39
votes
American theater is imploding before our eyes
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Opinion | American Theater Is Collapsing. The Federal Government Must Save It.
- Published
- Jul 19 2023
- Word count
- 1514 words
Gift link to bypass the paywall
Last winter I randomly saw an ad for a play that looked interesting, which would make it the first play I've seen since before Covid. But when I considered the cost of travel to and from the theater (parking etc), and the ticket prices, I sadly had to decide against it: it would be too costly for a couple of hours of entertainment from anywhere other than the nosebleeds.
I wonder if offering cheap opera glasses the way movie theaters offer 3D glasses might encourage more people to partake of the experience? Because I did find myself weighing the cost-benefit of getting binoculars and having to hold them up the entire time from nosebleeds. Movie screens are massive and viewable from any seat, but stage actors are a finite size on a finite stage, and if you're used to being able to see everything in high def 4k resolution, seeing actors from a long distance is a hard sell for the price for the younger generation.
That said, I love theater - the costumes, the live energy, the set designs. But it's so often just too pricey for what I experience unless I shell out for orchestra seats. In college I got to see a couple of plays on and off Broadway, but the affordable tickets had such lousy visibility (I legit sat behind a POLE once lmao, this was before https://aviewfrommyseat.com/ existed) that I decided to only see plays very, very rarely with better, more expensive seats. Which of course meant I saw maybe one play every two years, instead of 2/year.
It's one of those art forms that's an anachronism. On one hand, the art should be preserved. Live theater is its own thing and it brings a lot to the table. The actors truly have to carry it rather than big orchestral scores, cinematic shots, and cgi. So it's something we should preserve.
On the other hand, it evolved into the big screen for a reason and then the big screen evolved into the trash it can be today.
All your cons are on point. It's not hard to explain why theater is cool to a young person. What is hard to explain is why they should go through that hassle and price to go see a performance from a long distance away.
So the off the cuff solution would be to modernize theater without robbing it of its identity. How do we do that? Well, like other live shows, that would involve projecting what they're doing onto a larger screen. Guarantee that suggestion goes against the grain of the theater world. They'd argue it defeats the purpose.
However, if finessed properly, like every other major live event, everyone wins. The ones who pay big dosh can sit up close and enjoy the full experience of watching humans pretend in the highest form.
The ones in the back can still see and hear what's happening without feeling tortured.
The venue attracts more audiences because they're accommodating more people thereinby securing their future as a viable art form.
But, things aren't that simple. It's like asking an orchestra why they don't play some beats in the streets. Why are they stuck indoors playing classics from hundreds of years ago for hundreds of dollars a seat?
Part of it is, the venue has to respect the donor's and patrons wishes of wanting to see more of the classics. So the audience dictates what is played. Another part is the members of the group or troupe or the performers are purists. They want to play what they want how they want it, otherwise it's not the art form they signed up for.
This creates a closed loop where neither party, the patron nor the performer, nor the venue want to change. They will keep on hemorrhaging until it's just an art student thing you can do. But that's art everywhere. Capitalism doesn't care for art, unless it makes lots of money and that's a topic for another time.
I view it as "get with the times, or be left behind" and some art disciplines are more stubborn than others.
Dancers are...flexible...enough and they dance to all sorts of stuff. Musicians have adapted greatly but there's still some holdouts that would rather die than simplify their music or make it appeal to the wider audience.
Jazz was a response to this but jazz is now stuffy.
The big screen was a capitalistic response in a lot of ways and it was the theater adapting to the times but it has its own identity now and it is in need of its own revival which in a lot of ways is already happening with independent studios, European and Spanish films, and unions, strikes, etc.
So faced again with being forgotten, what will theater do? Blame the ignorant brainwashed masses for not liking their art, or face the music and change slightly in order to attract people without losing their identity?
A few violinists dared to make their instrument electrical. I'm sure that went over well during practice.
One way theatres have adapted in the UK is with National Theatre Live, which I think is fantastic. During a play's run at the National Theatre in London there will be a day or two when the performance is filmed and then streamed live to cinemas around the country. I assume it nets the theatre additional income but it also means that so many more people are able to access and enjoy plays that would otherwise be inaccessible.
It's a different experience than being there in person but it also negates a lot of the negatives you were talking about. You essentially get the best view in the house and then some - they focus in on actors when they're speaking and then step back to show the whole stage during big set pieces.
It also means that you keep the traditional experience for the purists and provide a different experience for those who want it.
I've actually just looked it up and it looks like they now have a streaming service as well which also seems like a great idea.
The Met opera does this in the US also! Many local movie theaters will show Met live (?) opera broadcasts on some weekends. It's typically more expensive than a movie, but you get to see a Met performance in a theater setting. I saw Tristan unt Isolde that way, and maybe one other, can't remember to well. Super excellent experience.
Ooh I might have to see if there's a way I can view those in the UK as well. I can't count how many plays I've seen through the National Theatre Live programme and they've all been great experiences - full theatres and with an audience who is genuinely excited by theatre. It might be a bit more expensive than a a cinema ticket but for me it's infinitely cheaper than getting a train to London and finding a hotel to stay etc. My local independent cinema shows the screenings so for me it's just a five minute walk away - which also means far less planning than having to think about a trip to another city.
See, that's fantastic. Kudos to them. That's survival in action. I love stories like that because it shows bravery and creativity. Everyone wins, theater keeps on keeping on.
Not just around the country but around the world. I just saw Fleabag in a cinema in Sydney from NT Live!
Oh that's super cool, I didn't realise it was so wide spread! What did you think of Fleabag? I've seen the TV show but I must have missed the NT live screening.
It was excellent! I’d seen the show too and it follows quite closely so there were no surprises in the storytelling, but Phoebe Waller-Bridge was absolutely mesmerising!
The purists are one of the reasons why I suggested maybe handing out and collecting some form of goggle/binoculars for the cheap seats - it's the least intrusive way I can think of off the top of my head to enhance the experience without destroying the pure artistry. Sports stadiums have gotten so massive that a giant screen above center field is necessary for people to see the sports action (same with concerts), but I can understand why theaters simply won't go that route, at least not within the same theater space.
And then there are those productions that have experimented with limited engagement filmed screenings in movie theaters, though since I've never seen one IDK how well that works.
There's always going to be a reason why it can't be changed, but I'm a solution forward type. Unsolvable problems just require creativity.
Goggles are good, binoculars are good, building a crappy divider, adding a TV or a projector is also an idea. Who knows, there's so many things they and other artists could do but maybe what's happening now is good enough.
In a previous life I was a theatre major and I absolutely think there's a place for theatre in today's world. But going to a large format theatre to watch traditional Shakespeare or Our Town or what have you is a thing of the past in most people's minds.
Great modern theatre takes advantage of what film and TV cannot. Go to a local fringe festival and watch the shows, you'll probably find a lot more to fall in love with compared to what you find at big playhouses.
The other problem is that the truly compelling theatre experiences are usually more experimental in nature which takes it closer to the art world than the entertainment world. Even in cases where the shows are legitimately entertaining it can be tough to find and hold an audience.
As an example of this, Ann Arbor MI has a nonprofit that produces a Shakespeare play that is performed every year in the local arboretum (aptly named Shakespeare in the Arb). This is how I first saw A Midsummer Nights Dream, and it is now my canonical version of the play. The set dressing is absolute minimal, the background is just the park itself with costumed performers in front, and it's a delight.
Just for the record, I don’t much care for jumbotron displays at any performance. I’d rather seem them small and direct. Sound reinforcement is another matter.
That said, smaller productions are the answer. Even in film, the more complex stories are being told in smaller vehicles.
Is this really a problem? The only thing you miss out on is the mimic of the actors and the finer details of costume design. You get everything else.
And people sitting in the back half of parquet seating share that "problem" with nosebleeds. It's just part of the live experience. As a student I watched a lot whole lot of theater, opera and musicals from nosebleeds. It's clearly worse than having a good seat, but so much better than watching a recording (including close-up shots) on screen.
I'm also not sure how much good "cheap opera glasses" would do. There's a reason good binoculars go for thousands of dollars.
If I'm watching people acting, I kind of want to be able to see them acting. And I love the details of set and costume design, so yes, for me, nosebleeds offer more frustration in the balance of things. Not every production gets memorialized in soundtracks and photo books and footage, when I'm there I want to experience everything to the max because chances are good the only evidence of how things played out will be in my memories.
It's possible the fact that part of the 'experience' is knowing you're going to miss things that you won't get to see on replay is one of the reasons some people spend their time and money elsewhere. At least at a stadium you know you'll be able to catch highlights of the game ad nauseum.
I wanted to take my daughter to see Beauty and the Beast. It was my favourite Disney movie growing up and she loves it too. Great! I thought. Until I went to the booking page and saw that for just the two of us in the very back it would be $300, and $4-450 if we wanted a decent view. The theatre is once again a pastime of the elite.
Ouch. Would she be old enough to really enjoy and remember it?
This raised an interesting additional potential factor to decreasing theater attendance in my mind: given the increasing consolidation of wealth to an ever decreasing pool of people, there's fewer elites to buy and fill the seats at the various hoity toity performing arts venues. The middle class used to be able to afford theater as special treats, but far less so now.
Pretty central to the argument in this opinion piece is this
But the author doesn't really justify this claim at all. For one, with bank runs, the banking system is in a bad state - once injected with capital, it continues to operate. Is this also the case with theater? Will an injection of money allow American theater to continue operating sustainably?
Why is American theater too important to fail? I know this is a play on "too big to fail", but like that was actually true - the entire country would materially and very obviously damaged in 2008. Is it true with theater, an already niche art form? I don't think it's obvious, in any case, in a way that you can just say it as a fact.
This is about as much as the author spent justifying Theater's importance. But it's mostly empty platitudes, and it begs the question of, is it the case that the arts are failing and need injection, or is it just theater?
All that being said, I do enjoy theater. I always go to a broadway show if I can when I'm in NY, and it's a good time. But the author doesn't really do a good job of arguing why they need a "federal bailout".
Eeehhhh. Live theater is alive and well in my area, but that's because it has adjusted to fit a different reality. Rather than enormous theaters with dozens or hundreds of actors, they run more modest productions that can be run by actors and crew totaling 10 or 15 people. The spaces are more modest, fitting 50 or 100 people. Even this isn't enough to save all theater troupes, but it has meant that some do still exist and if you want to see a play it's something that can be done at a reasonable price.
This is where I'm at. I've seen two plays in the last year; one was in an auditorium for about 100 people and another was a bit bigger, probably for about 400 or so.
Our Performing Arts center has maybe two huge theaters, but several small ones for everything else and that's where I seem to usually end up.
Honestly, my biggest issue with theater is that is uncouth to get up and go pee in the middle of a performance...
As someone that works in American regional theatre, this hits hard. There are days when I'm optimistic, and then there are days when I wonder if live theatre will exist in my city in five years. It's late as I read this, so that probably doesn't help me find the optimism.
Tomorrow is another day.
Who the fuck is surprised?
Theaters have to pay outrageous licensing costs to even show films on their premises. Couple this with the high ticket prices, added 'convenience fees' you'd expect from a place like TicketMaster and the 'cinema prices' you have to pay for refreshments like soda, popcorn, pick & mix, etc, which seem to be the only way that theaters really make themselves profitable.
I really think that the likes of AMC, Odeon, etc should have either gone the Netflix approach of producing their own films to broadcast in theaters to bypass the whole licensing issue, or approached the struggling streaming platforms with lucrative theater broadcasting rights as a cross-promotion.
This is about live theater.
Oh... Then I'd say the problem is more that it's a dying art form. An EmpLemon video that called professional wrestling the last surviving form of theatre is probably the most accurate way to put it.
People don't want to write poems, musicals or plays anymore. It's always films, novels, TV series, etc.
I'm sure there's still people who want to perform in theatre. In a similar way to how there are people who will stick with Usenet to its dying breath.
The issue I seem to read in the article is scalability. Theatre as a whole isn't proftiable to begin with and it being unable to reach out to others interested limits that further. Wrestling is a great analouge because it is a form of theatre that has adapted perfectly to the modern age. All ages of wrestlers, be it The Rock or John Cena weren't just there to do their "wrestling", they were a personality. While the former relied on traditional media to keep the hype up, the latter can use social media to further their name, even outside of the thing they are being watched for.
That's admitedly much harder to do with a 16th century play where actors roleplay as someone else, but it's food for thought.