Showing posts with label Off-Off-Broadway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Off-Off-Broadway. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Talking About the Community Board Meeting on the Indie Theater Scene

This post is cross-posted at the beta Clyde Fitch Report. Do check it out and send comments.

I found this story about the recent Community Board meeting on the indie theater scene to be a good summation of everything I heard about the meeting. And I'm thrilled it happened -- and I applaud Paul Nagle and all the folks at the various community boards for coming together and making it happen. So it is in the spirit of that positive vibe that I will offer a confession: I thought about attending the meeting until the very last minute. In fact, I was having drinks with the head of a very well known OOB theater just around the corner from the meeting. But I didn't go. I didn't go because no one from the press was on the panel -- and it was made pretty clear to me that a press representative was not welcome on the panel or, for that matter, in the audience, or at least not especially. It left me a little miffed.

I understand the reason for the meeting was, as the article states, to "hold a joint forum on how to keep small theaters thriving in New York City," and that the question of press coverage of the OOB scene is not necessarily the key thing to keeping the sector afloat. I fully realize that real estate and funding -- well, those really are the big issues, as they always are, it seems, and as I suppose they always will be. But some of us -- and here I graciously cede much of the credit to Martin and Rochelle Denton -- have been covering the sector for years and in myriad ways. And if you don't get the word out, especially about indie theater -- and yes, dear fellow bloggers, this means you, too -- you don't get butts in seats. We help drive butts in seats. We promote the hell out of the sector. We identify the magical and the mysterious, the major and the minor, the rising and the risen. And one of us -- not me, just one of us -- belongs on that panel. Because the question of coverage is vital. And the community boards should have known it.

Indeed, the organizers of the event, if the article's narrative is to be our guide for this post, understand the role that press and publicity plays. Consider the third paragraph:

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer told a crowd of more than 300 theater buffs, community advocates and elected officials gathered at the Players Club in Gramercy Park on Feb. 17 that he realizes the importance of a flourishing theater scene to New York City’s economy. Stringer said politicians in the past have viewed theater as an industry that would sustain itself and always remain in New York City. Tourists don’t come to the city to see its big buildings, he said. “They want to see our art and our talent and they also want to get a peek at us.”


How do they find out about such art and talent, hm? Isn't press one way? Here are some other paragraphs on who spoke at the meeting:

John Clancy, executive director of the League of Independent Theater, said if he had to rate the entire independent theater sector, he’d say companies are currently doing “fair to really, really, really awful.”

Virginia Louloudes, executive director of 350-member organization ART/NY, said that the 250 members who produce in spaces they don’t own are “probably the healthiest.” However, she sees the crisis as an opportunity and “the beginning of a new era.”

Anthony Borelli, Stringer’s director of land use, said that the city and local community boards can and are doing things to help small theaters. An old school building in Harlem, for example, is being converted into affordable housing for artists and their families, because the city was made aware of local priorities and “was lobbied from the very beginning.”

Paul Nagle, director of communications and cultural policy for Lower Manhattan City Councilmember Alan Gerson, said their office has sent legislation to Albany to create a property tax abatement for commercial landlords who rent to nonprofit theaters. Nagle noted it takes surprisingly few people to move a politician and encouraged people to band together.


Isn't it true, in the case of what Nagle said, that coverage of that legislation is key to raising awareness of it? True, the paper Chelsea Now, which published this story, covered the meeting. But coverage should have been widespread.

Here are some videos, available via YouTube, from the event:









I hope there will be more such events and that press people, in particular those who have perenially contributed to the sector, will not be ignored. Simply because doing so is a waste of resources, and really rather a shame.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Kiss the Ohio Theatre Goodbye



Well, the rumors that have been flying fast and furious for the past few days appear to be rooted in reality: the Ohio Theatre, among the last of the truly great alternative performance spaces in New York -- I mean, like, anywhere -- is probably going to bite the dust in 2009. Bloomberg will continue to fiddle, I'm sure, while Off- and Off-Off-Broadway burns. Alexis Soloski of the Village Voice has the scoop.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 20, 2008

NY Innovative Theatre Awards Releases Off-Off-Broadway Venue Study

As per publicist extraordinaire Katie Rosin:

Groundbreaking Off-Off Broadway Venues Study

The New York Innovative Theatre Foundation presents a “Report on Off-Off-Broadway Performance Venues." The 5-year study evaluated where Off-Off-Broadway (OOB) productions are being performed and trends with regard to performance venues by neighborhood.

Some of the highlights:
Over 25% of OOB venues in both the West Village and Midtown area have either been demolished or repurposed into non-performance spaces in the last 5 years

43% of all OOB venues are located in the West Side Midtown area of Manhattan

There has been a sharp decline in the number of OOB productions presenting work in the Theatre District

The East Village, which only accounts for 14% of the overall OOB venues, is currently presenting 30% of the OOB productions

"The rate of the erosion of our stages is alarming. Over the last 5 years, we have lost 26% of the Off-Off-Broadway stages in the Midtown area. We have watched a steady decline in the number of productions that are taking place in the "theatre district." Even more disturbing is the fact that of the 30 Off-Off-Broadway houses in the Greenwich Village area, over 25% have already been lost and with the displacement of the theatres from the Archive Building, that percentage increases to 40%" said Shay Gines, Executive Director, New York Innovative Theatre Foundation.

"The research and information contained in this report not only substantiate the numbers needed to help effectively advocate for public policy change as it relates to small non-profit theatre in New York City, but it also creates a clear barometer of the passion and fiery commitment it takes to simply exist in the Off-Off-Broadway world."
--David M. Pincus, Chairman, Theater Task Force, Community Board 4

The document can be viewed online by going to http://www.nyitawards.com/survey/OOBSpaceReport2.pdf

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The Problem of Getting Press

I was away for the weekend and just now catching up on some blogging.

Earlier today I got an email from the representative of an Off-Off-Broadway company. I don't want to mention which one it was, but the person said that they had googled their company's name -- just to see who might mention whom -- and found a reference to it on this blog, namely in connection to a press release that I published a long time ago, like last year or some such. It was kind of a sad email to receive -- the person, for very understandable and sympathy-inducing reasons -- was lamenting the fact that despite having taken so much time with their press packet, the amount of press that they received was very low. And could I shed some light on why that is and what the company did wrong.

I felt so bad after reading that email. This town is so bloody unfair. And I just wanted to paste in, below, what I wrote in my email back to that person, for what it may be worth to everyone else:

Thanks for your note. I think the only thing that I can say is that you're in a very, very, very congested market. At any time, there are 300, 400, 500 shows of varying lengths and qualities running, all vying for everybody's attention. It's not a question of the brilliance or cleverness of a press packet (although it's an excellent idea to send a note, as you're doing, and reintroducing yourself), but a matter of logistics. I've done a lot of speaking on panels and such on the subject of how to get press, and one good way, although it can be costly, is through a press agent. In years past, I worked extensively as a director and playwright in the OOB world, and I had exactly the problem that you're experiencing. The best advice I can give you is to keep reaching out, keep calling and emailing and knocking on doors. It sucks, but that's really the way to get on the radar in NYC. Persistence, I think, pays off in the long run.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Even the BBC Overlooks OOB

So the BBC is reporting that "a Broadway show which was based on the hit reality TV programme American Idol has closed after its first official night on stage in New York." Except that Idol: The Musical is an Off-Broadway show (judging by its $60 top) and more like an Off-Off-Broadway show given its...well, that would be an insult to OOB.

And that's the show, by the by, that I posted about the other night. Curiously, NYPress is still running my review, which will be out tomorrow. Sad to kick a dog while its dead, but them's the breaks, ladies and germs.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 13, 2007

Some Thoughts on Theater Coverage

I know there's a lot of stuff brewing in the OOB community around the reformation of the Showcase Code, something that I wholeheartedly support, and as soon as I get my tush in gear enough to send another email to Paul Bargetto, apologizing for my inability to come to the event at CSC last Sunday (I had to write some reviews), I hope to be able to play some sort of formal role in the process, perhaps dealing with some research issues and the hoped-for development of economic-impact information that would show just how strong, in dollars and sense, the OOB community really is. (If you refer indie theater community, that's fine by me, but it's not at all a phrase I'd ever use. Moreover, I don't think the issue has anything whatsoever to do with either branding or naming conventions.)

Anyway, I was riding the W train home to Astoria the other night, and I had stuffed in my bag a copy of this week's New York Press (which I read for all the obvious reasons -- to read what I've written for that week and also to see what my friend Jerry Portwood is putting into the paper), The Village Voice (which I read...well, I don't really know why...boredom?), and the New York Observer, which is my weekly guilty pleasure.

Anyway (anyway), something the community had better start to think seriously about is not so much how difficult it is to get press, but what the community is going to do to persuade media outlets to wake the hell up to the community in some meaningful way. I don't know how many of you kept up this week with the Q&A the culture editor of the Times, Sam Sifton, was having on nytimes.com, but I frankly found his answers flippant in the most egregiously condescending way, and I hope some of you noticed that the Times didn't even bother to select many theater-related questions in the first place.

Here's another reason I'm thinking about OOB and media. Reading the Voice this week, I flipped forward quickly, as always, to the theater section...excellent piece by Alexis Soloski on Morning Star (which is probably the biggest piece the Peccadillo is going to get for this production); good coverage of a play at HERE, of Doppleganger at the 3LD Art and Technology Center, of James Rasheed's Professional Skepticism at the Abingdon, and of the Potomac Theatre Project's repertory (which I wrote about in Back Stage before anyone else did), plus David Ng on The Civilians' Gone Missing, if a few weeks late. To look at what coverage there is, I guess it's not bad, but our standards and expectations have fallen, too, let's remember. It just isn't remotely proportional to the amount of work that's out there, even in July.

None of this is revelatory; I know that. I mean, if I were from Butte or something, it might be seeming as if I'm leading up to something revelatory, but anyone who knows how much media coverage of theater has shrunk certainly knows that this was, comparatively speaking, a good week for the Voice. Then I flipped to page 57 and stumbled upon J. Hoberman's excellent piece on the Woody Allen film Manhattan. This is what journalists and critics of the old school would classify as a critical "appreciation" or a "reassessment" piece, and there used to be lots of them all the time, before advertising (or the lack of it) became such a great hulking behemoth as to vanquish such pieces 99% of the time.

Yet the Voice, for reasons I cannot fathom, ran the piece. It runs 1,243 words -- and the reason for it is because there's a weeklong revival of the film (through July 19) at Film Forum. Now, I know Film Forum advertises, but it isn't as if you're going to find the theater section of the Voice devoting 1,243 words to anything -- not a new play, usually (Michael Feingold usually will mix reviews of two productions into one piece), and a quick cut and paste tells me that Alexis' piece runs 743 words.

So here's the thing: What do we do about a major alt-weekly which, like all newspapers in this worrisome journalistic time, undoubtedly measures the level of ink it can provide to its writers by the level advertising yet, at the same time, devotes an inordinate amount of column inches to a 30-year-old film playing in just one theater that you could just as easily order from NetFlix?

It seems to me that OOB has to figure out how to flex its muscles in such a way as to leverage better coverage out of such publications. That includes Time Out, by the way. I'm talking about banding together in such a way as to literally attempt to hurt publications financially if they do not change their editorial viewpoints.

I know my colleagues will read this and say I am committing professional suicide. But I don't think so. I think the problem is that OOB is too scared to demand change. Or is it?

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, May 14, 2007

A Secret Bit of News

I won't reveal it, but a little bird has just informed me that a major announcement is going to be coming out of the OOB community this weekend regarding the Equity Showcase Code.

Sphere: Related Content