The Playgoer: SPF Panel

Custom Search

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

SPF Panel

















TlalocNYC said...


Excuse me - but what kind of reality do YOU live in? A glib statement like that completely underscores that there are social-economic-cultural-generational issues that ABSOLUTELY determine whether or not one wants to go to the theater. Of course 'value' takes importance over 'price' - you're preaching to the choir. But when that content is determined my artistic leaders (across the national level) who are predominately white, middle-class, well-educated and yet at the same time continuing to produce pedestrian, safe and routine revivals (perhaps couched and directed by 'hot, young director' with an interesting take ... please)- and then it gets turned around against the next generation because we're more interested in a Knicks game, or a concert, or opera singing in the back of bar - the whole thing becomes disingenuous. The 'youth' of America is just as interested in CONNECTION as you are - and they do place a 'value' on what you're selling (damn the price).

For the record, I didn't know any rich young people where I grew up; but when I did, it was though a social event - which the NY commercial theater has yet to fully comprehend beyond the 'content' and the dollar signs... T

Anonymous said...

and as we see across all forms of entertainment - if it isn't any good it doesn't matter if it costs $10 or 100, if you can watch it on your iPod or not - if it ain't interesting I ain't going...maybe that's what we should be looking at as well

carnieboy said...

I think the first comment about connection hits the nail right on the head. I was at the 2nd SPF panel, and after having had some time to reflect on it, what I've walked away with is this: Theatre doesn't matter. This was essentially Lisa Kron's point, that theatre isn't integrated into our daily lives any more, so it's very hard to get people to buy tickets and travel to the theatre.

But I think that we integrate into our lives what we need (or think we need, anyway) and if Theatre isn't part of the mainstream any more, that must be because it doesn't speak to the mainstream any more. And I think the main reason for this is that most theatre out there (and most theatre companies, for that matter) don't have anything to say. Or, rather, they say things about being "committed to producing entertaining, powerful and educational work that explores current social issues" or other such vague and nonsensical statements that, like a politician's speech, have lots of fancy words in them but don't really mean anything at all.

This ties in to what Neil Pepe touched on when he talked about "what are we saying?" with our theatre.

It seems to me that the companies that have been the most successful are the companies like Atlantic and SITI and Signature that clearly stand for something, be it an acting technique, or a specific relationship with the playwright.

But I think a lot of the fault lies with the actors. After all, we're the ones on stage every night, and it's us that the audience comes to see. Why is it that people will pay premium prices to see sporting events but not theatrical ones? Because athletes know what their job is and they go out there and do whatever they have to do to get it done. Most actors don't. They either don't know what their job is, or they do but spend their time on stage complaining about how it's not getting done. I think if actors stopped thinking of themselves as artists and started thinking of themselves as athletes, we'd see the quality of productions and the audience's engagement skyrocket.

Ben Kessler said...

If I were you guys, I wouldn't look to Lisa Kron to offer cogent reasons why the theater is in decline. Her play Well is part of the problem. Its ending dissolves mother/daughter conflict into a mushy, faux-urgent plea for liberal "acceptance" of all Otherness. After 100 minutes of feebly attempting satire of downtown theater's ideological/therapeutic commonplaces, Kron ratifies all those 21st-century boho truisms. She's not even up to the level of discourse upheld by the ladies on The View (whose real-life Star Jones/Barbara Walters drama holds more fascination than Kron's work).

This is indicative of the problem with today's theater, which boils down to ideology. Our culture is desperate to prevent the kind of societal and moral examination that theater naturally provokes. Even when watching a bad play, we are face-to-face with actors who are doing their best to faithfully represent human conflicts (unless they're directed to do otherwise, as they apparently are in Pig Farm). In order to continue its happy strut towards Armageddon, our post-9/11 culture must relegate this art form to the margins. Unless we commit to reminding our audiences of the truths they'd rather jettison, thus living up to our responsibility as theater artists and claiming our place within the tradition, we will continue to suffer declining relevance. And this crisis of relevance, unlike the related crisis of declining ticket sales, has the potential to do mortal harm to theater as we know (and love) it.

Anonymous said...

Two things:

1. The Signature is eroding and process of "New Plays" by doing a season of a playwright that's been in the history books. Will they dare do somethng from an Unknown...a SEASON of unknowns ? I doubt it.

2. The SPF Festival. I'm glad to see some forums, but let's look at the plays folks. Anything, that's reflecting our culture?

Also - rumors I'm sure, or bitter people rejected, but I hear the system of how the whole SPF is put together is a bit of a Nepotistic ordeal in some cases. Ihope this is wrong. Has anybody else heard the same rumblings ?

Anonymous said...

P.S. I count TWO.

TWO SPF plays that in the words of Neil Pepe:


Have something that actually says something. Everything else falls under Lisa Kron's viewpoint:


M. Alice said...

My play was in the SPF festival this year, and I can guarantee you that NOBODY on the judging panels knew who the hell I was. All the other playwrights had some signficant credits to their name, but I had next to nothing.

I can only speak of my experience. I'm used to getting rejected from things like SPF and I only submitted something because the application was free and a friend suggested I submit this play I gave up on years ago.

I've got my own concerns about the state of modern theater. I attended the SPF panels and was suitably disheartened by them. I'm not even sure what happens to my career now, if anything.

But... I need to say that EVERYBODY at SPF was so generous with me over the past several months. It didn't matter to them that I didn't have a lot of credits under my belt. They didn't know who I was but they liked my play and they welcomed me in this year. I'm as "bitter" as the next person, and honestly I probably wouldn't have gone to see any of the shows this year if I didn't get selected... but I've gotta say, those SPF folks are genuinely good people, and they're all just trying to support the artists.

Playgoer said...


Point taken. Plays' value should not be assessed based on blurbs. (Though I've enjoyed holding up particularly insane blurbs for public scrutiny before.)

While the SPF is a commercially leaning venue, I recognize many of the playwrights as serious. I managed to see one play, and respectfully enjoyed it. (Though I may not review out of respect for the no-press policy.)

But overall, anything that gets 15 new plays up, in productions not readings, at an affordable ticket price, is a good thing. Ari Tepper is good people, even if she is (gasp) a Broadway producer. There once was a time the American Theatre benefitted from smart producers with good taste (Kermit Bloomgarten, Hal Prince). So let's have more by all means.