Producer Panel Tuesday the 22nd
I am back from Thailand!
I hope I will see you many of you at the producer panel that I am hosting on Tuesday!
The date is June 22nd at 6:30 pm
The cost is $10 and all proceeds will be donated to the Hollywood Fringe Festival. If you can’t afford $10, then just donate what you can. The Fringe is a worthy cause.
Scheduled to sit on the panel are David Elzer (Marvelous Wonderettes, Life Could be a Dream), Michael Seel (Boston Court Executive Director), and Matt B. Wells (Need Theater Artistic Director). I will moderate.
The focus of the panel will be developing new works in Los Angeles.
Here are some questions that we will cover:
- What are your goals as a producer? What are your goals for an individual production?
- What is the most important thing you look for in a new script before you produce it?
- How do you balance the artistic needs of a production vs. the physical cost of the production?
- How do you balance the artistry vs. commerciality?
- When you have a script that has potential, but needs work, what role do you, as a producer, play in the development of the project?
- When you are developing a production, what factors into your decision to green light a full production or shelve it?
- What is the most important thing that a producer has to do on the business side of producing?
- Producing often deals more with managing people and managing relationships. What are some obstacles that you have encountered when managing of people?
Please come and buy your tickets early! If you are a producer, want to be a producer, or just want to get a better understanding of what a producer does, you will not want to miss this!
Also,
Take “note” of these other great panels offered by Theater of Note.
Theatre of NOTE opens its doors to all festival participants and guests as a place to kick back, relax, network, play and meet each other Monday, June 17 – through Friday, June 25th from 10am – 5pm. Workshops will be held Monday, June 21st – Thursday, June 24th starting at 3:30pm. Writing Workshops take place 2:00pm-3:00pm Monday through Friday. ALL ARE FREE OF CHARGE.
Panel discussions and workshops are open to the public and FREE of charge. This dynamic addition to the venue’s programming is proving to be a collaborative and information way to reach out to the community and help build and maintain our Los Angeles theatre relationships and growth. For the most recent list of panelists, see www.theatreofnote.com.
If you would like to download and print the flyer to share with creative collaborators go to http://www.theatreofnote.com/fringepanelists.htm where you will find the PDF of the flyer, as well as full bios of each panelist. Feel free to repost and pass it on to everyone who can benefit from these discussions. Thank you.
WHEN:
Monday June 21 – Friday June 25, 2010
2:00pm-3:00pm (Writing Workshops)
3:30pm-5:00pm (Panel Discussions)
WHERE:
Theatre of NOTE
1517 N. Cahuenga Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90028
WHAT:
Monday June 21, 2010 – Representing Reality, Diversity on Stage
Tuesday June 22, 2010 – Beyond the Black Box – The Journey of Playwrights & Producers
Wednesday June 23, 2010 – Find Your Funding
Thursday June 24, 2010 – Taking the Leap: Stage to TV/Film/Digital Media
Monday – Friday June 21-25, 2010 – 2:00pm-3:00pm – Wordspace, The Daily Writing Hour Workshop: Wordspace – Write the Fringe Hour -
For all updates regarding Theatre of NOTE’s Hollywood Fringe Festival programming, please see www.theatreofnote.com
I’m Hosting a Producer Panel
Sorry I have been “dark” for several weeks. I am getting married this month in Thailand and have been busy with preparations.
But before I leave, I wanted to promote a producer panel that I am hosting as part of the Hollywood Fringe Festival.
The date is June 22nd at 6:30 pm
The cost is $10 and all proceeds will be donated to the Hollywood Fringe Festival.
Scheduled to sit on the panel are David Elzer (Marvelous Wonderettes, Life Could be a Dream), Michael Seel (Boston Court Executive Director), and Matt B. Wells (Need Theater Artistic Director). I will moderate.
The focus of the panel will be developing new works in Los Angeles.
Here are some questions that we will cover:
- What are your goals as a producer? What are your goals for an individual production?
- What is the most important thing you look for in a new script before you produce it?
- How do you balance the artistic needs of a production vs. the physical cost of the production?
- How do you balance the artistry vs. commerciality?
- When you have a script that has potential, but needs work, what role do you, as a producer, play in the development of the project?
- When you are developing a production, what factors into your decision to green light a full production or shelve it?
- What is the most important thing that a producer has to do on the business side of producing?
- Producing often deals more with managing people and managing relationships. What are some obstacles that you have encountered when managing of people?
Please come and buy your tickets early! If you are a producer, want to be a producer, or just want to get a better understanding of what a producer does, you will not want to miss this!
LADCC
Several weeks ago, I emailed the LADCC and asked if they would sit down with me and discuss their awards shows. Hanging in the air was also my concern that there are conflicts of interest within the LADCC, so I asked them to speak to me about that as well.
Here is the LADCC’s response to my requests, in its entirety, at their request:
Mr. Culbertson,
Now that this year’s awards show and accompanying business matters have concluded, the Circle is addressing the e-mail inquiries left on our website. We understand that you seek information regarding the voting procedures for the LADCC Awards. This information is public knowledge; we have explained our process from the stage at previous Awards Shows, and briefly summarized it in the program for this year’s ceremony.
The LADCC Awards recognize theatrical excellence. We do not award the “best” in any category; we simply award excellence. For this reason, there are often multiple award recipients in any category. In general, we aim for 30 award recipients out of 60 nominees, although those numbers are invariably higher as, in all cases, we resolve ties in favor of additional nominees and recipients (and, sometimes, add additional categories).
To be eligible for nomination, a show must invite all members of the LADCC to attend. A number of critics equal to approximately one-third of our current membership must see said show (for last year, that number was five); for shows in Orange County, Ventura, and Long Beach, the eligibility number reduces by one. The eligible year runs from December 1 through November 30.
Each category has a predetermined guideline number of nominees. Each critic submits lists of their proposed nominees, ostensible for no more than the total guideline number in each category. After compiling the nomination ballots, each critic votes “yes” or “no” on each proposed nominee that the critic has seen. In each category, the guideline number of proposed nominees with the highest ratio of “yes” to “no” votes becomes our nominees, with the proviso that there are a minimum percentage of “yes” votes necessary to make the ballot.
Once the nominee list is established, each critic votes for 30 nominees across the ballot. Awards go to those nominees with the highest number of votes, with the understanding that the Circle shall have no category in which there are no award recipients.
The Circle reserves the right to modify the Awards voting process at any time.
As to the remarks about conflicts of interest, you have made the specifics known to several of our members. The entire Circle subsequently reviewed and investigated each incident mentioned. Although our voting process is public, the internal governance of the Circle is, and will continue to be, a private matter.
This e-mail is a unified document. Should you wish to refer to its contents in a public or private forum, it must be quoted in its entirety.
Sincerely,
The Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle
The most important paragraph in their response is the following:
As to the remarks about conflicts of interest, you have made the specifics known to several of our members. The entire Circle subsequently reviewed and investigated each incident mentioned. Although our voting process is public, the internal governance of the Circle is, and will continue to be, a private matter.
The disappointing part of this paragraph for me is that the LADCC seems to think they don’t have to be transparent.
The best way to combat perceived conflicts of interest is either to eliminate them or to be transparent about them. But the LADCC has clearly said that it is none of the theater community’s business.
Personally, I think it is our business. As I wrote in my last post, winning an award has implications for a producer’s ability to raise money. Additionally, as some have commented, awards affect an individual artists career and reputation. There is a lot riding on these awards for all of us. The community, therefore, deserves to participate in an awards process that offers transparency. Certainly, we do not have the right to know who voted for what production, etc– that is understandably a private matter. But the process by which awards are granted is another matter. We absolutely have the right to know that this process is fair and free of conflicts. We have the right to request that the results are independently verified. And if we see conflicts, we have the right to point them out. And the response that we, in turn, receive should be rooted in the ethic of transparency.
The reality is that there is a lot of ambiguity in the LADCC’s process, especially as it relates to conflicts of interest. What are the membership criteria for the LADCC? Their awards are not peer judged, but rather, decided on by a committee. Shouldn’t they then have a policy preventing peers from being members? Specifically, what is their policy toward actors? Certainly, it has happened in the past when Travis Michael Holder (who is an actor-critic) was simultaneously acting and a voting member of the LADCC. What was the process of the voting for his productions? Was he eligible for an award? Was his show eligible? Could he vote for his own show? What about a show that he may have auditioned for but was not cast in? Was he allowed to vote on those shows? Is this type of situation currently happening? Shouldn’t we be told if any of the members of the LADCC are also trying to work as actors? If the LADCC doesn’t see actor-critics as presenting conflicts of interest to their process, then they ought to be upfront about their position and let us know who among their members are actor-critics. If this hybridization isn’t a problem for them, they should be transparent about that.
There is a lot in the LADCC’s letter about the process of vote tabulation, but what about the physical task of tabulation? Who is responsible for the tabulation? Do all the members know all the votes? Are votes conducted at a meeting? Or are they emailed around and one person is in charge of adding it up? Could that one person change other members votes? What are the controls in place that prevent fraud and vote changing? Is there an independent person that oversees the voting process? If the votes are publicly tallied within the group, there is a strange situation where some of the members are the editors that other members rely on for assignments. There is a possibility that members will vote along with the editors that give them assignments hoping to curry the editors favor. Is there a control in place to prevent this?
When do the critics submit their lists of nominees? Is it at the end of the year? If so, then isn’t it possible that at the end of the year there is a tendency to nominate a production seen recently over productions seen in the beginning of the year?
In fact, over the last five years 50% of the productions that won the production award were either still running at the end of the year or had closed in October, November, or December of that year. This clearly indicates that the probability of winning an award is greater for a show that ran later in the year than a show that closed early-on . Is there any policy in place to help prevent this from happening?
In the end, it is clear that there are many complications and conflicts that could arise within the LADCC. When I pointed out a few specific examples to them, they responded with a position of no transparency.
We have a lot of work to do in Los Angeles theater. We need our producers to organize so that Equity, USA, SSDC, and the musicians union can figure out a new version of the 99-seat plan and HAT contact that works with all unions. We need our theater owners to build and maintain better theater districts. We need to figure out how to support critics so they can remain a relevant part Los Angles Theater. We need the LA Stage Alliance to create a citywide theater marketing campaign. We need our awards organizations to be transparent and fair about their processes.
But none of these things can happen if our community is going to build walls and simply say, “none of your business.” If we aren’t even allowed to point out areas that could use improvement, how will anything ever improve? If we don’t have the ability to look at ourselves, hear feedback and take criticism, then we will never realize the true potential of our theater community.
The LA theater community deserves better. We all know we have problems to deal with. If the leaders of the LA Theater community don’t want to be challenged and will try to stop criticism by hiding behind a veil of non-transparency, then we are all in trouble.
Why Do We Have Awards?
A few weeks ago, I posted this post outlining why we need to have an awards season as well as some basic rules that our major awards organizations should follow. I also announced that I would be analyzing each award show in the context of these rules to see how they compare. I have reached out to our major awards organizations over the past month and am hopeful that I will complete my analysis in the next two weeks.
In the meantime, I thought I would talk about why we even have awards in the first place.
For me there are three major reasons why we have awards shows:
- To celebrate and acknowledge artistic achievement
- To market our productions
- To attract investment/ fund-raise for our productions
Here is an in-depth look at these three reasons:
1) To celebrate and acknowledge artistic achievement
I don’t think I need to elaborate much here. If you do great work, then it’s great to be recognized for your work. This is the most obvious reason why we have awards shows. Some people probably think this is the only reason we have awards shows, but there is much more to it than just recognition…
2) To market our productions
In New York City, producers loudly proclaim the awards that their productions have won. Unfortunately, we don’t see that in Los Angeles. The reality is that in Los Angeles, 99.9% of the shows have closed by the time the awards are presented. It’s not the fault of the awards organizations that some shows can’t run long enough to win awards and subsequently promote their awards. The LA Stage Alliance has made an effort to help producers market during their run by bringing in the “Ovation Recommended” feature. I know over the next few years the LA Stage Alliance will refine and market the “Ovation Recommended” to a point where it is meaningful to the average patron. I hope that other awards organizations can come up with something that is equally helpful from a marketing perspective. (The LADCC might present a “Production of the Month Award.”)
Ultimately, marketing an award-winning show is the responsibility of the producers. For producers to successfully market award-winning productions, productions have to run long enough to win awards during their run. But before we can produce longer running shows, we need to deal with the 99-seat plan, our theater rental agreements, and just about every other issue I have been blogging about. But, alas, that is not the point of this post.
3) To attract investment/ fund-raise for our productions
Many people in the LA Theater community might not think that awards equal money. But in fact, they most certainly do. In my opinion, fund-raising is the most important reason that we have awards. If a theater company wins an award, they can immediately issue a press release to their donors and congratulate them while simultaneously asking them to continue to support their award-winning work. For commercial producers like me, awards can be used to raise investment money for future productions.
I can’t emphasize enough how important this really is. Raising money for theater is difficult. It’s difficult whether you are a commercial producer or a non-profit organization. People who support the arts enjoy supporting companies and shows that are “great” in the eyes of the public. Awards are a quick and clear way to point out just how great your production really is.
And it should go without saying that a lot of money is on the line for all of us. We might not like to be reminded of this fact, but anyone who understands the mindset of an investor and the realities of raising money knows that this is true.
Because of these three reasons, organizations that run the major awards shows owe it to every winner and nominee to run a solid awards show that is legitimate, free from conflicts of interest, and taken very seriously by both the community, and the public as a whole.
Hopefully, I will be able to start rolling out my analysis of our four major awards next two weeks.
Reaching out to the LADCC
When I started this blog my intention was to write about issues in the Los Angeles theater community that are relevant to me. If you have read my posts you know that I have a lot of opinions on various different aspects of the theater community. I write my opinions in an attempt to challenge our community to improve. I know that not everyone will agree with my opinions, not everyone should. But I do hope we can all agree that discussing these issues openly is important. Hopefully, these discussions will lead members of our community to begin changing things for the better.
Part of creating a forum for open discussion includes being able to point out the flaws in our system.
Steven Leigh Morris recently wrote an article about the ethics of blogging. In this article he used my blog as an example of unethical behavior. Referencing this post, he wrote in his article the following:
Earlier this year, local stage producer Rick Culbertson wrote on his Web site, rickculbertson.com, an accusation that the Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle was ensnared by conflict of interest. According to Critics Circle member Les Spindle, Culbertson hadn’t bothered to check the facts with the organization, or even to contact its people before making the accusation.
Mr. Morris and I agree that people who write publicly should exercise ethical behavior. That said, I realize that I made two mistakes with my statement about the LADCC. My first mistake was that I didn’t reach out to the LADCC prior to my post. My second mistake was that I did not print my supporting evidence. These are mistakes I will not make in the future.
But, in fairness to myself, prior to my statement I did research and verify the information I used to determine that there are conflicts of interest within the LADCC. I was satisfied then and I am still satisfied that there are conflicts of interest.
I am concerned about our theater community when conflicts of interest occur. The best way to improve our theater community is to openly discuss these issues. To that end, I have reached out to the LADCC and asked them to sit down with me and talk. In doing so, we will have an opportunity to work together to improve things.
After all, we all want our theater community to be the best it can be.
The Need for Awards Season
As a thriving theater community in Los Angeles, we ought to have a real awards season.
I consider the major LA Theater Awards to be the following: The LA Ovation Awards, The LADCC Awards, The LA Weekly Awards, and The Backstage Garland Awards.
I base this simply on the fact that these awards have ceremonies, or at the very least, organized receptions or a public forum to acknowledge the work of the artists who are nominated. I recognize that simply having ceremonies is not the best criteria by which to judge an award, and I will address that next week. But for this week, I want to talk about how we can have an “Awards Season” that offers meaningful awards to members of our community and maximizes publicity.
Currently, we are operating within two different schedules. The Ovations season operates from August to July, and all the other awards operate from January to December. I really don’t have a great preference as to which schedule is better, but I would prefer that this schedule be consistent. It is confusing to have a set-up whereby show “A” can lose the 2011 LADCC to show “B,” while show “B” loses the 2011/2012 Ovation Award to Show “C,” while show “C” ends up winning the 2012 LADCC Award. Currently we operate in a system in which the winner of the 2011 LADCC and the winner of the 2012 LADCC can be competitors for the Ovation Award at the same time. To me, that’s weird.
If all four awards agreed to abide by the same schedule, however, then all shows opening within the same 12-month period would be eligible for all the awards– together, at the same time.
Once we got on the same eligibility schedules, we could then start to plan the awards ceremonies in a way that maximizes the press potential. Put another way, we could have a “season.” For argument’s sake, lets say that all four awards agreed that January through December was the best schedule; the best time frame in which to organize a “season.” This would mean that every year, all four of our awards shows could be produced in February and March. We could then organize the awards ceremonies by prestige: The Garlands would come first, since they don’t include a formal ceremony (the winners are simply chosen, announced, and invited to a reception). The next awards show would be the LA Weekly’s because of the fact that they are hosted by one, specific publication (and the ceremony itself is known to be something of a party atmosphere). Third would come the LADCC’s, and finally, at the end of the season, we’d finish with the Ovations, since they are the most glamorous (and I would argue, prestigious) of the awards shows.
To build this schedule, I would recommend the following:
- Start with the Garlands on the last Monday of January.
- Next the LA Weekly Awards on the second Monday in February.
- Then, the LADCCs on the fourth Monday in February.
- Finishing with the Ovations on the second Monday in March.
Now, I recognize that there are a lot of issues that go into the scheduling of the awards. But if the four organizers got together each year and worked out a schedule that was compatible between them, then whatever they came up with would presumably make sense, as long as it was planned with an understanding of the LA “Awards Season” being a whole– as opposed to four separate, individual awards.
If all four organizers timed their nomination announcements correctly, they could start to manufacture real “buzz” around the awards. The more they highlighted the competitive aspect of these awards, the more opportunity there would for press coverage that extends beyond theater publications.
In addition to settling on a standard schedule, It would also be great if the four award organizers could agree on some basic guidelines that all the awards shows should follow. These basic guidelines will further help to legitimize our major awards.
Here is my wish list of seven basic rules that any legitimate awards show should follow:
- You cannot have even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest or favoritism in any awards show. This means that if someone is a nominee, he or she should not be involved with the organization or administration of that awards show. Nor should he or she perform a service for the award show. He or she should not participate as a producer, director, marketer, or judge.
- The host (or hosts) should not be nominees. Presenters can certainly be nominees, but not the host, as the host provides a different role for the awards show that is more akin to that of a star or a service-provider. Employing a host who is also a nominee gives an appearance of favoritism, which violates rule number one.
- If you are going to include a performance from a production that is nominated in a “best production” category, then you need to allow equal time to all the nominated productions in that category. Allowing one nominated production to perform while not allowing another nominated production to perform, gives an appearance of favoritism. This violates rule number one.
- A producer should be allowed to determine the categories for which his or her production will be judged. Specifically, I am thinking about the acting awards. Producers should have the responsibility of determining who their leads vs. featured actors are, and whether their show should be considered for an ensemble award. And– this goes without saying but I will say it in any case– no show should be allowed to be nominated for both ensemble and individual acting awards.
- If an awards organization wants to be considered legitimate, it must have a clearly defined voting process and employ an independent accounting firm that is responsible for tallying the votes. Lack of funds is not an excuse for violating this rule. If you don’t have an independent accountant verify the results, then the awards organization should not be considered legitimate.
- Each awards show should initiate their voting process before the end of the year. Waiting until the end of a calendar year to begin the voting process is unfair to shows that run in the beginning of an award season, since these shows will likely be further from the mind of the voters. Whatever tallying method is employed, a voter’s opinion should be recorded when the voter has a fresh perspective on the project question. In the best scenario, this would mean voting within a few days following attendance of each performance.
- One winner per category. If we are to call ourselves a professional theater city, then we need to uphold a standard of all professional awards shows. Professional awards award one winner per category. Here, I will quote Colin Mitchell from www.bitter-lemons.com because he sums this up perfectly: “People, let’s be clear about this: the honor is being nominated, the distinction is winning.” (my italics)
Having a defined awards season, in which a group of major awards jointly agree to abide by some basic rules, will elevate the legitimacy of all the Los Angeles theater awards. With a legitimate awards season in place, we will be able to show the country, as well as ourselves, that our awards mean something. This, in turn, will elevate the reputation of LA theater.
Beginning next week, I will start to analyze the individual awards shows and offer specifics as to where I think they each can improve.
Good is Not the Same as Quality
I believe that there are two basic ways to judge a show. One scale is “bad to good.” The other is “non-quality to quality.” I cannot define what makes a show bad or good because the elements that make a show bad or good are very subjective. For the ease of my argument, however, I will propose that a good show is a “hit show” that receives strong word of mouth praise and high marks from the critics in regard to the performance of the actors, director and author. One thing I can do is to define a quality show. Simply put, a quality show is a show that looks expensive. It is a show in which the producers have spent a good deal of money on the sets, costumes, lights and sound, and hired solid musicians (if it’s a musical).
Based on this distinction, it is important to note that “quality” does not imply “good.” We can all think of scenarios in which a quality show is actually bad, and a non-quality show is actually good. Put another way, good theater doesn’t need expensive bells and whistles, and throwing money at a bad piece of theater will never make it good.
Here is another way to look at it: All shows on Broadway are high quality. When you buy a ticket to a Broadway show, you know that it is going to be a high quality show, because part of what makes Broadway “Broadway” is the use of material resources to make a show look fantastic. But I would venture to guess that we have all seen some really bad Broadway shows. Hence the idea that throwing glitzy sets and lights at a bad piece of theater can never make it good. On the other side of things, I would venture to say that all virtually Los Angeles 99-seat theater shows are low quality. Practically speaking, you simply can’t spend a lot of money to make these shows look like a million bucks. But we have all, of course, seen some amazingly good 99-seat theater shows.
Now, it is true (and important to point out) that the 99-seat theater scene in LA has a wide range of “quality” elements. Most showcase productions and beginning theater companies are generally the lowest quality because they have very little money to spend on their productions. And there are some 99-seat theater shows in LA that are higher quality; certainly not on par with the quality of the Ahmanson (which we can safely say is Broadway quality), but better than showcases.
Again, quality does not mean good and good does not mean quality.
If we were to graph these two scales, we would use an x-y graph with four quadrants. The x-axis would be the Non-Quality to Quality scale, and the y-axis would be the Bad to Good scale. Drawn out, it would look like this:
On the graph above, I have plotted four different productions. Point A is a good Broadway production. Point B is a bad Broadway production. Point C is a good 99-seat theater production and point D is a bad 99-seat theater production.
The problem with the above graph is that few patrons think in terms of the quality-versus-good paradigm. It can be hard for an average patron to view two seemingly similar scales of judgment as two completely separate scales of judgment. The danger to us as theater-makers comes when a patron cannot tell the difference between quality and good. When this happens, he/she can be fooled into thinking that quality, in fact, equals good, because quality is so much easier to see. (“It was so amazing; the chandelier came down from the ceiling and crashed right onto the stage!” Etc.) When quality overrides good, our complex four quadrant graph collapses to a simple line, on which one side is quality and the other side is non-quality. Drawn out, it becomes this:
Now, point A (good Broadway production) and point B (bad Broadway production) are both seen more favorably to point C (good 99-seat theater production) and point D (bad 99-seat theater production).
The biggest problem for the LA 99-seat theater community is this: Even though a patron wants to see a good show, when it comes down to buying a ticket, they will likely be more willing to pay to see a quality show.
Now, before you get mad at me, think of this: some Broadway tours that come to the Pantages are bad shows, but they manage to sell out 2,700 seats, 8 times a week. Whereas smash hit, great 99-seat theater shows often struggle to sell out their 396 seats each week. Marketing (or lack thereof) has a lot to do with this problem–a big tour spends more on marketing that the most expensive 99-seat theater show’s entire budget. But there is another important element at play here that, in fact, determines the success of all marketing: The brand.
Broadway producers and marketers understand that an average patron doesn’t understand the difference between quality and good. The producers use this understanding to fool the average patron into thinking that quality does equal good (even though they in fact know that it doesn’t). This is why Broadway in general has been able to brand itself as “Good” theater, because it really brands itself as “quality” theater. Since 99-seat theater has not branded itself at all, its default brand is one of low quality productions. And, since the average patron can’t tell the difference between quality and good, then by the transitive property, Broadway ends up getting the brand of “good” and LA 99-seat theater gets the brand of “bad.”
IF Broadway = Quality AND Quality = Good THEN Broadway = Good.
IF LA 99-Seat = Non-Quality AND Non-Quality = Bad THEN LA 99-Seat = Bad.
Whether we like it our not, this is what is happening to us in LA. Yes, it is true that in Los Angeles we may be able to sell out a show and get people to come see us in the 99-seat world (We sold over 5,000 tickets for Divorce! The Musical). But we cannot ignore the fact that Wicked ran for over 800 performances in a 2,700 seat house (The Pantages) here in LA. If people understood that a particular production in a 99-seat theater house was as good as, or better than Wicked, then wouldn’t it make sense that the same number of people would go out and see the 99-seat theater show? No! Because a good 99-seat theater show has to overcome the negative brand of, “LA 99-seat theater equals bad.” And that is a tall order, given that most 99-seat theater shows spend less than $1,000 a week on marketing.
So how do we fix this?
The obvious solution is that all 99-seat theater producers should run out and spend as much money as possible on building better sets and costumes, right? Well, no. Because, unfortunately, 99-seat theater producers are locked into a system wherein we have to produce on the extreme cheap– a direct result of the price controls that Equity has forced upon us. The plain truth is that the current Equity 99-seat contract forces us to lose money on these productions. So, even if a producer wanted to spend more money to increase the quality of his/her production, he/she couldn’t, unless he/she wanted to take a huge loss. Who can afford to do that?
So with the economic realities of LA theater being what they are, producers keep churning out low quality productions– both good and bad. And this, of course, reinforces our “low quality” brand.
Surely, a producer could remedy this by producing on the HAT or LOA contract, right? After all, if the 99-seat theater ticket price controls are the problem, then producing on a HAT or LOA contract would solve the problem since the HAT and LOA provide for higher ticket prices than the 99-seat contract. Right? The answer here is, sorta, but not really. It is possible that a producer can produce on the HAT or a LOA. And some producers do. Right now there are productions running in 99-seat theaters that are on a HAT or a LOA. But the patrons don’t know that a producer is doing this. And if the patron doesn’t know, then the LA-99 seat theater brand of Low-Quality will still apply. Additionally, producers rarely use these contracts to increase the quality of their productions; they use them to increase the “good” elements of their productions– namely, to hire better actors. And it is extremely rare that a producer actually charges more for a ticket than the 99-seat theater contract would have allowed in the first place. While raising the “good” is good, it doesn’t do anything to change 99-seat theater’s overall “low quality” brand.
So really then… how do we fix this?
Well, it’s a loaded question. Certainly, the answer is not to go out and produce Broadway shows in 99-seat houses. But, we do need to take this issue of quality more seriously. We can’t just stick our heads in the sand and say “Our shows are good, and audiences should know that,” then turn around and complain that no one comes to the theater anymore.
The first step is for producers to accept the distinction between quality and good. It’s hard for us producers to look in the mirror, but we have to. And we have to do it as businesspeople, not just as artists.
Once we accept this distinction, we then need to come together as producers. We need to define the parameters of our work, and the goals of our community. With those definitions in place, we can begin to control our brand, instead of having our brand control us. We can fight to make the necessary changes to the Equity contracts that are hurting our productions. Over time, with the correct strategy, a solid plan, and a defined brand, we will pull ourselves up and create a higher quality 199 seat theater scene, and then an even higher quality 299 seat theater scene.
It’s a long road and a hard road. But if we really care about theater in Los Angeles (and I know that we do because most of us do it for little or no money), then we simply have to come together and start a producer’s organization.
But, in the meantime, if you are a producer, ask yourself if you would rather produce a good show, or a quality show?
This is a trick question. The answer, or course, is both.
Building Better Producers
There are many reasons why we need a producer’s organization. They range from collective bargaining, a trade organization, someone to brand us, management of a better business bureau of theater, etc. But there’s another important need here: the need for us to take care of our new producers. Especially the producers who don’t really even want to be producers.
In Los Angeles it’s very common to find a person producing a show because he or she wrote, starred in, or directed it. A few weeks ago I received a phone call from one such “producer by default” who was in the middle of an 8-performance run of a show that he wrote. He called me looking for advice on how to fill his theater with paying patrons and get the word out about his play. Unfortunately for him, he had spent little to nothing on marketing and PR. Given his limited budget and where he was in the run, there wasn’t much I could tell him. With so little time left, even if he managed to somehow come up with 10-20K for a marketing campaign, there would have been no way to make it back even if he sold out his remaining 4 performances. I told him that all he could really do at this point would be to offer “pay-what-you-can” and discounted tickets through facebook and similar channels. Maybe he could try buying one e-mail blast from a marketing agency.
Of course, if this producer had called me before he started his run my advice would have been very different. I would have told him to budget for and hire a top quality PR company and to put aside money for a marketing campaign. We could have talked about goals and the results he wanted to see come out of his production. We could have tailored his budget and spending in order to achieve those goals, or change the goals to fit the parameters of what he could afford.
This story is so common in LA. So many writers/actors/directors produce their own work simply so that they can work as a writer/actor/director. But so often they don’t know how to produce. Worse yet, they don’t end up producing at all, but rather, begrudgingly managing the production. Producing is not easy, and neither is directing, acting, or writing. And when you do two (or more!) at the same time it’s even harder. Especially when you really only want to be directing, acting, writing– not producing.
One of the underlying problems this creates is that many shows, often referred to as showcases, are produced in the same theaters as bigger shows that are not showcases. When these showcases are produced poorly or mismanaged, they tend to reflect poorly on the quality of that particular rental theater (not to mention reflecting poorly LA theater as a whole). Unknowing patrons do not distinguish between a showcase and higher quality productions. Because of this, for those of us who are not producing showcases, it is in our best interest to mentor, support and work with people who are producing showcases. We need to help them produce smartly, efficiently, and realistically. Because at the end of the day, their product reflects on our product.
A producer’s organization could help foster and nourish these types of relationships between producers. New producers could join the organization and gain access to resources, support and advice. We could create databases, helpful guidebooks and producing templates. We could explain the way budgets work, not to mention de-mystify ROI’s and recoupment schedules. We could teach best practices for marketing and PR, and we could help new producers identify when they need a lawyer, accountant, and bookkeeper and when they don’t. This collective knowledge base would be more than just a phone book of designers and rental theaters. It would be a network of real people with real experiences who can really help. And if a new producer needs further help, we could provide a list of producers for hire (or general manage).
It’s silly for every new producer in town to have to reinvent the wheel. And its damaging to all of us. Why not help each other along the way and in so doing, raise the bar on theatre in Los Angeles as a whole?
The Actor-Critic Revisited…Revisited
So things seem to have gotten a bit heated between me and Steven Leigh Morris. Here are the two posts (here and here) and his comments are in the comment section of each.
This will be my final post or comment on this subject because I feel that, by now, I have made my case. I don’t want to go on and on repeating myself. I do stand behind everything that I have said. If people want to keep the debate going, I will continue to post the comments that come in, but I will not respond because I am not sure I have anything more to add.
So, without further ado, here is my response to Steven Leigh Morris’ last comment:
Steven says:
I don’t know from which of Stalin’s manuals you got your constipated definition of a “theater critic.”
Ok, the basis of my definition of criticism is the American Theater Critics Association. Here is what they say:
ATCA understands “professional” to mean you are paid for your reviews and there is some editorial or other supervision of your criticism – e.g., it is not disseminated only on a personal, unsupervised website.
I would also expand that to include anyone that can demonstrate the ability to write a critique that is thorough and well supported while remaining free of conflicts, paid or unpaid.
But I have never actually said what my full criteria is nor have I said that only I should decide, I have suggested that we elect a committee to decide what the criteria is and that they would then make sure that all critics met that standard.
Clearly, my suggestion of a committee to vet critics has struck a chord in many people. Though I find it a bit shocking the number of people who are arguing the laissez-faire argument. It’s a completely valid argument, but there are a lot of problems with laissez-faire, just look at our health care system and our financial markets.
I am glad that as a critic you want to provoke discussion of theater and how it fits into the fabric of our community. That is a good thing, we can agree on that. And I will agree that it takes the form of commentary, I misspoke there.
And I don’t care if you aren’t worried about marketing, but trust me the producer sure is. It’s a bit disingenuous to insinuate that critics are not aware that that is at least part of the game.
However, I am starting to see that there might be a dramatic difference in how we each look at theater in general. First and foremost, to me it is a business. An artistic business, but a business nonetheless. I think maybe you look at it in more of a pure art form, separate from business. There is nothing wrong with either view.
But as a businessperson, I look at the current landscape and I say, huh, this isn’t working for me. I can’t make money here. And since 99% of the shows that run in this town are run by non-profits, I would assume that I am not the only one that feels that way. So when I approach producing in LA I am looking at it solely as a place to develop a show, before I take it to a town where I can turn a profit.
How many shows run in LA and then go on to bigger and better, profitable productions in other cities? There are good handful.
But wouldn’t it be better if shows could be profitable in LA the same as they can in Chicago or NY? Wouldn’t that benefit everyone?
So as I look at this landscape of critics I see so many places where we could improve. At the top we have some wonderful critics, you among them. But then as we go down it start to get murky, because you can see a scale that goes all the way from the top down to the goldstar review. And right in the middle there is this murky area, some people are writing quality reviews that aren’t getting read at all, and some are low quality reviews that are being read by a lot. This doesn’t serve anyone.
We need quality criticism, because the quality critics hold us, the theater creators, accountable for what we create. We should be praised when we succeed and questioned/called out when we fail.
I want you to be a critic. I want everyone that wants to be a critic, to be a critic. I just want them to be the best critic they can be and free of conflicts. And then we can create the best theater we can. And then, slowly, we can rise above what this town has become. We can challenge NY and Chicago for theatrical legitimacy. (And don’t tell me we can’t because of Hollywood. London does it. Case closed.) We have the writers. We have the actors. We have the directors. We have the designers. The talent is here.
And you know what? Some people are just not going to be able to participate because they just don’t have the talent. And that is called life.
We award awards to people who achieve excellence in theater. We have the Ovations, the LADCCs and the LA Weeklys. We award them because we want to recognize them as the best. Why can’t we also recognize the critics that are the best?
And with that, I will sign off on this topic.
The Actor-Critic Revisited
I wrote a blog ready to go for yesterday, but then I received a comment on my blog from Steven Leigh Morris at the LA Weekly. He disagrees with my post about critics not being actors. So I thought, instead of answering his comment with a comment of my own, why not make it the subject of another post?
Here is the original blog and Steven’s comment is in the comment section.
In his comments, Steven first says:
You’re writing criticism on your own blog — commentary or not, you’re taking on the tone of a critic — while being a producer in the field you’re writing about! By the merits of your own argument, you shouldn’t be writing your blog. Does that make any sense? I’m actually interested in what you have to say, but you’re arguing against yourself.
This does not make sense and I think it is a rather weak argument.
Yes, it is true that I am being critical, but unlike a critic, my job is not to affect the audiences who are seeing a particular show. My writing a critical blog post about theater in general is not remotely the same as professionally critiquing a performance.
A theater critic has a responsibility to write thoughtful and thorough critiques about particular productions. Critics do not write op-eds or commentaries. Critics accept free tickets to performances, which implies a mutual understanding as to what the critic will do– namely write a fair and honest critique of the production. The show’s producer then uses the critique to market the show. When a review is a rave, it is meant to be a stamp of excellence. It is something that patrons rely on to make a decision as to whether or not to buy a ticket. Most importantly, critics must adhere to ethical standards.
In contrast to this, I simply write commentary. I have no responsibility to anyone but myself. I have no ethical code that dictates what I post and what I write. Sure, my perspective is that of a Los Angeles theater producer. And my goal is to highlight an issue that I feel is a problem and then offer a solution. But I have no direct effect on any productions.
Now with that out-of-the-way, lets move on to the rest of Steven’s comment.
He states:
I think everybody should wear clean underwear while being in public. It’s good for public health and personal hygiene, and it legitimates the public sphere. But if you eliminate all the people who aren’t wearing clean underwear from the public sphere, there will be nobody left in public.
I’m not sure exactly what the point is here. I will come back to this later, but for now… I will just move on…
Steven continues:
Can we please get real about this issue for a moment? People who write about our theater do so because they care, a caring that has little to do with financial incentives. They often care because they are involved in the field.
Let me reiterate what I have already expressed. I don’t have any issues with bloggers writing anything they want. I am saying that unless you understand the role of a critic and are willing to abide by the ethical standards of a critic, you should not call yourself a critic. Write whatever you want on your blog. Make a list of your top ten shows; make a list of your favorite theater companies. Stand on a roof and shout that you love a particular production. I don’t care. Just don’t call yourself a critic!
And, again, if you are an actor writing reviews, this poses a conflict of interest– pure and simple. There is no possible way to argue against this conflict. If a person tries to argue that “people can leave it at the door” or that “an actor-critic won’t review a show at a theater company where he/she has worked,” etc, this person would be admitting that, at its core, a conflict of interest exists between these two professions. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have to use these qualifiers as part of their argument.
Steven goes on:
There’s a gaping hole in Larry Bommer’s argument — “the reader should be told about this conflict–which instantly invalidates anything the writer can say.” That’s nonsense. Your being a producer, which you’ve made abundantly clear, doesn’t necessarily invalidate “anything you have to say,” it puts it in a context that I can process and draw my own assessment from.
Larry Bommer is talking about critics. He is not talking about me, since I am a producer and not a critic. If I was writing actual reviews, then my being a producer would, indeed, invalidate what I have to say. After all, if I was writing reviews, and another producer was writing reviews, couldn’t we make a deal to give each other mutual raves? No one would be able to prove that this was our motive because reviews are so subjective. You can’t disprove a review. But isn’t it clear how easily this could happen?
If we want to be a professional town, we need to have theater criticism that is a true barometer of achievement. And we need to know who our professional critics truly are. When actor-critics and bloggers are treated on equal par with professional critics, it drowns out the professional critic’s voices. This, in turn, causes several things to happen: First, professional critics lose their jobs. (Why should a newspaper, which is losing money, employ a critic when there are people out there just blogging reviews for free?) Second, when the professional critics lose their jobs, the only way they can continue to review shows is to start blogging themselves. This causes them to get lost in a sea of blogs, rendering their voices obsolete. Slowly, patrons stop being able to tell who is who. This confusion will lead to a point, if it hasn’t already, where people write reviews that highlight the “good efforts” of theater-makers, rather than honestly critiquing their performances.
When the public has no way to tell the professional critics from the non-professional critics then we should just call the whole thing off and stop giving out press comps. It would be easier and safer for a producer to make up fake reviews on his/her own. Indeed, “criticism” would descend into nothing more than a collection of goldstar patron reviews.
And don’t tell me this isn’t happening. I have had far too many conversations with people who constantly complain about the downturn in quality theater reviews. This might not be a popular thing to say in public, since no one wants to anger the critics… but it needs to be said.
Finally, Steven’s comment ends with:
Full disclosure is the key to this argument — then let the readers decide. That’s what they do in the literary world where authors are the main critics in book reviews. It does NOT invalidate the writer’s view, it exposes the tangled webs of our profession and thereby presents the writer’s argument in a glow of honesty, and thereby, credibility.
It looks like Steven is actually saying that we should have full disclosure as to who is who– professional, amateur, etc. But where is his bio on the LA Weekly site? I can’t find it. For that matter, I can’t find a bio for any critic posted on the LA Times’ site. Or Variety’s. If Steven agrees that full disclosure is the answer, then let’s put those bios up online, and make sure they are complete. Let’s know who we’re dealing with– both at our papers and in the blogosphere.
I’d like to address the issue of professionalism from another perspective. Let’s look at it this way:
If you have a problem with your landlord, you can call up a random person– say, me– and I can probably tell you what to do. The reason I can probably give you advice is because I have had rented apartments before and know what it’s like to have a problem with a landlord. I have first-hand experience. In addition, I have read the California Landlord Tenant Handbook a bunch of times, cover to cover. But, I am not a lawyer. I have no right to practice law. And it’s possible that I might very well screw up your situation simply because I’m not a lawyer, and therefore, my advice is not legal. That is why we have the Bar Association. The Bar Association decides who practices law because California has decided that it is in the best interest for the general public to have a qualified group vetting lawyers.
It’s not just people in the legal profession who are vetted. Here are a few other professions that require an authoritative body or experts to decide whether or not they’re qualified to do their jobs:
- Police
- Firefighters
- Doctors
- Real Estate People (Salesman and Appraisers)
- Plumbers, Electricians, Contractors, etc
- Teachers
- Beauticians (Hair Stylists, Manicurists, etc)
- Accountants
All these professionals need a license, because somewhere along the way, the community at large decided that we want these professionals to abide by certain rules obligating them to provide certain standards of service. That is what I am asking for. I ask that we set up a committee, voted on by the members of the LA Stage Alliance, that will set up guidelines outlining the standards we wish critics to employ– including remaining free from having conflicts of interest. Thereafter, we can set up a seminar to help train anyone who wants to be a critic, who doesn’t yet meet these standards. Here is an example of just such a class.
I promised I would get back to the dirty underwear quote. I guess I will simply say that I don’t really care if people walk around wearing dirty underwear. But if you take off your pants and tell me that you have the authority to discuss professional laundering techniques, then your underwear had better well be clean.
1 comment