Over the Hill?

Just today I was talking to one of my local theatre associated about how one of the local theatres in this area has been skewing towards the older generation in regards to plays they produce. This entire season, in fact, every audition call they send out mentions characters no younger than 60 in most cases. I found it problematic and so did my associate.

I don't mean any disrespect to this company, as I have done things here and there for them. I like the venue and I like the people there. It's just that I think both they, and the community as a whole, would be served better if they broadened their offerings a bit.

I'm not picking on them, though. Other companies in other places make similar decisions in regards to material, and not just in the age department. This type of selectivity can be hurtful to a company's brand appeal.

A company may always do shows that have 90% women casts. Or perhaps their shows by definition require white casts most of the time. Or the opposite of the problem I mentioned when I started; a company may never produce plays with people older than 22. Whatever the demographic being catered to may be, and whatever the impetus is for doing so, (usually an effort to sell more tickets), a theatre is better off with an eclectic mix of material. At least more eclectic than 6 or so shows in a row of "nobody under 60".

I think there are ways to do this and be more appealing. The first would be to give younger people a chance to play older people. Find a reliable make-up artist, and give it a try. Acting is acting, after all, and I never did like the near-ubiquitous notion that the young need not apply when the character ages are older.

A second possibility. Some theatres exist specifically to cater to one demographic. Entire playhouses exist to exhibit say, the work of  Jewish playwrights, actors, and stories. And I think that's fantastic. In fact, we may need more such places. To connect this with my original thoughts, what if some community theatres that tend to cater to a certain demographic anyway, reshape their mission statement to be congruent with that? I think having a local, non-profit theatre dedicated to exploring issues of the older generation would serve quite an interesting purpose. But for the sake of fairness, that should be in their company name somewhere, as well as their mission statement. So long as a company claims to be a community theatre, all sections of the community in which the theatre appears ought to be represented in the material produced.

This may mean that some shows are not full houses. But to me, an effort to produce plays that appeal to different segments of the local population, even though they be a minority, shows great artistic courage and altruism. What a company may lose in ticket sales this year, it may gain back in years to come once word spreads that they are an eclectic destination. On the other side of the coin, going all in and dedicating everything you do to one demographic in an official capacity may have the same effect, once word got out.

Some may call that a pipe dream. I don't. But say what you will, it's a perspective I thought worth sharing and discussing. Any thoughts on this?

Ex Nihilo

A church down the street from me was having an indoor yard sale the other day. The have plans to leave the building once their new facility is built nearby, so I imagine that is why. I had never been inside the building before, so out of curiosity, (more than my need for mismatched plates and coffee mugs) I went in.

The predictable collection of out of style clothes, ugly brick-a-brack, obscure book titles and stuffed animals was laid out in what I imagine is their soon to be abandoned social hall. Which interested me more than any of the stuff for sale.

For you see, there was a small stage at the end of this long room. Not simply a glorified platform but an actual stage. Proscenium arch, curtain, and what appeared to be a small backstage area, with access from another room. (The curtains were partially closed so it was hard to be certain.) My rough guess is that it was 20 feet wide maybe.

There was no permanent seating, so it I assume when the stage is used, if it ever is, it would be a folding chair sort of situation. Depending on how they were arranged, I figured you could probably seat between 80 and 100 people in the place, with room for an aisle.

Obviously I will not be able to buy this building when the congregation vacates it. Yet that didn't stop my from visualizing how much theatre could be done in this venue. Not all shows, of course. You wouldn't easily fit a production of South Pacific in there. But any number of smaller, intimate plays could find a home there. Especially those with minimal sets and scene changes. Minimalist plays, like the ones I like. Shakespeare could be done easily in this diminutive performance space. Theatre is begging to be performed here.

Not that a building has to even have a literal stage to be ideal for theatre. Literally right next door to this church is an long abandoned large storefront with huge windows that I have often envisioned as a potential site for minimalist productions as well. Down the block from that is yet another such abandoned building, complete with a raised floor that is even more suitable for the same purpose. (Brunswick, Maryland is a hopelessly dead city, in case you didn't already determine that.)

The point is, it all got me thinking again about how ubiquitous live theatre can be with the right amount of involvement and interest. This church's social hall had no special lighting, no flies, no cat walk. Yet it was just waiting for theatre. Same with the other buildings I mentioned. Theatre can be done just about anywhere so long as it is dry and safe for actors and audience. One doesn't have to look far to find all kinds of non-theater venues converts into theatres. Your town may have one. Either a permanent set up, or something that has been adapted for theatrical purposes for the length of a festival or a single weekend.

I am not a fan of performing outside, but many are, and if you are one such person, you literally have almost the whole world at your disposal for a stage. Fields. Hills. Clearings in the woods. (Just get proper permission of course!)

None of this is to suggest that I personally would want to perform Hamlet in any random location. I admit I enjoy the comforts of an actual stage, dressing room, and backstage. Yet the possibility that Hamlet, or King Lear, or Greek tragedy, or, if you have money to pay royalties for it, plays like Waiting for Godot can be performed anywhere there is room for an audience to sit fascinates and excites me. Theatre truly can be brought forth out of nothing. Ex nihilo.

As versatile as the live theatre experience can be, I wonder why it is not done more often. Is it that the modern digital age moves too fast to enjoy live theatre? That the society of iPhones and Google Reader just doesn't have the attention span to appreciate a play, even if for just a few nights at the local empty former Safeway that nobody else is using?

Is it geography? Are certain areas and cities less likely to embrace it than others? Perhaps this sort of "vagrancy theatre" happen quite often where you live.

Or are people not comfortable with the idea of watching a play in an empty warehouse? Or is it just prohibitively expensive to rent an empty building for a few weeks? That could be it too. I am not sure. I have never done it.

Whatever the reasons, it is unfortunate that it doesn't happen as often as I think it could. But then again, outside of my area, perhaps it does happen a lot more often.

Theatre is, or at least can be, almost everywhere, and I find that fascinating. Though I myself would not enjoy performing everywhere, (I am very much not a fan of the Shakespeare on Subway cars thing I have been reading about), I would perform in any of the venues on this very street that I mentioned. Furthermore I would attend a play someone else was putting on in such a venue.

Ex Nihilo. Out of nothing. That is what theatre can be.

Acting Alfresco

I have never performed in a play at an outside venue. I have been in the audience for a few outside performances. (All Shakespeare.) And I have at times rehearsed outside, when casts on a nice day whine and beg for the privilege to do so. And while I will concede that an odd rehearsal outside here and there is not the same thing as an entire production taking place outside, what I learned from those experiences has convinced me I wouldn't want to perform outside in most circumstances.

I have often said here on the blog that an actor must always be prepared for any contingency. The lights going out, the sound system not functioning. Last minute costume changes. To be a good actor one must be adaptable to many different situations that may arise during the course of a production. To insist on everything being perfect in order to perform well is just asking for trouble.

That doesn't mean, however, that I welcome an extra dozen or so variables just for the fun of it. I'd like to at least aim for as much control as possible. Performing outside by default puts so many things outside of the actor's control.

To begin with, weather. While with enough focus I could perform in the pouring rain, why would I opt for the risk? What is that proving? I hate being in wet clothes, and if I am that uncomfortable it is putting an undue strain on my to keep said focus. The same with gusting wind. And the idea of canceling a show due to weather is not an enviable option, seeing as how often weather tends to screw around with my plans anyway. All of that work down the tube because on the day we open it rains? No thank you.

Also, people these days tend to have a hard enough time keeping quiet and respectful in a theatre. Put that same group of talking, texting, food munching patrons outside and you might as well send out an invitation to everyone in attendance that says,

"You are cordially invited to make a bunch of noise as often as possible."

And that is just the patrons. If you are outside, you are guaranteed to have people who couldn't care less about theatre laying on their horn for minutes at a time as they drive by, putting their radios on loud in an adjoining area, or just generally going out of their way to screw everything up. If they did that at an indoor venue they could be asked to leave and if needs be, forcibly removed. How do you eject someone from "outside"?

The classics such as Shakespeare and obviously the Greek tragedies can be played well in such venues, if you are into broad, sweeping interpretations. Which sometimes I am. But most outdoor venues deprive one of intimacy. Subtleties in performance, which I both like to see as a patron, and use as an actor, are lost in your standard outdoor venue. Plus many modern plays simply would not work outside, whereas Shakespeare or the Greek tragedies can in fact be adjusted to work inside.

I'm not unaware of some of the positive points made by those who enjoy outdoor theatre. For one, yes, I realize that the very first theatres were outdoor venues, and that to perform outdoors does provide one with a semi-intriguing connection to ancient theatre. But that was two thousand or so years ago. They also killed people for sport and entertainment back then. The age of a practice is not by itself proof of it's prudence.

Also, most outdoor shows are by default minimalist in regards to sets and props. This I like, because as I have often said, I am a theatre minimalist. But minimalism as a concept is not limited to outside venues.

It is said that outdoor venues are less stuffy and more inviting atmospheres than are traditional indoor venues. The casual theatre goer would feel less intimidated about coming to a show outside in a park than inside in a theatre. I give this a maybe, but with the caveat that there is nothing wrong with a little bit of stuffiness and decorum inside of a theatre. Furthermore, an open, relaxed atmosphere can be established inside as well, if desired.

I suppose there could be an outside venue in which I would consider performing, if it met several criteria.

-An enclosed venue, specifically set aside for theatre. This as opposed to an open, available space in a city park somewhere. If I am going to perform outside, I want to be sure that anybody who can see me is at least there with the intention of seeing a show.

-Observant staff that keep the audience respectful. If people in the audience are held just as accountable at an outside theatre as they are in an inside theatre, that would make it more palatable to me.

-A weather proofed performance area. Or at least one that would be shielded from the rain and wind as much a possible. That way the performers could continue, and let the audience decide if it's worth getting rained on.

-Reasonable size. Some outdoor venues actually have seats, while some just have patrons sit on the ground, or bring their own chairs. But either way, I don't want a sprawling, thousand person "house". If it is still limited to a few hundred people that are rather close to the stage, some amount of intimacy might be saved, and make it worth it.

-Secluded location. Or at least semi-secluded. Far enough away fro major highways, public parks, and other such distractions to make it feel as though despite being outside, everyone has arrived at a theatre once they are there.

-Dressing rooms. I think I need them. Not so much for the privacy of changing clothes. An actor gets used to not caring who sees what backstage. But for the sake of having someplace where the actor can be "off" when he needs to be. I know I need that.

-Some lighting. I'd hate for every show to be a matinee...

All and all, I suppose I could be persuaded under those conditions, to be in an outdoor show. Perhaps I still could be persuaded even without all of these safeguards if the chance were a great opportunity. But all things being 100% equal, I will almost always choose to perform inside instead of outside.

Have you ever performed in an outdoor venue? What did you think of it?