auditions in New York, Atlanta and/or Chicago for every single show they do, to get the absolutely best available talent possible. However, they cannot afford to do that. Not only would the travel be expensive, but professional actors who work away from home must be provided transportation and housing, a significant additional expense.
NC Stage makes judgment calls about how much money to spend on out-of town talent, usually one or two people per show. Sometimes these professionals audition, and sometimes they are people that have worked with the company or a particular director before.
NC Stage also makes judgment calls about who is good enough to work in their theatre, and for particular roles. Which is to say, in their artistic judgment NC Stage decides who is a professional in that sense of the word. There are a limited number of such people in Asheville.
Furthermore, NC Stage is REQUIRED by its agreement with Actors Equity Association to "use" a certain number of union members. Anyone who makes theatre knows that consistency of quality or "level" within a production is important, so it really stands out if someone awesome is in the same scene with someone of far less experience. There are a limited number of people in Asheville who belong to the union AND a limited number of people of similar quality who are not. THIS is the reason you keep seeing some of the same people at NC Stage. In a bigger city you'd see a larger variety.
There is an artistic value to relationships, particularly given limited rehearsal time. Some people think that ensemble theatre can be the very best. That is, theatre created by people who consistently work together is freer, more nuanced, deeper, etc. In fact, the Royal Shakespeare Company currently hires a single company of actors for a three-year period. Some people might get tired of these actors but most people see this as a strength and enjoy seeing a qualified professional play a variety of roles.
I challenge the original poster to produce a season of plays, pay everyone involved enough money for them to pay their housing and food costs, pay all expenses in a timely manner, make a profit and pay the government taxes on that profit. While you're at it, hire different actors for every show, making sure none of them know each other and see what kind of results you get or if you attract an audience after that.
Of perhaps you'd just like a job? Get in the line, not just with other local actors, but with an increasing number of out-of-work Americans. Or if your complaint is that you don't see enough actors as an audience member, go to the movies. It's a lot cheaper anyway.
OR -- and I'm being serious here -- produce shows for fun and don't pay anyone or expect to make any money. Have another job that you love, rehearse plays on nights and weekends and use your savings and what little ticket money you take in to pay for other non-payroll expenses. Do it because you love it and make your own theater. It's called community theater and is an important and respectable part of the arts landscape. Lots of people like it better than professional theatre, for a variety of reasons.
Sorry for all the typos, I was going fast, but y'all get the point.
To say that Actress34 is ignorant of the financial and casting realities of the theatre (although she’s not now, if she read this far…) is not to say she is stupid, just to be clear.
But look, money stuff aside, it just doesn’t make any sense to direct one’s vitriol over "repetitive casting" at any one company when everyone from, say, Terpsichorps to Zealot is guilty of the same thing. As I said, I don’t think that’s always a bad thing, and it is done for a variety of reasons. (And I’m sure we all take turns being the “worst offenders.”) To single out NCSC –or any one else- is just silly. That’s all I’m saying.
I don't understand why casting the same actors repeatedly is a bad thing at all. It is nothing for anyone to feel guilty. It is actually and ideal to some people, a company. Do orchestras hire new players for every concert? Do ballet companies hire a new group of dancers for every new piece? It is only a product-oriented, actor-as-celebrity point of view that makes "variety" a so-called virtue.
Ryan, Lucia, well said. I will add a couple or three, things that I can't resist. One - NCSC affiliates: take what you agree with and throw the rest out; you can't please everyone. To engage openly and defensively doesn't particularly suit you, and takes the focus off any perceived "ignorance" on the original poster's part. The second is to Jason, I agree with you, BUT: if the team isn't nailing free throws or the band isn't selling tickets, it's time to rethink the team dynamic or replace the chick with the tamborine. The bottom line is the Asheville theatre community in general is so territorial (what territory?)that we are all shooting ourselves in our collective feet by not playing better together. We could all do better. We could all do worse. - Stephanie
Just for the record, my post was not endorsed, approved, or even seen by anyone at NCSC before I sent it. I'm a friend, collaborator, and sometime employee, yes, (I'm not actually on staff, though your designation of "affiliate" is fair, Stephanie) but my comments are just me speaking my own mind.
Thanks, all, for the comments.
thank you for correcting my ignorant use of ignorant (although to be fair if actress34's remarks had truly been absurd she would have called for the flynn-mcivers to be deported and replaced by diapered pandas whose innate juggling skills would bring joy to all).
all kidding aside, i actually agree with you willie. I'm not saying we show up at ncsc with torches and I agree with jason that as a professional company they get to have less of a responsibility to abide by any pressure to vary casting.
first off, I want to say I don't speak from my own experience as I've returned to acting for all of less than a month and have had a fine time so far. I also love ncsc and outside of thinking they could sometimes use an ari fleischeresque sort of chum to associate with I don't particularly think they need or want any advice on much.
2 things concern me here. On general principle I think it's unfair to totally exempt ncsc just because of politics and the fact that they can import. Much more importantly though, I don't want ncsc or any affiliate/associates' unhappiness over someone random calling them out over this to result in the subject getting a kind of Voldemort status. I know that's mostly paranoia on my part but like I said we have a pretty soft spoken crowd that gets easily intimidated at times.
I think Lucia's idea rocks my socks. threads on nonshow related discussions would be great. I think we'd have to find a way to choose topic of discussion as I think it's nice to shake it up outside of one viewpoint, but if we could find a satisfactory way that would own.
Now I'll agree with a friend of mine that actress34's comments applied more to ncsc a year ago. They're doing better. But there are still many companies in this area just casting safeties. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Well to me it gets annoying because it gets static. You don't hold auditions so Johnny 'newly moved to town' Thunder and Billy 'just doesn't happen to be union but still rocks' Lightning don't get to show off their stuff. So instead you end up with 2 or 3 guys who we've seen before a lot. As a random example I love John Crutchfield, but if you were to put him in every show I see this year then by the twelfth month I'm going to start critiquing his choice of footwear. It also seems to sell out the show to me, because instead of looking for the best talent you're grabbing a group of people who you think will sell tickets, theatre by the buddy system. I know it's business, but so was the Clash signing to CBS, and not everyone loved that move. I agree with you, ron, when you say ensemble has its advantages (although such companies don't usually cast the same actor as oberon, richard, benedict, and hamlet), but I think it's also true that repeat casting has its disadvantages just like reusing a set piece over and over again starts to get noticed (Oh if only any actor could get cast as often as an apple box!). I also think I should be able to avoid having to go see 'Rambo 9: Helicopter/Tank Chicken Redux' to see some fresh faces across from the old faces. To believe that a current casting structure is absolutely fine when i've heard complaints (just complaints for those dramatic readers, not empassioned rants that should cause you to barricade your door) from several directions is similar to the people who hear complaints about noshame but respond, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' or respond to criticism of a certain production with 'well obviously you didn't get it'.
I'm not saying it's a simple issue. There are endless exemptions and I don't think anyone here is entirely in the right or wrong. I do like and agree with Steph's almost utopian vision of all of us working together. It's not like we're anywhere near doing the opposite of that, but I do enjoy these little talks we have together. I actually find them productive.
oh, and just to excuse myself, my current internet is at kinkos and charged by the minute, so I apologize for any spelling or vocabulary errors.
And yeah, I actually do enjoy abusing deceased load-bearing animals. A lot.
ryan
I love the analogies in this thread.
I do want to say one last thing on this topic. I don't think it was supportive of this blog's purpose and direction so far to post a "review review", which basically was a public evisceration of ActressRandomDigits' comment. I do think starting a discussion about her comment was worthy and fitting, but I am reluctant to get behind the action of using this blog to single out particular people's comments (inane or not) to specifically, in a wholly new post, rip apart. I'm all for ripping apart arguments in the comments thread, as that's what's fun about them, but to publish a separate post? Really seemed wrong, and I think it sends the wrong message to those who may post here, like "if you say something deemed really incorrect we're going to devote a whole post to proving how terribly wrong you are." Not to mention how much it may deter someone from joining any particular discussion in fear of being hung out to dry if the blog's publisher deems fit. I'd just like this blog to remain impartial in so far as how it posts reviews and topics for discussion, and then in the responses it's a free for all. That's how it's been up until now, and I feel it's more appropriate.
palabra
Just for the record, NC Stage held open auditions last summer. As Ron mentions, we are required to hold EPAs as part of our Equity contract, but we took the extra step of opening those auditions up to any performer, union or not, who wanted to come in and read.
NC Stage tries to do most of its casting at one time, so as to be prepared for the entire season. If you are interested in attending our EPA, keep an eye out on our website for the date. In the meantime, you are always welcome to mail us a hard copy of your headshot and resume for our files.
Angie Flynn-McIver
Producing Director
North Carolina Stage Company
By the way, Lucia, you are absolutely correct to point out that starting a separate thread as a response to a review is out of the ordinary, and perhaps not a good precedent to set for a variety of reasons.
But it must also be said that --regardless of how the discussion had morphed-- Actress34's comments were not in any way related to the post under which they were filed. Based on the confrontational and somewhat erratic tone of her comments, it seemed clear to me that she was just lashing out at a perceived injustice, and had not given much thought to where her comments would or should be displayed. So you see, in my opinion, she started the new thread; I simply recognized that it had been started in the wrong place, and moved it. I certainly can’t speak for the producers of “Leading Ladies,” but it seems to me that a discussion of their production is a really inappropriate place to either lash out at a different producing organization, or to have a discussion about local casting habits.
So if a conversation about her comments was indeed “worthy and fitting,” as you suggest, I think it had to move to a new thread. If this new thread was not the best place to have this discussion, then neither was this blog. But that’s where it began, so that’s where it happened. I suppose the editors could just delete any post that strayed too far off topic, but then this discussion never would have happened.
And maybe it didn’t need to. But hey, it’s good for us to get all riled up every now and again, eh?
I agree with Willie that it is worth responding to the original post. It would be pretty easy to just ignore a public statement that is both uninformed and poorly argued, conflating the issues of financial and artistic success. But if it sparks a good discussion, why not follow the trail?
The reason I think that it is worth discussing is not because I think Actress34 should be reprimanded, but because the assumptions behind her comment should be addressed.
I am passionate to defend the theatre against the commercially oriented and solopsistic values reflected in her comments.
This debate is about the values we choose and the decisions we each make, or at least it should be.
This harkens back to an earlier debate regarding No Shame that touched on the issue of "community", a word that I pointed out is often used without a specfic definition or context. Just by using the word it seems, one asserts a view that "community" should be a prevailing value. This is not a black and white issue, but if one doesn't define the community, what does it really mean? In its current usage, it often strikes me as being used in place of "fair."
But there are worthy values that inform fiscal and artistic choices other than fairness. One of those values is that a theater is meant to serve its audience -- especially people who have no working relationship to the "theatre community", that is people who have a humane interest in the experience, not a professional interest. In that sense, a theatre may have little or no obligation to be fair to those in the "theater community". Sure we know each other, and no one really wants to fight (seriously), but there are fundamental differences at play here, and to that extent, we have not yet built a community organized around values on which we explicitly agree.
If we want a single community then we have to dig deeper and see if we agree on some fundamentals. At the moment I would say there are several "theater communities" in Asheville that overlap and mix to some extent, but those communities hold distinct values.
In my previous post, I tried -- perhaps too vociferously -- to get across my values and understanding of real pragmatic considerations.
As Angie points out, NCSC holds auditions every year. I'm sure anyone who asked them would find that they have employed many many different actors over the years. I am also very confident that they make casting choices based on their artistic standards, prudently tempered by fiscal considerations. But I am also fairly sure that showcasing actors per se is low on their list of priorities. Their mission is based on presenting material they feel may be valuable to audiences in the best way they know how. Actors (and others) are then hired accordingly.
Without discussing underlying values frankly, we risk speculating on one other's motives just because we don't agree with outcomes. Such ad hominem responses rarely move debates forward.
One of the values I hold is that the audience's experience is paramount. It has been my experience that many people who work in the theatre are far more sensitive to who works where and how often, than those who just want to experience an evening of stimulating theatre. This is true everywhere, not just in Asheville.
At some point, it may become painfully clear that a particular actor has "worn out his or her welcome" with local audiences. At that point, a different artistic choice would be wise, but it really shouldn't have much to do with fairness to the actor. What IS worth factoring in, in my view, is the value of ongoing relationships and the way that those relationships can both help artists grow and raise the quality of the work over time. My ideal of a well-funded, artistically vital theatre is one in which a resident company of artists has full-time employment. In those circumstances, longer rehearsals, more integrated projects, and regular and ongoing training would be possible. Those outcomes would be the point, including a real community based on shared values. Such a theatre company is rare in the United States for economic reasons, but also because of of other assumptions and values, which I'll leave to discuss another time... but I would like to say that NCSC does a good job of keeping artistic relationships going in spite of the fact that there are not enough opportunities (or funds) to employ everyone they would like to hire all the time.
Ok so time to weigh in.
I think that the original comments made by actress 35 or whatever while ill-placed in the blog were relevant and looks like hit a nerve. She brings up some good points.
Asheville is a big enough community to support a wide variety of talented performers, actresses and actors who for whatever reason have never been invited to audition or perform on the NC Stage. That's a relevant and true point. Hosting an open audition that is only advertised on a website does not make an open audition.
Yes, i agree that NC Stage is free to make whatever decisions they wish to make regarding their casting, scope of shows and artistic decisions. That is the jurisdiction of any theater company. But I do beleive that eventually theatres are harming their base with every show and season starts to look the same.
How many times have the same shows been remounted and remounted or the same company of actors graced the stage.
Mr. Bashford's comments are passionate. Must have helped being up at 2:44 on Valentines Day. As far as his successes I would love to comment on the show Macbeth and the overuse of flashlights that left us artistically starved and void.
Clearly, choices made do not always reflect the best of Asheville. Furthermore, is it Equity policy or ethical to cast local actors and have them supress their equity status or cast local actors and pay them far less than the folks being brought in to fill 'voids' that do not really exist.
Yes to answer one of the postings theatres do tend to sell more seats when the casts are varied and local.
There are plenty more talented folks in town, gracing any number of stages in town and across our region that are noticeably absent from the NC Stage...Yes, Willie, theatres would sell more seats by varying the talent that grace the boards...I recognize how hard it may be for you to see this from your unique position.
Right, Anonymous, I’ll run my theatre the way I want, you run your theatre the way you want, and NCSC will run their theatre the way they want.
But you want to start accusing folks of breaking Equity rules, you are looking for a knock-down-drag-out fight. So either back up your statements with facts, or keep your conspiracy theories to yourself.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed real ideas to this discussion. It has, for the most part, been a useful and informative thread, I think.
Willie
Dear Readers: Part of the mission of this blog is to present a wide variety of opinions about local theatre. The editor takes very seriously the mandate to present fairly all submitted points of view.
However, this does not include personal attacks. Please consider carefully the tone and intent of your posts. Previous posts that were not strictly reviews of shows were spirited discussions, but kept mostly on the side of true and honest debate.
While this current thread has included honest debate, it has been marred by a few comments that have veered dangerously close to personal attacks.
Please consider carefully the appropriateness of your comments to this blog before posting them. Postings emphasizing the personal over the professional will be edited or deleted.
And if anyone has a comment to make about a particular production, please go to the original entry for that show (or, if needed, send a new review to berngrier@gmail.com) and post your comments there.
Thanks very much
BG—
Hello !.
You may , perhaps curious to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may commense to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with offices around the world.
Do you want to become an affluent person?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!
I`m happy and lucky, I began to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to select a correct partner who uses your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://oqusuradel.arcadepages.com/rytaqys.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to become rich
Post a Comment