tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post7407879282514788922..comments2023-07-02T05:14:05.375-04:00Comments on The Clyde Fitch Report: Mike Daisey Refutes Me...Leonard Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14736316792887920991noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post-79941533358819507792008-02-29T00:58:00.000-05:002008-02-29T00:58:00.000-05:00Oh, this is all pissy and unfortunate. I'll respon...Oh, this is all pissy and unfortunate. I'll respond tomorrow.Leonard Jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14736316792887920991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post-27760238074514466082008-02-28T15:37:00.000-05:002008-02-28T15:37:00.000-05:00Hi Leonard,Sorry, I didn�t get to respond to your ...Hi Leonard,<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I didn�t get to respond to your first post. I had to quickly file my grant application for my new theatre piece. It will be performed in a yurt in North Adams, MA. I�ll send you a release and comps. What size do you take your cornhusk mask? <BR/><BR/>Do you really believe that many of the bloggers are working within the system against which we are writing?<BR/><BR/>Do you think Don Hall, George Hunka, Nick, Tony are railing against the system at night, but then punching the clock at the regional theatre during the day? Or that they are not creating or engaging with theatre at all?<BR/><BR/>I have produced theatre in small 40 seat theatres, converted conference rooms, basements, apartments, etc.<BR/><BR/>I guess I just disagree with you. <BR/><BR/>John Clancy represents the NORM in the theatrical blogoshpere, not the exception. What I have found refreshing about the blogosphere is that it is a place to talk, and yes, occasionally bitch, about the state of theatre. And BEST of all, the people talking ARE actually doing something about it. (Even better, you don�t have to read it!)<BR/><BR/>To conflate Marsha Norman's post, (about which you bring out some good points,) with Don Hall, Tony, George, Nick, James Comtois, Mike Daisy and Isaac Butler is really stretching things, no? These are people who are out there doing it. (Which you seem to admit and admire.) And you wish that when they come home at night, that they should just, what, shut up? <BR/><BR/>What are you, the theatrical answer to John Bolton?: �If we removed 500 rants off of the theatrical blogosphere nobody would notice!� ;)<BR/><BR/>I guess I am intrigued by your question: <BR/><BR/><I>"You mean to tell me that the hundreds of actors who have been interviewed -- or have written in the first-person about regional theatre -- have been lying to Back Stage?" </I><BR/><BR/>Come on, Leonard, that's not fair!<BR/><BR/>Oh, yes, I know, we ALWAYS read the unvarnished feelings a local actor has when a production was cancelled because the lead got another film role and everybody else was cut loose. And then, (as Mike points out in his show,) in comes Mr. Daisey and his stories to replace the production. From what I have read on Mike�s site and in other accounts of his monologue, this is his starting point for the discussion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ed Siegel, (our former lead critic here at the Globe,) in his final piece before his retirement said that one of the things he wished for the future of the theatre scene is that the regional houses would not be so quick to cancel productions because the lead celebrity suddenly had a change in plan.<BR/><BR/>And that is just one, very minor example. <BR/><BR/>How about some more:<BR/><BR/>The Citi Center in Boston, (which kicked out the Nutcracker to bring in the Rockettes, )cut the Public Shakespeare performances in half, while at the same time gave its CEO a 1.2 Million Dollar Bonus. And this organization is getting some of the largest grants imaginable in our city. (I'm whining again, I know.) <BR/><BR/>Oh and this: One of the largest consolidators of grant money here in Boston recently wrote a report suggesting how smaller arts organizations should die off. Thomas Garvey has an excellent dissection here:<BR/><BR/>http://hubreview.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-boston-foundation-stole-christmas.html<BR/><BR/>A bunch of smaller arts groups cleverly staged a die-in where they drank kool aid and eulogized themselves in ritual sacrifice to The Boston Foundation. I could go on, but I guess I'd be whining, right? <BR/> <BR/>What about this post of mine: http://mirroruptolife.blogspot.com/2006/07/non-profit-modeling-don-r.html<BR/><BR/>Whining? Jealousy? Pettiness? I should DO something about it? What, put on a ski mask and break into the Mass Cultural Councial and demand they give more money to Company One!? (Note to self: Possible performing arts grant opportunity.) It�s like trying to blame solar companies for not being able to establish a foothold against the enormously bloated subsidy systems of Oil, Coal, and Gas. <BR/><BR/>And as far as Board Members influencing artistic decisions : The ART board ousted the uber-experimental Bob Woodruff, (And I think I would have agreed with them but that didn�t make it right!) and I am sure I can think of more examples if I had to. But there I go again, crying. <BR/><BR/>But then, I know from reading your blog that you know all of this. <BR/><BR/>I guess should just go to my own yurt, (my studio in Davis Square,) make my art and hope that profile pieces of artists who are understandably uncomfortable with rocking the boat will keep the discussion going.<BR/><BR/>Long live Mike Daisey and the Theatre Blogoshpere! <BR/><BR/>Ladies and Gentlemen... TO THE YURTS!Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04845394320537913576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post-47086123830153903872008-02-28T14:34:00.000-05:002008-02-28T14:34:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Leonard Jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14736316792887920991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36864475.post-16502930038487319222008-02-28T14:20:00.000-05:002008-02-28T14:20:00.000-05:00Leonard,Thanks for the quick response. It would ha...Leonard,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the quick response. It would have been nice if you hadn't called my response a "whine", as it undercuts the generally civil tone of your writing, but c'est la vie.<BR/><BR/>I did in fact read the Norman essay--I thought that it was a bit misguided in the sense that Ms. Norman really should be advocating for regional theaters to follow their original visions and have resident ensembles in the first place, as there won't be all that many playwright residencies for the playwrights as things currently stand. In that sense I found her essay to be well-intentioned, but a non-starter.<BR/><BR/>I also agree that the current disconnect between critics and the theater is unfortunate--you're totally right that the traditional role of the critic (from the first half of the 20th century) is sorely needed now.<BR/><BR/>As to your points about the lack of unanimity, I feel that's true--but I'm not convinced that things were always this way, and I believe it is actually emblematic of a sickness at the heart of the American theater related to the failure of the regional theater movement to fulfill the core promises it made in its inception.<BR/><BR/>You then go on to cite at length your credentials, which I hope you know have not been in doubt, certainly not by me--I know your writing, and know that you're well informed.<BR/><BR/>You then ask,<BR/><BR/>"But if it's a monologue, where is the dialogue?"<BR/><BR/>and go on to question whether a monologue is the best form for this material. <BR/><BR/>I could be wrong, but I suspect you may not be directly familiar with my work--this feature goes at some length about how it's created:<BR/><BR/>http://mikedaisey.com/print/gen/profileNYT.jpg<BR/><BR/>The long and the short is that I work scriptlessly, the words shifting and changing from night to night, developed from an outline that is continuously adjusted. The effort is to dissolve as many boundaries as possible between myself and the audience by telling the story anew for them each and every time.<BR/><BR/>In such a format dialogue is impossible unless I found someone else who works this way, and even then it would start moving away from art and toward debate--which is laudable, but I think a better goal would be to have a debate separately. I'm also not comfortable playing "roles" and "characters"--the whole of my efforts has been to try and dissolve those barriers for years, so adding artifice in that way isn't really my bag.<BR/><BR/>My work is always deliberately left with unfinished edges, areas where the audience can insert themselves and carry the piece out of the room. I feel strongly that all good art should do this--strive to exist outside of the theater, so that the discussions engendered grow out of the piece itself. Created as a traditional play I suspect HOW THEATER FAILED AMERICA would be really bad.<BR/><BR/>You then take issue with whether I actually do object to non-profit theaters. Certainly there are many theaters who have non-profit status who have many of the issues I describe; I simply wanted to make clear that my issues do not grow out of their choice of business model, but their embrace of corporatization and their betrayal of the ideals that founded the regional theater movement. I think I was clear about that in the essay, the monologue and my response.<BR/><BR/>Next you talk about Mrs. Fiske, whom I am familiar with. I think it's a bit naive to think that her marriage didn't help her ends--it definitely did, and good for her. An artist should fight with whatever tools are at hand, which is exactly what I'm doing. You'll also note that her husband directed nearly all of her plays, as my own personal model for a very tiny ensemble is not even remotely unique. ;)<BR/><BR/>I don't live under Mrs. Fiske's particular set of conditions--live theater isn't controlled by a monopoly under one fist, which is fantastic. The existence of Actor's Equity has helped ensure that some of the worst excesses have been curtailed, and even in her time Mrs. Fiske performed regularly on Broadway and off--she certainly did her time in yurts (as it were) but that wasn't the end of her career, which is great. Her story certainly is inspiring, and I hadn't thought of her in some time, so it's nice to be reminded.<BR/><BR/>You bring her up because you believe it is unrealistic for me to work toward change inside of these institutions. I think you're wrong--the very forces that created regional theaters (like their non-profit status and governance by a board) makes them vulnerable to change: if ideas are communicated with clarity, if people are willing to work for it, and if there's a healthy dose of luck. I do not want to speak out of school, but I have already had board members from major regional theaters see the monologue, and we've had very interesting and productive conversations. Artistic directors have been coming, and they tell me that they see a mirror of what they experience. A good acquaintance who is up to be an AD at a mid-size regional saw the show and is talking to me about what he may be able to actually implement if he gets the position. You do not have to believe me, but I know that change is not impossible.<BR/><BR/>I will make one concession--you're right that I preach to my peers. I hope they know it's from a place of love, and that I keep my eye on higher goals as much as possible, but one can't do a show like HOW THEATER FAILED AMERICA without holding an industry to account. At the same time, I hope I hold myself to account, because by working within these institutions I am part and parcel of this system--that's why it is incumbent on me to work for real change. I am part of its failures, and that's why I'm deadly serious about this work.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you say that you're up for discussion, which is great--I hope that we can make that happen. And I really appreciate the acknowledgment that what I am doing constitutes doing something.<BR/><BR/>Then, right at the end, you turn personal and reveal your own history in the theater. Thank you for that. I would gently suggest that the first impulse that made you pissed at my essay (which is admittedly vinegary) is related to this history. There are few things more impossible than a life in the arts, and we develop thick skins and calluses from years and years of fighting for it, time and time again. Fundamentally we stand for the same things, and I am confident when we meet in person we will share a drink and even if we banter, we'll know that at the end of the day we want theater in America, and the artists within it, to thrive as the vibrant, relevant art it should always be.<BR/><BR/>mdMike Daiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11161526278159425496noreply@blogger.com