I see a lot of regional theater, since I live in the Bay Area and live theater is my wife's passion.
I think the problem is that nearly all of the plays we see turn into "politically correct / liberal humanism" dinner theater, in which the overly obvious message and the sermonizing becomes the most important feature. Even if you are not a Trump supporter, this kind of moral preaching gets tiresome after awhile.
People putting these plays on need to produce material that does more than reinforce its audiences NPR values, but that is truly funny and satirical. Beyond that, why aren't there more genre-inspired plays? The Berkeley Rep is doing a horror play based on a popular vampire story and even this is a welcome respite.
Thanks for this comment. I know we have this debate with fiction as well but because live performance does have its roots in the mass communication of moral instruction, there’s a lot of tolerance of preachiness among theatre makers (but not so much their audiences). People do not go to the theatre to be made into better people, or even to have their beliefs confirmed. They go to be moved.
For the record, many of the audiences seem to LIKE and EXPECT plays that reinforce and flatter their values as "the good people." The problem is that these are the audiences for a very small demographic - elderly, urban, and elite. Going to a play now is like visiting a retirement home. I'm 59 and I often feel like the youngest guy at the show!
On the other hand, good theater can be bold, controversial, and moving. But it has to risk upsetting the audiences and even disturbing them. This no one wants to do. When was the last time you heard about a truly "controversial" play? Or one that made communities unhappy? This is a theater of engagement and risk, not more of the same old PBS/NPR dictates and reassurances.
Look at the work of someone like Pinter - bold, stark, ambiguous, even creepy. Who do we have like this today? Or Albee, probing away at the shallowness and tragic aspects of bourgeois life? No one is making plays about this now. You can't do this and kiss up to the typical theater audiences at the same time.
I will point out that "Eureka Day" managed to skillfully skewer its audiences and reveal their foibles - those of clueless, elite liberals. It has also proven to be both funny and popular. Annie Baker's "John" was brilliant, creepy, and disturbing. Why not more plays like these?
All good points. The plays I see described as “challenging” all reinforce the shared worldview. Maybe the audiences do want to be congratulated. I think the producers want to be on the “right side of history.” This is not how you get new David Mamet plays, for sure.
Great article and to offer a UK perspective, we have a similar issue. There are some high profile events that audiences are willing to pay high prices for meanwhile 'regular' theatre (and especially regional theatre) continues to suffer. Part of the challenge is a radical reduction in Arts Council funding and a focus in participatory programming rather than literary quality. Very few theatres seem capable of building audiences that will book tickets because they trust the venue which is a big brand building miss! For example when a local theatre has a Jersey Boys tribute, a touring comedy show and the Dreamboys then their audience is fragmented and confused about what that theatre stands for. There is a small theatre near me called The Watermill which has about 150 seats and is literally in the middle of nowhere but I would book anything they present because they produce it themselves and it as always great.
Michael, Thank you for this sobering report. :-( It reminds me of a study conducted by the NEA 20 years ago called Reading at Risk. It found (among other things) that people who read literary books also subscribe to the theater, engage in philanthropy, etc. Participation in one art correlates with participation in others. The decline in the reading of books is probably trackable alongside the decline in theatergoing. Your points about good storytelling once audiences get there is also, I think, a good one. In case you're interested ... https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/ReadingAtRisk.pdf
I see a lot of regional theater, since I live in the Bay Area and live theater is my wife's passion.
I think the problem is that nearly all of the plays we see turn into "politically correct / liberal humanism" dinner theater, in which the overly obvious message and the sermonizing becomes the most important feature. Even if you are not a Trump supporter, this kind of moral preaching gets tiresome after awhile.
People putting these plays on need to produce material that does more than reinforce its audiences NPR values, but that is truly funny and satirical. Beyond that, why aren't there more genre-inspired plays? The Berkeley Rep is doing a horror play based on a popular vampire story and even this is a welcome respite.
Thanks for this comment. I know we have this debate with fiction as well but because live performance does have its roots in the mass communication of moral instruction, there’s a lot of tolerance of preachiness among theatre makers (but not so much their audiences). People do not go to the theatre to be made into better people, or even to have their beliefs confirmed. They go to be moved.
For the record, many of the audiences seem to LIKE and EXPECT plays that reinforce and flatter their values as "the good people." The problem is that these are the audiences for a very small demographic - elderly, urban, and elite. Going to a play now is like visiting a retirement home. I'm 59 and I often feel like the youngest guy at the show!
On the other hand, good theater can be bold, controversial, and moving. But it has to risk upsetting the audiences and even disturbing them. This no one wants to do. When was the last time you heard about a truly "controversial" play? Or one that made communities unhappy? This is a theater of engagement and risk, not more of the same old PBS/NPR dictates and reassurances.
Look at the work of someone like Pinter - bold, stark, ambiguous, even creepy. Who do we have like this today? Or Albee, probing away at the shallowness and tragic aspects of bourgeois life? No one is making plays about this now. You can't do this and kiss up to the typical theater audiences at the same time.
I will point out that "Eureka Day" managed to skillfully skewer its audiences and reveal their foibles - those of clueless, elite liberals. It has also proven to be both funny and popular. Annie Baker's "John" was brilliant, creepy, and disturbing. Why not more plays like these?
All good points. The plays I see described as “challenging” all reinforce the shared worldview. Maybe the audiences do want to be congratulated. I think the producers want to be on the “right side of history.” This is not how you get new David Mamet plays, for sure.
Great article and to offer a UK perspective, we have a similar issue. There are some high profile events that audiences are willing to pay high prices for meanwhile 'regular' theatre (and especially regional theatre) continues to suffer. Part of the challenge is a radical reduction in Arts Council funding and a focus in participatory programming rather than literary quality. Very few theatres seem capable of building audiences that will book tickets because they trust the venue which is a big brand building miss! For example when a local theatre has a Jersey Boys tribute, a touring comedy show and the Dreamboys then their audience is fragmented and confused about what that theatre stands for. There is a small theatre near me called The Watermill which has about 150 seats and is literally in the middle of nowhere but I would book anything they present because they produce it themselves and it as always great.
Michael, Thank you for this sobering report. :-( It reminds me of a study conducted by the NEA 20 years ago called Reading at Risk. It found (among other things) that people who read literary books also subscribe to the theater, engage in philanthropy, etc. Participation in one art correlates with participation in others. The decline in the reading of books is probably trackable alongside the decline in theatergoing. Your points about good storytelling once audiences get there is also, I think, a good one. In case you're interested ... https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/ReadingAtRisk.pdf