|
|
Post by poppeterson on Oct 17, 2012 9:41:04 GMT -5
The focus thus far, as far as I can tell, has been what about Richmond Theatre or Richmond Theatre Professionals keeps this area from being an Atlanta, DC, or NY for mid-coastal theatre. I don't think either is to blame, I think the problem is Richmond.
As artist we are inclined to believe the old mantra "If you build it they will come, but, as they say in real estate, the three most important factors in determining the desirability of a property are "location, location, location".
Let's talk about this location. Richmond is a beautiful city full of history, architecture, and culture but many of the points of interest are vastly scattered apart or lost in the cityscape. (I, for example, discovered the Holocaust museum completely by accident and would have mistaken it for an abandoned warehouse if not for the sign out front).
Transportation is another great adversary to Richmond's prosperity. Parking is sub-par at best and public transit is abysmal; every year another bus line is cut or stops reduced and very little is available for those in need of transportation after dark. Even the Amtrak stations leave much to be desired. The Main street Station leaves one weary of being mugged or harassed and Staples Mill Rd is so far off the beaten path that one feels lost in the country arriving at that station.
Safety is another big issue. Perhaps it's because I'm from NY and so the surroundings are simply more familiar, but I feel far more comfortable walking through the street of Harlem or Brooklyn at 4am that I would feel on Broad street at that hour. I feel less safe on Richmond streets because I feel as though if something were to happen, even on a street as commonly traversed as Broad, no one would hear or know about it until it was too late.
If anything, Richmond Thespians need to first band together as Richmond Citizens to promote the changes that will make people want to visit and spend money here. New York City is the thespian's shining example, but in the 1970s Time square was a cesspool of drugs, crime, and prostitution. If the city, as a whole, hadn't reinvented it would be just another big town with small theatre because no one would want to invest in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest11 on Oct 17, 2012 12:18:44 GMT -5
These are great points, and I think they are all directly related to Richmond's need for a revitalization in tourism. There are SO MANY reasons for people from all over the globe to come visit Richmond. In terms of most bang for your buck, we've got it! Mountains, hills, beaches, history, affordability, proximity to DC, Nag's Head, theme parks, etc. The city can and should be working on this as well.
As theatre artists, I very strongly believe that we can play a major part in this endeavor. Please don't get me wrong when I say this, but I think if we continue to really focus on presenting an eclectic mix of entertaining AND more "challenging" pieces then we're doing one thing right, but next step is to work on consistent quality control. Producers: challenge yourselves to treat your contracted employees with enough respect to lay out your expectations of their tenure with you in a clear, honest contract BEFORE they begin working with you at the first production meeting or rehearsal (this is a mutually beneficial protection, not an inconvenient extra step!). Take the time to sit down and have a contract discussion, and not only expect, but respect the possibility of negotiation. I don't think any artist is going to intentionally bleed you dry -- but they are also, generally, grown folks who have lives to pay for & would like the time they are committing to you to be compensated, or at least treated with efficiency and respect. Directors: challenge yourself to go beyond presenting a "pretty" world, relying on your designers to make your show look "nice." An audience wants to see a lovely set and lighting, but it is your job to turn those incredible designs into a completely new world. That means challenging your actors to be there and present, every moment of every performance, and it means not being hesitant to tell that friend-actor of yours that he or she can be stronger or more connected to those moments. Actors work through research and instinct, but rely on their directors "omniscient" perspective to take what they have in their minds/hearts/bodies, see it manifest, and push it to the absolute limit of honesty within the given circumstances of that moment IN THAT WORLD. If you are only telling your talent where to walk and when, you have not directed a show. Designers: challenge your producers to send you into your work with a fair budget (or in some cases I've heard, to give you any budget at all!), and be honest about what you can create on that budget. Marketing folks: REACH FARTHER THAN THE FAN AND THE RICHMOND CITY LIMITS, and get the word our SOONER! If we continue to produce quality work, there is no reason why patrons won't start coming from Petersburg, Williamsburg, Newport News, Hampton Roads, NoVA & DC, North Carolina, Charlottesville, etc. Once they start coming to see theatre they'll need an overnight stay in a hotel and meals hopefully at a locally owned restaurant. They may want to make a visit to one of our museums. They might even do what a lot of folks do when they visit New York: set up a whole weekend to see as many shows that RVA has to offer as they possibly can!
I recognize that a lot of this takes money, and that at this moment there probably isn't enough. I also recognize that these changes can't and won't happen overnight, but isn't it nice to be a part of the dialogue? And isn't it encouraging to consider that our theatre community is passionate enough to start working on ways to not only challenge ourselves but our entire city as well? I am so excited to continue hearing (reading) everyone's ideas for overall growth, and how we can build a product so strong they they will HAVE TO come to the theatre!
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Oct 17, 2012 16:34:17 GMT -5
Here's another big difference between Richmond and New York, Chicago, and DC when it comes to being an actor, and one of the reasons why we're not a "theatre mecca": Practically all actors who try to make any kind of living at what they do strive to become members of unions. Why? Because being a member of a union like AEA or SAG is the only way an actor can insure any kind of decent compensation for their work, and the only way they can have a prayer at earning benefits like health insurance. No one can make a living doing theatre, plain and simple. You have to do other work, too (unless you have a trust fund or very generous and wealthy parents.) Most actors do commercial work, voice-overs, etc. to help pay the bills that theatre alone cannot. But Virginia is a Right To Work state. That means a union affiliation doesn't help- actually, it hurts you. Who's going to hire a union member when they can pay someone else much, much less and without the hassle of dealing with unions? The same is true for the theatre companies here. Why hire a union actor when you can pay another actor peanuts? So union actors have no reason to be here. You might say, so what? Being part of a union doesn't mean anyone is any better. That's true. But it's why we'll never be a " theatre mecca"- professional actors have no incentive to be here. So actors who have worked hard to join unions don't come, and actors who want to join unions leave. The only way that could change is if the theatre companies here actually WANTED to hire union professionals. But most of them don't. Instead, they try to avoid it at all costs. The audiences may not know or care, but the artists sure do.
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Oct 19, 2012 8:55:53 GMT -5
New work, new work, new work. Wanna put RVA on the map in the theatre world? Then RVA has to be synonymous with new work. That's how great regional theatre towns get noticed. They make a point to develop and produce new work, and then some of that new work goes on to larger markets- most important NYC, since that is THE theatre mecca.. The more they see that quality work is coming from here, the more our reputation and status will grow. First theatre companies have to take the time to actually develop new work instead of just premiering them. World premieres are great, but that's just the beginning. Then they have to work hard to get them into larger markets.
|
|
|
|
Post by morningcoffee on Oct 22, 2012 5:04:00 GMT -5
I don't think it is that the Theatre Companies in Richmond don't WANT to hire union members, it is that they can't afford it. For example, VA-Rep tries very hard to hire union members, but they can only hire so many until the entire budget is spent. Now a lot of this is because the community IS so small and therefore there are only so many funding parties. You can't spend money you don't have. (Well, you can... but that will quickly catch up with you). Companies know that they can afford only so many union contracts. They save them up so that when it really matters they can have that union actor they want to work with.
On a side note: Union vs. Non-Union is NOT what separates a professional from an non-professional actor. I do have to support myself with other means than just theatre, but I still consider myself a professional actor. Would I like to be union? Absolutely. But not being in Actor's Equity shouldn't throw me into the Non-professional category.
PS: I have no idea how to post anonymously...
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest00 on Oct 22, 2012 8:31:17 GMT -5
Good news, morningcoffee- you ARE anonymous. But you don't have to login as "morningcoffee" to post, either. You don't have to register or login at all. Just hit reply to a post and type in whatever name you want.
I agree that union status does not differentiate professionals from non-professionals. Both union and non-union actors rely on supplementary incomes, and both can or cannot exhibit "professionalism." But like you said, how many hard-working professional actors like yourself don't WANT to be union? Until Richmond becomes an attractive market for those who are union, union-eligible, and would like to be eligible, it's going to be very difficult for it to become a "destination"- at least for performers. In regard to companies not having the budget to employ union members, I am reposting a comment I made in a different thread- and again, if my logic is flawed, I would very much like to hear from someone to understand how.
"I think this whole issue boils down to resources and how those resources are used. Let's say my theatre has a $30,000 annual budget. First, I have a choice. How many productions will that budget go to? Well, if I do four productions, about $7500 a play. If I do three, $10,000 a play. If I do two, say a Fall and a Spring, that's $15,000 a play. (That's a BIG difference.) The quality of a show with a $15,000 budget is a lot different than one with a $7500 budget. Audiences are the first to notice that difference in quality, and the audiences are the ones who will determine your success. I would wager that if many of our theatre companies used their budgets to put up two high-quality, professional, top-tier productions instead of four shoe-stringers, that change alone would dynamically shift the perception of our public, and help establish us as a great theatre town. Fewer productions would create a greater demand and greater excitement, and would allow for more time and money for marketing, but most importantly, more time and money to create the best quality theatre. Then, when your budget grows from $30,000 to $50,000, then and only then do you add another show to your season. You do more only when you can afford to without compromising standards. I believe this is the kind of shift that we need to see. If my logic is off somehow, I'd love to hear from those who manage theatre companies to help me understand."
I was speaking to a friend about this the other day, and used the example of an Off-Broadway theatre company that just celebrated their tenth anniversary. They have received numerous top-tier awards and nominations, including OBIEs and Drama Desk Awards, and continue to build a fantastic reputation for themselves. How many shows are they producing this season? Two. One in the Fall and one in the Spring. And in those casts they have Tony-nominated actors. Now could they afford to do more shows? Absolutely. But not without compromising who they employ and what kind of product they present. They understand that it is more important to the growth and success of their company to use their budget to create the best work possible, even if it means doing fewer shows. Richmond theatres could adopt the exact same approach. But instead, many of them have a "no union" policy, pay their actors, designers, and technicians very little, and put up four to five shows, sometimes with mid-sized casts of up to ten or twelve actors. That is not an issue of not enough money. That is an issue of HOW the money is spent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Oct 23, 2012 16:02:04 GMT -5
I don't know that your logic holds, Guest 00. You are assuming that a theatre will have the same income if they do two shows as opposed to four or five. For theatres supported by a subscription base, that's simply not true unless you charged people the same for two shows that you did for four or five. And even then, it's not true, because you would have fewer subscribers who would be willing to pay. And subscribers aside, many single ticket buyers purchase tickets to more than one show in a season, so you would lose their repeat sales. And that's just ticket income . . . I imagine grant money would also be impacted as the theatre's service to the community would be altered. Also, if your non-profit mission is to provide diverse entertainment to your targeted audience (which is a common one), you likely can't fulfill your mission with just two shows a year, which would impact grants, ticket sales and possibly your nonprofit status!
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest00 on Oct 23, 2012 22:58:32 GMT -5
Of course, I can't speak for the theatre companies here- only those who manage them could say- but even when looking at the most established theatres, ticket sales generally account for no more than 30-35% of a company's annual budget. The other 70% comes from individual donors, corporate donations, foundations, and public and private grants. Most grants that I am familiar with place their emphasis on the quality of a company's work and the impact that work has on the community, not on the number of shows they produce. As for subscription bases, with the exception of what is now VaRep, the other theatres here simply don't have that many subscribers. I suspect if all the subscribers of any of those theatres attended a production at once, they might fill the house of a show's opening weekend, but that's all. This is based on my own observations and what I've heard from those "on the inside"- again, it would be up to the theatre managers themselves to either confirm or dispute that. The bottom line is, investors determine a theatre's annual budget more than anything, and how do you entice investors? By producing the best quality work you can. It is a consistent level of quality that brings in audiences, who then become investors and subscribers. They don't care how many shows you do. All they want is to see the money they're investing translate into a great product that they can feel proud of- a product they are happy to be responsible for. That's what being an arts patron is all about. The kind of shift I am advocating- a shift from quantity to quality- might affect a company's income initially, but in the long run, I believe it would drastically shift both public perception and public support, and that would result in more subscribers, more investors, and yes, more income for the theatre companies who are responsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest00 on Oct 23, 2012 23:43:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Oct 24, 2012 15:10:05 GMT -5
Guest 00, your numbers are very low at least so far as the theatres of which I am familiar (I believe it's closer to 50-60% for the most part and subscribers would fill 4-5 nights of a run). But even accepting your numbers, halving the output of shows would immediately result in a 15-17.5% budget cut. So your $30,000 annual budget becomes $23,000 or so and doing only two shows gives you $11,500 as opposed to $7500/show. That is certainly a difference, but substantially less than you original proffered and the difference becomes entirely negligible if you use more accurate subscription/ticket sale numbers. I also disagree that "investors" will donate more money for a higher quality two show season than a 4-5 show season. You may be right -- I don't know how you prove that without just trying, but it seems to me people/organizations would be less invested in something they attend twice a year (or maybe once if they don't like one of the shows -- or it turns out to be terrible) as opposed to something they go to very regularly and have for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest00 on Oct 24, 2012 16:15:09 GMT -5
I appreciate the challenges, Guest, and I agree- there is little way to prove the success of this model other than trying it out and seeing what happens. Perhaps my percentages and subscriber counts are low- again, only the theatre companies themselves could say one way or another (and I don't suspect any of them are going to be too eager to share that kind of information.) Hypotheticals aside, I'll just speak for myself, as a theatre lover and a patron of the theatre. Let's say I make an annual $3000 tax-deductible donation to the arts organization of my choice, and I'm looking at the various theatres in town. Company A does 4-5 shows a season, and Company B does 1 or 2. Company A has hits and misses, and for the most part, their production values tend to be low, and the talent uneven. Company B, on the other hand, makes an obvious effort to always deliver top-notch professional work in all areas, and it shows. Sure, they only do 1 or 2 shows a season, but I always look forward to what they're doing, and I almost always leave the theatre feeling like I got my money's worth. Who gets my $3000? It's no contest. I think many of us take for granted just how few chances we have to actually maintain our audiences. If we're lucky, it's maybe three strikes before they never see another show. Usually, it's more like one or two. One or two bad or mediocre productions, and you're really going to have to convince me to keep patronizing your company- and I love theatre. You've got one chance to make a patron, and you've got one chance to keep a patron, and that one chance is every production you do. Maybe the folks coming to our theatres aren't as demanding as I am. But then again, I'm more interested in the folks who aren't coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest99 on Oct 24, 2012 20:54:14 GMT -5
One very large theater company in town is doing 19 shows this year.
What sense does THAT make?
|
|
|
|
Post by Local Theatre on Oct 26, 2012 11:16:13 GMT -5
I want jump in here to add some additional perspective to this discussion. First, to the last comment about it not making sense for a large theatre company in town to produce 19 shows per year. I can only assume that you are referring to Va Rep, so this response is based on that premise. Hopefully, I can explain how, though not perfect, it does make sense. My first point addresses a concept that has been touched upon in several different discussions on this board. And it directly relates to the discussion about developing Richmond as a premier theatre community. OPPORTUNITY! Va Rep employs over 40 people in FULL TIME positions. They are not the highest paying jobs in the world, but that is BY FAR the most full time theatre professionals employed by a company in this area. In addition, by producing 19 show a year (and a touring operation) it also provides opportunities for over 400 part-time and contracted actors, teaching artists, administrative personnel, designers and production staff. Mounting only 2 productions a year may make sense for a brand new company starting out in Richmond, but part of what makes possible the example mentioned previously is that the company mentioned is located in NYC. A market filled (some might say, overflowing) with quality theatre professionals looking for work. But why are these people in NYC? Not because there are a bunch of companies doing two shows a year, but because there is still (despite the economy) the largest number of full time, higher paying, professional theatre opportunities available, in one location, in this country. But a company in NYC can still attract high level talent to work on their 2 shows a year because there is NOT ENOUGH opportunity to go around, even in NYC. These people still need the work. IBDB is filled with theatre professionals who worked on 1 Broadway show, and one show only. And if they were lucky, that show ran for more than 6 months. So what are they going to do with the other 34 years and 6 months of their professional careers? By producing 19 plays a year, Va Rep provides far more professional theatre opportunities than any other company in town, and by doing so, helps create/develop a base of talented theatre professionals in the area who also work at many of the other terrific theatre companies in town.
Secondly - The shows that are produced, in three different venues, serve (for the most part) different audiences. The audiences for the Signature Season (Barksdale), Children's Theatre of VA (Theatre IV) and the Barksdale Season at Hanover Tavern (original Barksdale) have SOME overlap, but for the most part actually serve very different audiences. And the programming for each of those seasons is very different, providing many styles of shows to appeal to different people. Frequently, Va Rep has 2-3 productions rehearsing/running at the same time, providing employment opportunities for 3 times the number of theatre professionals to be working at any given moment. There is a misconception out there (among some) that Va Rep is the big bully in the local theatre community that constantly tries to throw it's weight around. But if you asked the folks in charge of RTP, Cadence, Firehouse and Richmond Shakes among others, I'm willing to bet they would tell you that Va Rep does a lot to support the other theater companies in town and that the employment opportunities provided by Va Rep are a benefit to what they do, not a negative. When is the last time you heard about Target working to help another smaller local retailer. It doesn't happen. There are possibly some potential financial (and certainly logistical) benefits that would come from producing less shows. But believe it or not, one of the reasons Va Rep does it, is to help provide consistent OPPORTUNITIES for the theatre professionals in Richmond. It sure makes sense to me...
And just in general - keep this in mind. This thread started with someone asking why Richmond can't become a theatre mecca like Atlanta, DC or NY. Let's keep this discussion in perspective. Those markets, and other like it (Chicago, LA etc.) are much LARGER markets with a far larger population base from which to attract patrons (not to mention, most of those markets are far more liberal). Instead, our comparison (and discussion) should target markets more comparable in size who might have a larger,more successful theatre community. Who are these communities? What are they doing that we are not? I don't know right off hand, but it seems to me, that is where our discussion should start. Personally, I think we will find that Richmond will fair pretty well in such a comparison (but that is not a reason not to strive for continued growth and improvement).
One final thing - Yes, I do work for Va Rep, but no, I am not Bruce or Phil. I am one of the 40+ people at Va Rep who feels INCREDIBLY fortunate to work full time in the field that I studied in college and where my passion lies, professional theatre. Especially in a market where most of my theatrical peers are forced to find other ways to make their actual living. And I, like most of my co-workers, are committed to expanding and improving the professional theatre community in Richmond and as a result the employment opportunities available to theatre professionals here.
Keep up the discussion...
|
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on Oct 26, 2012 20:45:11 GMT -5
"This thread started with someone asking why Richmond can't become a theatre mecca like Atlanta, DC or NY. Let's keep this discussion in perspective. Those markets, and other like it (Chicago, LA etc.) are much LARGER markets with a far larger population base from which to attract patrons (not to mention, most of those markets are far more liberal)."
I guess that depends on how you define the population base. The population for the city of Richmond was only 204,214 in 2010. But the population for the Richmond Metropolitan area (which includes the surrounding counties like Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, Powhatan, etc.) was 1,269,380. That population puts us above Atlanta and DC, and even places like Seattle, Dallas, San Fransisco, and Boston. Don't we have potential patrons in that entire population base?
|
|
|
|
Post by 007 on Oct 27, 2012 10:17:59 GMT -5
In reading this thread, all must realize that unlike some of the larger markets mentioned (like NY), that there is a lot more to do there than in Richmond. When going to NY I do not just go to see a show, I go to do and see many other things. The idea of being any kind of mecca is a tad off base and pie in the sky in my opinion. Great work onstage is being done here. Some, no matter the naysayers on here, is every bit as good or better than some I have seen in NY and Chicago. The key I think for Richmond theaters, is reaching more prospective patrons who already live here. Advertising vehicles are scarce. There are a lot of people in this town who have no idea how many shows are going on or where they are, and they do not necessarily know how to find that out.
And here is a question to all the theater professionals who have been a part of this discussion... when was the last time YOU went to see a show at a theatre without being friends with someone in the cast? Do YOU support the local arts scene... really? If you did, you would go to see shows at theaters all over the Richmond region, with those in the cast you don't know personally. If you don't do that yourselves, how can you expect others to be supportive of good theater in general? Yes, it is nice when you have a friend in the cast, but what about all the shows going on you ignore simply because you do not recognize the names of the actors? If all of you in the arts don't go to these shows, how can you expect others to?
|
|
