Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

New York Is Played: A Call to Arms

Posted by on Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM

5104/1240948228-1389628709_077939031a.jpg

Another thing about Austin—the heaps of artists who moved here from New York and say their friends and colleagues are abandoning the Rome of the 20th century for Portland, Austin, Seattle, and sometimes Chicago.

The local born-and-breds are saying the kinds of people who would've moved to New York 10 years ago are now staying put because a) it's cheaper, b) the market isn't as saturated, and c) the audiences are actually growing. Five years ago, Fuse Box began as a week of local shows in a warehouse. Ron Berry (the festival's sweet-hearted, chipmunk-cheeked director) says it's doubled in attendance and funding every year.

And if Austin and Portland can have TBA and Fuse Box—two of the best burgeoning performance festivals in the United States, festivals that fly in the people you want to see from all over the world—then what use is NYC? Because it's more cosmopolitan?

2b58/1240948557-2008292904.jpgNot really. As Jen Graves once said, it is the duty of the regional critic to fight the provincialism of New York. But you don't have to believe us hicks down in Podunk Holler.

Take it from Terry Teachout of the Wall Street Journal, the only national theater critic who actually flies around the country covering national theater, as he hands NYC critics—and American criticism in general—their asses. (The context: New York critics are slobbering over a production of The Norman Conquests by Alan Ayckbourn and moaning that Ayckbourn's plays aren't staged often enough in America. What they mean is his plays aren't staged often enough in New York. Seattle's ACT Theater, for example, can't go five minutes without staging an Ayckbourn play.)

What Teachout says:

...it so happens that Alan Ayckbourn's plays are produced with some frequency by America's regional theaters, a fact of which I'm aware because I'm the only New York-based drama critic who makes a habit of seeking out and reviewing these productions. Indeed, I may be the only New York-based drama critic who knows about them, even though some take place close enough to Manhattan for any critic with a dime's worth of initiative to go and see them.

You don't have to go to New York to see first-rate shows. You can see them in the place where you live, or in a city not too far from your home town—but save on the rarest of occasions, you can't read about them in Time or Newsweek or the New York Times.

It embarrasses me to say it, but most American drama criticism is provincial, and New York City is every bit as provincial in that regard as the smallest town in America. I'd like to see that change. ... I'd much rather be one of a dozen traveling critics—and until somebody joins me out on the road, I'll continue to be embarrassed for my benighted profession, which operates on the mistaken assumption that if it doesn't happen in New York or London, it isn't happening.

And Teachout, really, is the only one who's spent enough time on the road to know. The only disappointing thing about him: He mostly restricts himself to the so-called "well-made plays." (Not the strict definition, but you know what I mean.) New, experimental performance—the fun stuff, when it's done right, the stuff that will save live performance—suffers even more critical neglect. (Which is partly to blame for Nature Theater of Oklahoma's hyperinflated stock. The de-Suggests of No Dice has been a topic of conversation in Austin, as NTOO will perform it here.)

04d7/1240948846-pat.jpg
To review: New York is expensive, glutted, and provincial, and the burgeoning cities have the theaters and audiences that want to bring Ayckbourn and McDonagh as well as Dorky Park and Romeo Castellucci. They have festivals. They have their own great companies—the Rude Mechs in Austin, Teeth in Portland, Implied Violence and Zoe Scofield and locust and Pat Graney and WET and and New Century Theater Company and the rest of the players in Seattle.

So what, exactly, is so great about New York? (It's even losing its monopoly on musicals, as cities like Seattle get more pre-Broadway workshops and post-Broadway touring shows.)

Seattle should do two things: 1) Become the anchor city for a West Coast corridor, rock 'n' roll style, that trades work up and down I-5, and makes it profitable for companies from elsewhere to tour: Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles. 2) Get itself a festival like Fuse Box, with ambitions to grow to TBA size (There's no reason we couldn't—we have the resources and the audience, all we need is the will).

The world is shrinking and the landscape is flattening. We've got to do for our own selves. New York is played.

Photos of Seattle companies mentioned in this post.

 

Comments (26) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Brendan,

Your comments on "provincial" coverage of NY theater in general is right on, but what do you expect? NY theater coverage has ALWAYS been provincial, the same with its visual arts coverage.

But, the "NY is played out" line of reasoning doesn't help the PNW, nor any region for that matter. It's just wishful schadenfreude and it's not really integral to the kind of great recommendations that you posit. NY is what it is and Seattle is what it is; that doesn't have to mean superiority nor impossibility.

And generalizing by saying, "friends and colleagues are leaving (New York)," is like saying film actors and crew are leaving LA. For every 1 that leaves there are 3 more that show up the next day.

The points are good, just leave behind the "NY is crumbling" angle. It only undermines the legitimacy of ANY region's arts when they must be constantly compared to someone's estimation of NY's dominance or ruin.
Posted by Someone who has live in both cities on April 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM
2
@ 1: I'm not arguing NYC is crumbling to ruins, just that it's losing dominance as the go-to city for young artists. The central idea: The landscape is flattening. But "New York is played" is more fun to say.
Posted by Brendan Kiley on April 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM
3
But do you really, really believe that NYC is losing its "dominance as the go-to city for young artists"? That's much different than simply saying the landscape is flattening. The former still has that sense of wish-fantasy that I find inhibitive when discussing a non-NY region's arts. Does it also mean that people aren't moving to LA or Chicago, or just NYC?
Posted by The same guy as #1 on April 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM
4
If New York were really played, then all these little cities wouldn't be trying their damnedest to imitate it, particularly Seattle. If I go to another art event that is based on or derived from something that originated in NY (And, I'm not just talking theater, Brendan; I'm talking about the arts in general.), I may just move back to Queens. It's actually not that much more expensive than Seattle and the pizza is way freaking better.
Posted by Brian] on April 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM
5
If New York were really played, then all these little cities wouldn't be trying their damnedest to imitate it, particularly Seattle. If I go to another art event that is based on or derived from something that originated in NY (And, I'm not just talking theater, Brendan; I'm talking about the arts in general.), I may just move back to Queens. It's actually not that much more expensive than Seattle and the pizza is way freaking better.
Posted by Brian on April 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM
6
As far as NYC being a go-to city for young artists, walk around Brooklyn. It ain't Spike Lee's BK no more. Nor is it Arthur Miller's. Or even Jay-Z's.
Posted by Brian on April 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM
7
This is interesting to me even though I'm a non-theater, non-theatre type. I'm curious just how big these audiences are though. How many Americans have seen just one production in the last year? How many Americans have seen 5 or more productions in that time?

Just how popular is theater? Who goes to it? Does anyone do this research?
Posted by links appreciated on April 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM
8
NY is played? I suppose Seattle or Minneapolis or Austin has 300 theatrical performances a night?

There are plenty of problems in the NY theatre scene but it is still--hands down--the most prolific place in the US for theatre.
Posted by Lawrence in NYC on April 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM
9
I've been saying Manhattan is over for years. Thats why I left it and moved to Brooklyn.
Posted by Bklyn on April 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM
10
I loved the Norman Conquests back when they were broadcast on CBC and PBS.

Man, NYC is so out of it. They even keep paying financial firms execs too much for negative return, they're that out of it.
Posted by Will in Seattle on April 28, 2009 at 1:55 PM
11
@9. You sound like a Sex and the City episode.
Posted by Brian on April 28, 2009 at 2:45 PM
12
@ 3: LA is a different story, since film has a much different system of distribution/magnetism. Chicago is also different, but my sense is that people are still moving there at the same or maybe an accelerated rate.

(Of course, this is all anecdotal—I'm throwing an idea against the interwebs. But I think NYC is losing its dominance. It might still be #1, but not by nearly as wide a margin as it did 10 or 20 years ago, and that margin is eroding.)
Posted by Brendan Kiley on April 28, 2009 at 3:03 PM
13
You're basing this on what? Terry Teachout? The critic that hates everything, including your little podunk shows out in who-ha-ville? Get a grip. There's no reason for you not to be proud of your local theatre, but it wouldn't get played if it didn't play New York first. You have to have a brand to market. I'm sure you're love for theatre is of the finest calibre - but you really need to learn something about the business or you'll remain in obscurity. And as for New York being played! HA! You'd love it, but it just isn't true. Come visit and find out.
Posted by Jon Mitchell on April 28, 2009 at 3:18 PM
14
"Seattleite calls NYC provincial" --

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Posted by Anyone who's been anywhere on April 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM
15
In contrast, I do prefer when movies are based in NYC instead of Socal- case in point: Die Hard 3
Posted by Fortuna Mandolin on April 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM
16
13 & 14 - Your sun is setting and you don't even know it.
Posted by someone who's been a lot of somewheres on April 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM
17
for being so cosmopolitan, New Yorkers get awfully touchy if you dare to suggest they aren't the Center of the Universe...and theater-wise, they aren't and haven't been for a long time.

Ayckbourn is a more talented Neil Simon.

But, The Norman Conquests IS a very entertaining trio of plays and the British TV production from many, many years ago with Tom Conti and the wonderful Penelope Keith, WAS very, very good.

Sadly, I saw the divine Strange Genius Amy Thone in a production, many years ago and she wasn't quite as affective in Penelope Keith's role...of course she was a 22 year old playing a part written for a 40 year old woman...
Posted by michael strangeways on April 28, 2009 at 4:12 PM
18
that should be "Stranger Genius"

obviously.
Posted by michael strangeways on April 28, 2009 at 4:13 PM
19
A more interesting question: is theatre played out? With the ascendency of web distribution and affordable recording as editing, isn't film (or even YOUTUBE) the new "boards?"
Posted by Jigae on April 28, 2009 at 4:29 PM
20
@19: that's an argument that gets brought up every time a new entertainment medium comes along, and while it's certainly true that theatre no longer holds the position of being the predominant performance medium (and hasn't really since the invention of celluloid), it is also far from being "played out".

In fact, a case could be made that, as consumption of mass media becomes more and more a solitary experience, the inherent need for individuals to congregate and share an experience found only in the ephemerality of real-time becomes more important.

Which is not to say that shared experience is going to necessarily adhere to the same structure as actors performing a scripted play; in fact, we've seen all sorts of revivals or reinterpretations of live spectacle: neo-vaudeville and circus arts, burlesque, multi-media presentation, etc., etc., return to the consciousness of the mass-market.

But in any case, the general notion that live performers doing their thing in front of an equally live audience is something that, isn't ever going to disappear, even if it may seem to be in a perpetual state of decline.

Which is the reason theatre has been called "the fabulous invalid" for the better part of a century...
Posted by COMTE on April 28, 2009 at 4:52 PM
21
I'm not sure if theatre is dead. But those dance performances by grads from a certain local college sure are.
Posted by Will in Seattle on April 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM
22
@20: I know you're right -- there's just something funny to me about using a city's theater scene as a barometer of its cultural currency. I've probably seen 10-15 shows in the last year and have seen two basic types of audience: 1.) Friends and family of the theater company (this has been true across the country) or 2.) REALLY OLD PEOPLE, generally for shows that are revivals, in nice theaters, or are more "high art."

I do think a group experience is meaningful, but most theater I've seen has drifted into self-indulgent, experimental, navel-gazing or fun but empty pandering. On the other hand, I have seen some really incredible dance, but I think that may have even less of a place in modern America...

As for New York being played: Many people I know who lived there have left in the last few years, including myself. I don't know how much of this is cultural zeitgeist and how much it is my group of friends reaching our early thirties. I would guess a bit of both. I have heard anecdotal reports that a lot of the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed artists who arrive by the busload every day have been packing up and turning around a lot faster. Having said that I think New York still plays too large a role in our cultural imaginary to die a quick death -- I'm hoping this is a time of change and not decay.
Posted by Jigae on April 28, 2009 at 5:36 PM
23
It's just time to light a fire under Seattle's ass.
Posted by rachael f. on April 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM
24
You're right, Brenden. I have been saying the same thing for a long time. My whole company moved to Seattle for this exact reason.

Seattle needs (and deserves) an arts festival like Fusebox, and if people with influence, like you, continue to rally the troops in this way it will only be a matter of time.
Posted by aclark21 http://www.satori-group.com on May 6, 2009 at 6:17 AM
25
I have to say, as a New York based musical theatre actor (and perhaps a myopic one, but still), I do have to point out a couple things. First, you say that New York is losing its monopoly on musicals, citing the fact that cities like Seattle are getting more and more pre- and post-Broadway runs of musicals. The logic there is false. Nearly all pre- and post-Broadway runs (to use Seattle examples, shows like Young Frankenstein and Catch Me If You Can) are cast out of New York. The directors are from New York. The production companies are based in New York. The show may not physically be in New York, but the center of focus (and most of the money generated) certainly is.

Not to mention, no theatre actor with any sense moves to New York planning to work only in New York. Hundreds of regional companies hold auditions in NYC every year. People move to the city because it's still the best place to find consistent, decent paying, professional acting work all over the nation.
Posted by TenrSinger on April 13, 2010 at 12:37 PM
26
I haven't seen the TBA of Fusebox festivals...but isn't Northwest New Works at On the Boards that sort of festival?
Posted by bottsford on April 13, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy