|
Presented by The National Arts Journalism
Program
and Columbia University's School of the Arts
Columbia
University Graduate School of Journalism
October 29–30, 2001
Summary
| Program | View
the publication
Brave
New World: Imagining Theather in New York in a New Arts and Entertainment
Environment
Tursday, Oct. 30, 2001, Noon
Moderator:
Evangeline Morphos, producer and theater professor,
Columbia University
Panelists:
John F. Breglio, chairman, Theatre Development
Fund; and attorney
Barbara B. Hauptman, executive director, Society
of Stage Designers & Choreographers
Margo Jefferson, critic, The New York Times
Frank Pugliese, playwright and professor, Columbia
School of the Arts
Theresa Rebeck, playwright Fisher Stevens, co-founder,
GreeneStreet Films
Jack Viertel, creative director, Jujamcyn Theatres
Leslie Urdang, co-founder, New York Stage & Film
Morphos: As we were speaking over the past year about this conference,
it occurred to me that a lot of conferences, and a lot of discussions
about theater in New York, correctly focus on theater but don¨t
really take into account a lot of the creative people working in
theater. The writers, the actors, the producers, the directors,
in fact, see themselves as belonging to a larger entertainment that
includes film, television and new media. So this is an attempt to
talk about the kind of verticality Alan Eisenberg started to raise
in his earlier comment. I think it¨s hard to talk about verticality
between the not-for-profit and the commercial world. It might be
even harder to talk about verticality among the different media
and the larger entertainment industry, but that¨s what we¨re going
to try to do today.
I really want to start by asking Frank and Theresa and Fisher to
talk about why, as creative artists who work in the theater and
work in film, they chose to be in New York and to define themselves
in that way. It¨s important to realize that New York, being the
center in America for theater, is also a second center for film.
We have a lot of exciting production work that comes out of here
in the independent film movement and also in television production.
I think HBO has been a huge example of that. I would really like
to ask Theresa and Frank and Fisher to talk about what it¨s like
to be an artist in the entertainment industry in New York.
Stevens: I know I can speak for Frank, certainly, because we share
an office, and Theresa less so. We all dream of going to New York,
or we grew up in New York, and we want to be great artists or actors
or directors for the theater. All of a sudden you get this film
carrot dangled, this television carrot dangled. You have to make
a decision after a while about whether you¨re going to stay in New
York, or beat it out to Hollywood. New York is very much the second-largest
film community, but it¨s the largest theater community. I sometimes
regret having started a film company in New York. There¨s a difficulty
because of lack of proximity; deals are made in parties and meetings
in Los Angeles. Someone will say, ìHow you doin¨, we need an actor,
we need a writerÈî Often, in New York, it¨s not like that • you
submit a script and it sits in a pile in Hollywood for a couple
of months and you hope that it gets chosen. The theater definitely
is what kept me here. And the talented people I have surrounded
myself with.
Just a little anecdote, when I did my first acting job in television,
I was 24 years old, and I¨d only really worked with theater people
• writers and directors and a few film people, but they were all
from the theater world. I found myself in Key West, Florida, with
all these television actors, writers and directors, which is a whole
different world. Not to put it down, but in terms of the work and
the kind of conversations and the interests that I had, I had very
little in common with those people. When you¨re an actor in L.A.
and you meet someone who¨s done plays or worked in Playwrights Horizons
or worked at Naked Angels or a small theater company, they¨re like,
ìOh my God, how are you?î You feel this instant kinship. I think
Theresa will agree with me that, as writers, there¨s a certain kind
of community that we try to create. And at GreeneStreet Films, the
film company I¨m partners in, we try to continue to create a community
of theater and film together, even though we work on films. We try
to keep the community together.
Morphos: In fact, when Harvey was talking about creating a cultural
district, isn¨t it true that some of the artists form cultural districts
of their own by association?
Stevens: Sure, that¨s what theater companies try to do. We have
Frank in our office, and John Robin Bates and Danny Algrant • who
are people who work in both film and theater • and we try to stay
together, which is not always easy when contracts get in the way.
We try and do a sort of collective. Everyone today will talk to
you, especially Jack, about the difficulties of theater. There¨s
also a sort of • and I didn¨t want to get into this yet • but there¨s
definitely a theater mob. A clique. There¨s a group that rules the
commercial and the not-for-profit theater that¨s definitely a clique,
like the Hollywood clique, but you can penetrate it. We¨ll get into
that later.
Rebeck: I actually started in theater. I started as a playwright,
and my husband¨s a stage manager. We were broke. I had the opportunity
to write for a television show, and I had to do it. So, I did spend
some time in Los Angeles. I went out there, and I was extremely
unhappy; it just wasn¨t the right place for me for all the reasons
that you¨d assume. This bears on what Fisher was saying about the
theater clique • sometimes I think it¨s a psychosis. When you are
a young theater artist, a lot of people say to you, ìIf you can
do anything else, you really should do it.î There are a lot of difficulties,
big financial difficulties, a lot of broken hearts. It¨s kind of
a crazy business, but if that¨s what you are, a theater artist,
you know that about yourself and you find other ways to incorporate
the other work that you¨re doing. At least, that was my journey.
I tried to incorporate the other work that I was doing to support
myself and my family.
Another thing that I found over the years is that television, film
and theater are all solipsistic universes. They¨re all dysfunctional
in their own special way. The fact that I could bounce back and
forth between them offered me a sort of psychic escape hatch. If
a disaster happened in one world, I could go to another. I have
to say that, in show business, if there is an unhealthy choice to
be made, people will make it. Their sort of entertaining bad behaviorÈ
is not so entertaining when you¨re in the middle of it. Being able
to maneuver between those three worlds was a thing that made me
less of a victim, which was important to me. And I just love this
city. I¨m so proud to live here. I wouldn¨t live anywhere else.
It¨s a beautiful city.
Pugliese: Well I want to pick up on the love of the city. Ultimately,
it was a decision that¨s based on just storytelling. There are experiences
about going to L.A., and there is a certain amount of financial
reward. But at a certain point there is a truthful and genuine way
of telling your stories, and you¨re sort of forced to stay in New
York. What makes that helpful is the sort of associations you put
together to support yourself, these ìlittle cliques,î you might
call them. They all do seem to have something in common; they all
tell this type of story • and I don¨t want to be too judgmental,
but they do seem to be a little more genuine and truthful than some
of the stuff that happens in L.A., although there is some great
stuff there, too. A commitment to that usually keeps you in the
city, no matter what the cost is. I think it gets really copacetic.
The storytelling, and the people who tell the stories, and the place
you tell the story, all seem to give a certain feel to them. You
get a downtown gritty feel to it. I think what Fisher¨s film company
is trying to do is recreate some of that intensity and grit in film
that started in some of what the early theater was doing. But at
the end of the day, it¨s all about telling New York stories. In
a way, even when they¨re about New York, there¨s a way of telling
them.
Morphos: We talk about ìthe New York film,î and, in addition to
this being a film and theater town, it also has two of the four
great film departments in the world. I think that that feeds into
it, too, that there are all of these training grounds for it. Leslie
began and conceived of one of these cliques, one of these wonderful
groups. But New York Stage and Film really was an attempt to acknowledge
the artist¨s community and how it worked in various media.
Urdang: That was the intention. When I was at the Yale Drama School,
and I was studying theater administration, and I was learning how
to form a theater company, I quickly realized that this is hard,
financially, and it¨s not gonna get any easier. Actually, it wasn¨t
just a financial decision • I loved the different ways of storytelling.
I loved the different canvases. I loved the kind of stories you
can tell on the stage and the kind of stories you can tell about
film and television. I loved it all. My dream, my Master¨s thesis,
was a company that produced theater, film and television and made
money for everybody. Everybody worked back and forth between all
of it.
Then I started New York Stage and Film when I got out of school.
The amount of money we needed for film was astronomical. We started
doing the theater company, which is up at Vassar, and we started
doing new plays outside of critical attention, and creating a community,
and creating short films and film workshops. We worked with video
and readings and everything was contributed from the New York film
community at that point. We all lived in a dorm, and it was fantastic.
We learned so much from each other. People would walk in from the
film side to a rehearsal in the theater and say, ìThat was such
a deep investigation of the materialÈî They had such a fantastic
outlook on the actors. There was this great back and forth. I knew
that I always wanted to be doing both.
What Theresa says about ìgoing mad in one part so you shift to the
otherî is true. In the end, I wound up working in both things, as
a producer. The connection is more tenuous. We still do some film
work, and we¨re still trying to put the film program back together
in a smaller program, and we keep reinventing it every few years
at New York Stage and Film. I live between L.A. and New York as
of the last year and a half. I¨m a film producer as well. We invite
artists all the time to New York Stage and Film from the film community.
I¨m always looking for playwrights to be working with in movies.
It¨s the first place I go all the time. Instinctively, it¨s about
people. I¨m always telling the students up at Vassar: ìTry to do
both. Try to do it all. It¨s interesting, it¨s stimulating, it helps
you financially to support yourself, and each thing informs the
other in a really healthy way.î
Morphos: One of the things that is clear in the Broadway community
is how young companies and playwrights really feed into this huge
and important industry. What is the connection, the financial and
procedural connection, between the Broadway industry and the companies
that are constantly feeding not only the artistic life of Broadway,
but also the artistic life and the creativity of television and
film? Some of the great directors in television come straight out
of the theater community. We really see that the vitality of the
writing in contemporary television shows is coming directly from
some of the people here and from the larger theater community in
general. This movement up • maybe you can talk a little bit about
that, about what comes back.
Viertel: I like to think of it as a movement out, rather than up,
when I think of Broadway. It¨s a very haphazard situation, and I
think it inevitably has to be. There¨s a tremendous ferment of young
talent that works both in independent film and in small theater
companies. Sometimes the best and most prestigious work that¨s done
in New York is done by these companies. But it¨s not often work
that¨s likely to draw an audience of 500,000 or 750,000 people,
which is what a Broadway show probably needs to make its money back.
In a sense, we¨re the vultures sitting on the edge, waiting for
something to need to be moved into the big, bad commercial arena.
Then there are those people who seem to do it for awhile and then
move on to another world, which is an even larger commercial arena:
is film and television. I don¨t think it¨s a bad situation. It¨s
inevitably a positive thing for the theater in New York to have
a film and television industry in New York, because there¨s a tremendous
talent pool that continues to be born and grow and move outward.
The biggest dilemma for us, in terms of the acting pool, is the
requirement of having to stay and do a show eight times a week for
nine months to a year • it¨s neither the most profitable nor the
most stimulating use of their time. That problem is a reality. We
find it less so in City Center or Encores!, where the commitment
is two weeks. If you can sing and you¨re famous, it¨s even better.
That¨s an opportunity for someone to do a certain kind of work that
he or she probably wouldn¨t get any other comparable opportunity
to do and not be locked into a nine-month or yearlong commitment.
Even with all of these problems, there¨s no doubt that the theater
in New York, the Broadway theater, feels different entirely because
of the groundswell of work and the constant birthing of new ideas
and new artists that find their way to Broadway when it¨s appropriate.
It¨s very different from the days when Broadway was just Broadway
and shows went out of town and, you know... Broadway doesn¨t produce
plays that it originates at all anymore. The plays come from resident
theaters, they come from New York companies, they come from London,
they come from wherever they come from, but we don¨t do the kind
of producing that Broadway in its golden age did. That¨s no secret.
Morphos: Is that why you see the acting vitality that comes from
Naked Angels and the kind of work that Fisher does • because there
is a small-time commitment? So new work can originate in some of
these smaller companies and have terrific acting and then move on
or move out or move across the country? I¨m wondering about those
plays that have made their way to the larger public through television
or film. I¨m thinking about ìWitî on HBO last season, about ìDinner
with Friends.î I know that there are other initiatives that have
not worked. In what way does the work of the New York theater move
into larger arenas and to larger audiences?
Hauptman: I presume you¨re referring to the Broadway Television
Network, which had the idea of putting a show that was filmed in
a theater with an audience on Pay-Per-View. To date, they¨ve done
three • ìSmokey Joe¨s Cafê,î ìPutting it Togetherî and ìJekyll &
Hydeî • though not very successfully.
Morphos: Why was that? Why didn¨t that work?
Hauptman: I don¨t think the television-watching public wants to
pay $19.95 to see ìJekyll & Hyde.î I think the idea was that it
was going to be the opening night of a Broadway show • the whole
idea of that special occasion, that you¨d watch it on Pay-Per-View
like you¨d watch a fight, that it¨s only going to happen once, it¨s
Opening Night, and all these people are going to be there and this
wonderful thing is going to happen. You¨re going to be one of the
first people to see it. I think that was the original thought.
I think they picked ìSmokey Joe¨sî to go first because it was popular,
and they thought that would work. From a union perspective, the
problems we came across were in representing directors and choreographers,
the concerns that our membership had, and also just the terminology
in dealing with television and film producers. We use different
words. When we negotiated with Broadway Television Network, our
assumption, as a union, was that we were negotiating a minimum contract,
and that after that our directors and choreographers would have
the right to negotiate for more. Only later did we learn, much to
our and their dismay, that in film, it¨s the fee • it¨s the deal.
It¨s non-negotiable. That became problematic.
Morphos: So it was applying the standards of one industry to another.
Hauptman: We were all confused. We were interested and anxious because
it looked as if something like this could provide an opportunity
for a director or choreographer to really make a living in the theater.
If something like this did happen, if the life went on and on and
on, then maybe there was something to this. A director of ours was
very instrumental in pushing our union and our members toward embracing
this idea, in the hope that it would lead somewhere. But then the
language problems became a concern, and there was a property-rights
concern: that people who had access to the tapes would replicate
them and people wouldn¨t be compensated, plus we had to have certain
provisions on the tapes themselves.
All in all, I would say that Broadway Television Network had not
fared very well, and there¨s probably not a big future there.
Breglio: I think one of the problems there is the conflict between
the objectives of the theatrical group and the producing objectives
of the BTN. In all three situations, the artists, at least, have
very different objectives. It¨s no secret that ìPutting It Togetherî
was a failure on Broadway. It ran for, what, a couple of weeks?
It was not successful. From Stephen Sondheim¨s point of view, he
really wanted to see the show preserved. The artists were proud
of it. They had Carol Burnett doing the show. Even though, from
an economic point of view, it had not worked • from a creative point
of view, the artists wanted to see it on tape. No one had any great
expectations of making money. Maybe BTN did, but the artists were
very realistic about what the result would be. So they went along
with it and had it done. ìSmokey Joe¨s Cafeî was a totally different
set of circumstances. It was a very successful show that ran for,
how long, Jack?
Viertel: Just under five years.
Breglio: I assume it made a lot of money for the producers; everyone
did very well. So when BTN came to us in that case, it was 180 degrees
from ìPutting it Together.î Everyone had made a lot of money, and
so now the tension was whether we should do this and kill the goose
• the goose that had laid the golden egg on Broadway • because if
you go out on a Pay-Per-View show, it¨ll put the actors out of work
because now it will be all over the country, and it¨ll close on
Broadway. That¨s a real tension between film and theater. We resolved
it with ìSmokey Joe¨sî by basically filming it at the very end of
its Broadway run. It¨s a wonderful encapsulation of the show with
high-definition TV • the greatest kind of technology you can have.
But when we all saw it, there was a lot of discussion about whether
it had captured the essence of the show. There were some people
who felt that it pointed out the classic problem of putting a theater
piece on the media on the tube, as opposed to the theatrical movie
screen. So that¨s a tension that always occurs.
In the third situation, with ìJekyll & Hyde,î I think that motivation
was closer to ìSmokey Joe¨s.î The show had run for long time, and
ìJekyll & Hydeî had never recovered the actual production costs.
So that was another version of this theme. There seemed to be no
reason not to do that one, because the show was closing. You might
as well put it on BTN and see what happens.
Hauptman: And they had a television star.
Breglio: But in each case, no money was made by BTN. It was very
disappointing. They haven¨t even come close to recouping their very
high production costs, which ranged into seven figures. It doesn¨t
bode well for the future. I¨m not sure if BTN has a lot more incentive
to do these things. I know right now, they¨re interested in doing
two shows in particular. But it really shows the tension between
putting things right off the stage onto the screen, and I think
that when you look at that crossover, you have to look at whether
or not that adequately reflects what the artists want from it. You
have to look at it from a director¨s point of view, from a writer¨s
point of view, as opposed to doing a real adaptation, such as ìWit.î
Rebeck: I always think it looks funny. You know, it¨s never very
satisfying to see a play on tape. It¨s not meant to be on tape.
It¨s meant to be live.
Viertel: I think the point of this panel, in a sense, goes right
to the heart of that issue • that is, what is healthy seems to be
the industries existing side by side. The artistic comment, the
invention rubbing off from one to the other, is what seems not to
be so healthy. Speaking just from an artistic point of view, that
one industry can simply capture the other industry¨s work and make
that into some artistically whole event, doesn¨t seem likely. I
didn¨t think it was likely when we agreed to do ìSmokey Joe¨s.î
I think that in all three cases, it¨s proved to be exactly the same
event. Once you eliminate the live element, you¨re looking at this
thing with its pants down.
Morphos: Let me go back to something that Frank had said about the
ìNew York story.î Margo, you cover not just theater, but the cultural
scene in general, and books. Is there a ìNew York storyî? Are we
talking about something that really is a unique and particular aspect
of cultural New York that needs to be treasured, and is it in this
intersection of the different media?
Jefferson: That¨s certainly true, I suppose, temperamentally, which
is partly what¨s being talked about and partly something we¨re all
terribly aware of. There is a history of New York stories, and they have to do with quick, very sudden and intense crossings of disparities,
be they class disparities, or ethnic, or racial or just this speed
of an experience; being in a very quiet, slow place, such as a park,
and then suddenly having to go into the subway. There¨s a nice line
Edna St. Vincent Millay said when she first came to New York from
a little town in Maine. She said, ìI can see the noise.î It¨s the
way your senses get all jammed and cross-currented. I think that¨s
always been part of what a New York story is.
We¨d like to think New York stories are willing to take more kinds
of risks, in terms of what they will tell, whether it¨s the quality
of the language • from anything to out-and-out cursing to just the
way vernacular is shaped. Slang, different immigrant groups crossing.
You can even chart this in movies set in New York, in the love for
a writer like Preston Surges, who began as a New York playwright
before this kind of slang, slang, slang. He had this group of actors
that had stage experience and who worked very well in his films.
Those are New York stories. New York stories are what I associate
with the cutting edge of whatever is a new political, social, sexual,
reality/fantasy. That¨s where you¨re going to see drag queen theater.
When we say we¨re anti-PC, we mean we¨re not reactionary. We¨re
anti-PC because we¨re taking all kinds of different risks. Those
are New York stories. I love the way you¨re all talking about this
mixture, this camaraderie of stage and screen, because it is the
way, as viewers, that we see and want to see things. You¨re always
tracking the actors you love across the media.
We are all shaped now by computer screens, video; if you have kids,
you have to deal with their video games. There are whole generations
with their own rhythms that we¨re not cognizant of. All of that
shapes any experience in a theater. There¨s also the business of
needing the sensations of different settings: the curiosity of first
seeing films on video. I think we need to put on theater in a lot
of different spaces. Not only even in small theaters or big theaters.
I¨d love to see it in museums, in malls. I know of dancers who work
with choreographers to design sets that are not so realistic • that
ask other things and really use New York ìthe cityî in ways that
are non-realistic and realistic.
Financially, I should be more practical as a critic. Financially,
I see some of the problems. I walk into the Costume Institute at
the Met and I see these clothes on these dead dummies behind glass.
I think, would you please stage some Cocteau play or something?
Or stage a poetry reading. For God¨s sake, don¨t let so many writers
read their work • have actors do it sometimes. We could revitalize
whole genres.
Morphos: I¨m hearing some amazing words from you, which we haven¨t
really heard all that often today. Risk, danger, disparity. Using
spaces in different ways. I know Fisher and Frank have something
to say about all of these things.
Jefferson: So as to not be a victim.
Fisher: I just want to say that, being submitted so many scripts
at GreeneStreet and Naked Angels, there¨s a new New York story since
Sept. 11. I find coming into the office and reading a script impossible,
and I¨m always thinking, ìWell, maybe now we can add that this event
happened.î It¨s changed the dynamic, obviously, for all of us in
this room and everywhere, and especially trying to be creative and
trying to tell that ìNew York story,î because the New York story
has changed. The world has changed.
The second thing I want to say is regarding environmental theater.
There¨s already been a lot of talk about staging a piece at Ground
Zero. There¨s a great company called On Guard Arts. They did a show
about a kid with AIDS; we set it in a garage. It was a great company.
Of course, funding killed it. That was a great use of New York.
Stevens: In terms of the film and television and theater communities
this event has kind of reshaped everything, and I think it will
be interesting to see what comes out of it.
Jefferson: I agree with you. Everyone I know is having so much trouble.
How do I put my ordinary work together with this?
Pugliese: I think New York is poised for it. I¨ve been struck these
last weeks by how everyone¨s trying to interpret the tragedy and
put their own meaning on it. I¨ve just found groups wanting the
truth. They want a certain amount of collective conceits to disappear.
In that sense, I think New York is poised to tell those stories.
A lot of theater people don¨t even want to get into the cycle of
doing the stage, then off-off-Broadway, then off-Broadway, and then
trying to get into a big house. They¨re like, ìLet¨s do a play in
our living room. We need to start telling stories right away.î
Stevens: I just got back from L.A., and it¨s so distant. The artistic
community, I mean. It¨s almost like, ìYeah, we¨re worried a little
bit, but the film community is still making these blow-up movies
and these heist movies.î So, it¨s still distant there. The New York
artistic community is drastically affected in a whole different
way. I think you¨re gonna see a whole different product coming out
of the two places now more than ever.
Urdang: Ironically, though, I¨ve been in L.A. • I left here Sept.
3. Obviously, the question on everyone¨s mind is, ìWhat kind of
stories do you tell now? What feels relevant? What feels important?î
Then you see what the biggest movies still are, and they¨re the
violent ones, whether its ìTraining Dayî or ìFrom Hell.î So there¨s
a certain confusion about that, and I don¨t think anyone knows what
to do.
Stevens: But that¨s business • that¨s a whole other thing. Business
is different than what we¨re creating.
Pugliese: But even that conversation about what kind of stories
are we going to tellÈ I feel like people are saying, ìI need to
tell it right now.î Even that implies a certain way of telling it.
Fisher and I did these ì24-Hour Playsî; we put these plays out in
24 hours about what happened on the 11th, because it was immediate,
very visceral. You had to just speak.
Urdang: And that¨s what¨s so glorious about the theater, and what
will constantly bring all the artists back to the theater. I think
there¨s nowhere else you can do that.
I just want to say one thing in terms of the overlap between these
two things. One of the things I always find as a producer of a not-for-profit
organization is that the biggest supporters of the theater are the
artists who have gone on to make money in television and film. They
are constantly asking what they can do, when they can come back
and work there, can they give money. They¨ll do anything for the
theater. So that¨s a really important overlap, because it¨s a company
that¨s been around so long • it¨s our 18th season. So many people
have come through the company and gone on to be in movies, or write
movies, or produce movies or long-running television series. It¨s
an amazing source of support for the continuation of the life of
this company. That¨s just another benefit of the overlap: Everyone
wants to keep it going, and we can¨t get enough. It¨s a big deal.
Rebeck: I would like to see more film and TV locate themselves here
in New York. I feel like the really healthy community is the London
theater community, because everybody who lives there and does theater
can then do film and television and have just one apartment. It¨s
such a weird technical thing. Most of the ìmoney workî for writers,
actors and directors is in Los Angeles. You reach a point where
you¨ve got to support yourself because it¨s not enough, with the
catastrophic cost of living, you have to fly 3,000 miles. During
Pilot season, it¨s so hard to get a decent cast. People go and stay
there, and then want to come back and do theater in New York. Most
nonprofits can¨t afford to put you up.
Morphos: All film and television production in London stops at 6
p.m. so that people can get to the theaters to work.
Rebeck: It¨s sort of counterintuitive, but if we could get more
film... I mean, enough with the film and television work going to
Toronto! Those movies should be shooting here. We should figure
out how artists can afford to stay here. I think that will deeply
feed the work in all three areas.
Stevens: They are working on that Joey Pantoliano, who¨s on the
board of SAG. He just got a $250,000 rebate for every $5 million
you spend in New York. It¨s on its way.
Breglio: To pick up on what Margo was saying about the difference
in reactions to the Sept. 11 tragedy between Hollywood and New York
• it really points out that New York is so critical in viewing events,
and that should be reflected in our culture. Not only do we do that
better than anyone else, but this horrific moment happened in New
York, so it¨s more important that we take command of that from a
cultural and artistic point of view.
Hollywood has reacted to this thing almost more out of fear. Networks,
when they look at scripts and scenes, when they look at the skyline,
they are thinking of taking the World Trade Center out of the scenes.
Now when they look at scripts, they look at every scene and think,
ìWhat¨s the right thing to do?î What they mix up in their minds
is money or artistic imperative, maybe. For the networks, there
is so much more at stake. Whereas in the theater, since no one makes
any money, we have the artistic luxury of looking at the events
as artists and thinking about what impact it¨s had on us.
So that¨s the real difference, from a New York view: people like
on this panel, who know what¨s it¨s like to create something from
the artistic imperative. There¨s no worrying about whether Procter
& Gamble will renew the season. I¨m not really criticizing Hollywood
as much as just saying that they have a whole other economic base
of imperatives that control the artists. It becomes even more important
to have a New York center, where this interrelationship between
media and theater continues to develop. One of the reasons film
has developed more and more in this city is not only because of
the independent film market, but because Miramax is here. It¨s extraordinary
how important that is.
Breglio: When I started working in this business, 30 years ago,
we had Columbia, we had Warner • basically, the studios • we had
Fox. Basically, every major studio had a big office in New York
City. They¨re all gone now; they¨re all in L.A. It doesn¨t exist,
and it had existed that way for a long time until Miramax created
what it has created. It¨s done an extraordinary job, and everyone
can have their own view about whether their films are good or bad
or indifferent. They brought a kind of New York mentality to some
degree with their work. They are a mini-major; we know they¨re owned
by Disney, but they really do have their own personality, aside
from Disney. The more mini-majors we have, the more we can bring
to force thinking New York artists to filmmaking. It would naturally
expand their ability to create better work for the country, because
there¨s not the issue of Hollywood people being intimidated by New
York writers, and New York directors and also London directors.
Barbara, it must drive you crazy • you have all these London directors.
They go to Hollywood, they get the big jobs. I know New York directors
have a chance, too. But if Hollywood is impressed by New York, it
is intimidated by London. They think that when you get a London
director, you have a hit.
Morphos: Is that another way to think about the real estate? Not
just to put arts organizations together, but to put them together
with commercial organizations • to put them together with TV and
film? Chelsea Piers was really first developed by Tom Fontana and
Bruce Paltrow as a studio space for ìTattinger.î Then ìLaw & Orderî
moved there, and it¨s a huge sports center. There¨s not a single
parent who doesn¨t drag their child there for hockey or ice skating.
There¨s no theater there. If you look even at the beginning, in
the ¨50s, The Actors Studio was essentially the free training organ
for the entire Hollywood film community. It trained the great New
York and, ultimately, American actors. The playwrights, the people
who are trained in the New York theater, moved into and created
the sixth-largest industry in America, which is the larger entertainment
industry.
What does this industry owe back to the theater? What are the interactions
that flow back? You¨ve talked about individual artists contributing,
but is there a way to get film companies to relocate here? To begin
to set up spaces that can be used in multiple ways for film studios?
What is the larger flow back, financially, from this larger industry
that the New York theater really feeds?
Rebeck: That¨s a beautiful, idealistic thing you¨ve just said.
Stevens: Robert Redford said at a keynote address a few years ago
that ìthe new training ground for actors is now independent film.î
I talk to all these young actors now, and they don¨t want to do
theater. Young actors today want to do movies, want to do television.
One of the reasons I basically stopped becoming a full-time actor
is that, I hate to sound bitter, but, I was losing out to comedians
and rappers all the time because I play those parts a lot. But the
art of acting, and the art of the theater, in my opinion, has been
diminished to a certain extent. It¨s very sad.
I¨ve been working very closely with Miramax now. We¨ve sold two
of our movies. What you say is true. They brought a lot to New York,
but, unfortunately, they are answering to Disney. Harvey makes all
the decisions, but Disney is the parent company. What they¨ve done
is kind of destroyed independent film in New York. We used to have
October Films. Sony Classics is a very good studio, but they don¨t
pay any money. There used to be a bunch of competitors bidding for
your films, such as Fox Searchlight, which is now in Los Angeles.
There were a lot of competitors, then Harvey drove the market way
up, and then spent $10 million on ìHappy, Texas,î which made nothing,
and then he stopped bidding high. He was building it very well.
But now • I know because we¨re in the marketplace, we sell these
films • it¨s a very different world out there. They don¨t look to
the theater so much as they¨re looking to these small independent
people. I don¨t mean to sound negative or anything, but I think
we should go back to that; I think that¨s a great idea. And it is
great; there are still great plays and actors coming out of theater,
but we should keep looking toward reinvigorating it.
Urdang: I think you¨re right, Fisher. I don¨t think most of the
film companies • because I go fundraising to them all the time •
place a lot of value on the theater, even though you say to them,
ìThis is where your future is coming from.î Because this is where
writers can learn their craft. This is where the actors who are
interested can become the Al Pacinos of the world. This is where
it¨s coming from, and you have to support this.
To make a film, with digital video, is getting easier, but it¨s
not a first step necessarily. So you spend a lot of time going to
Disney, going to HBO, which moved out of New York completely, and
to all these places. You tell them about the value of New York talent,
but they don¨t really get it or value it. But as more and more people
of our generation move into all these different industries, I don¨t
think we¨re going to forget as easily where we came from and where
our hearts still are. Hopefully the people like Mark Platt, or some
of these producers out there that are now running studios or running
companies, eventually make it a stronger connection. I think what
Evangeline said is a great idea: to think of ourselves in the theater
not as this little industry over here, but as part of this big thing.
To force our way into that larger category, even if it is a smaller
part, it is supportive in some way by its being part of this larger
thing.
Viertel: It certainly would be very positive, in terms of training,
to bring as much film and television work here as possible. The
problem is young people not wanting to be theater actors. That¨s
partly because they live in a world where theater is not integrated
into the other forms. We more and more ask a question when we¨re
casting that we never used to ask: ìHas this person ever been on
a stage?î The answer more and more is, ìNo, not really, not since
high school.î That¨s a very dangerous situation to get into. Anything
that can be done to create an industry here, where the theater has
a kind of respect that, frankly, it doesn¨t have in Los Angeles
• I was a theater critic in Los Angles for seven years, so I can
make that statement • is tremendously helpful to building the health
of the theater, which then builds the health of the other industries.
The problem with getting film and theater to fund any kind of fledgling
arts is that the fledgling arts are basically like a tide pool.
You have to accept the fact that in a real tide pool, 90 percent
of the animals are eaten by other animals and are never seen again.
You¨re hoping that out of that 10 percent that remains, something
will come to you. It¨s not a good bet, from a horseracing point
of view. It¨s hard to get anybody in the theater to fund the theater.
Why the film industry would do it, I can only begin to imagine.
The reason will be that people who have benefited from it will come
back and do it because they have big hearts. Big hearts are not
really the best way to raise money over a long-term basis.
Pugliese: I think it¨s unhealthy for theater companies to look for
a film company to help them out. It¨s like something we went through
at Naked Angels. We spent 10 years waiting to get adopted. At a
certain point, it¨s about the passion of the work; it¨s about, ìWhere
is the stage experience?î Well, redefine the stage. This constant
looking-to-being-taken-care-of sounded good five or six years ago.
Having just gone through it, it¨s just not happening. There¨s got
to be another way to do the stories. There just has to be.
Jefferson: I agree. It clearly seems altruistic that it¨s got to
come to these big cynical operations. People come to you • now I¨m
going to speak very crassly • when you appear to be hip, necessary
to their view of themselves on the map of culture. Avant-gardes
can do that. The successful story of avant-gardes is that they make
themselves the edge that everyone wants to come to. Theater needs
to do that. Some of that is this overlapping in this mixture. I¨m
stunned, as a critic, by the number of intelligent, lively people
who feel no guilt about total ignorance about the theater. They
will say, cheerfully, ìI don¨t go, I don¨t read about it, I don¨t
care.î
Morphos: Is there a turning point when that happened?
Margo: I¨m not sure. What do you all think • some point in the ¨60s?
No, I¨m thinking of the musical. That¨s when it happened for the
musical. I don¨t know. You all would know better than I would.
Pugliese: I blame the early ¨80s for everything.
Hauptman: I agree. It¨s definitely the ¨80s. We¨re talking as if
nothing has happened but, if we look at the commercial theater,
Disney is a big presence there. Fox Searchlight did ìThe Full Monty.î
Sony¨s been involved, the Weinstein Brothers have been involved.
Spielberg gave some money to Playwrights Horizons to do some work.
It¨s not like there aren¨t these things that are happening.
Morphos: I made a list of the musicals that are films on stage:
ìThe Producers,î ìThe Full Monty,î ìBeauty and the Beast,î ìThe
Lion King.î There is that flow, certainly.
Breglio: In the end, we can¨t eliminate the fact that they are different
businesses. The film business and the television business are not
going to change the fundamental reasons for their existence. As
theater people, we have to accept that. You can¨t overcome it; there¨s
just too much money out there. We will never be able to compete
with a film that opens on a weekend and makes $35 million.
Viertel: Even at $480 a ticket, you can¨t make that.
Hauptman: Plus a buck for that surcharge.
Breglio: I think the best thing is to go to the film business and
get them where they live: which means, they want the best talent.
And the theater always brings out the best talent in this country.
It went all the way back to Clifford Odet, Arthur Miller and Tennessee
Williams. They did it then, and they¨ll do it today. I have a bias
toward plays, because musicals tend to make a lot of money for a
lot of people when they¨re successful. Wonderful plays don¨t make
very much money. When they identify that, for their own self-interest,
that¨s what they want to take advantage of. They want to take advantage
of the talent that we nurture. Then they come and swoop in and take
us. That¨s OK, if we can figure out how to take advantage of that,
too. In the end, the obligation comes back to the directors and
to the actors who have benefited from that world. I think they have
to come back. They are the ones who are going to do some of that
for us. So they come back, and they do revisit.
Morphos: I think you¨re going back to Pat¨s point earlier, which
is that we¨re always asking the talent • the actors, the directors,
the writers, the choreographers • to give back.
Breglio: They can give back without doing it just themselves. They
should come back with the power that they have and force the producers,
force the theater owners, to engage film people in getting involved
here, too. Nobody has more power than Kevin Spacey to come and do
what he wants to do on Broadway. He has been effective in his own
way at bringing some help back into the community. I think when
you have that market power, if you¨re Meryl Streep or Kevin Spacey,
or a director • a Mike Nichols, for example • I think you have a
responsibility to give back to the theater.
Stevens: I haven¨t been so involved in the theater lately, but I
feel there¨s a lot of mediocre theater going on. There are a lot
of people in the power to make those decisions, like the artistic
directors of certain theaters. There¨s a lot of shit out there.
A lot of artistic directors and people who do have control are terrified
also. They¨re in the same boat as these movie producers. I think
there¨s too much safe theater in the not-for-profit environment.
It¨s their responsibility to say, ìThe best results have been when
we¨ve gone out on a limb. If we fail, we fail. Let¨s wake up our
subscribers; let¨s show them that we have this.î
I notice in a lot of their selections that these people are just
as scared as the studio executives. And maybe rightly so, because
they have their constituents to answer to. There¨s a lot of fringe
stuff out there. I think it¨s their responsibility, as well as mine,
being up here and having a company, to try to take as many risks
as we can, and not be so worried about what people are going to
think.
Morphos: I think we have time to take one or two questions from
the audience.
Naomi Person, producer, Fresh Air, NPR: Does the idea of a live
television play float anyone¨s boat? ìERî has a live show and everybody
kind of goes crazy. Actors are perfectly capable of doing it, and
actors would get paid more.
Pugliese: There¨s always this thing about TV, where everyone¨s always
like, ìwe could put a play on TV, or put a book on TV.î At some
point, though, you¨ve just got to make the best TV you can make.
It¨s kind of trying to inhabit the medium and make it great. Everything
has to be adapted, I think.
Viertel: It¨s important to remember that the medium is much more
sophisticated now than it was in the 1950s. If you go back and look
at some of those live plays, they have tremendous charm, but they
definitely look like technical antiques. I don¨t think the same
thing could be done so easily today.
Rebeck: I would like to see the cable channels become a little more
open to original movies. You look at what Patty Chiasky was doing
way back when, in movies like ìMaurieî and stuff. There are a lot
of playwrights who would respond to that. It¨s a very bureaucrat-laden
system. It¨s really hard to get original stories told.
Tanya Melich, president, Political Issues Management: I¨m a political
writer and a great lover of the theater. My sister is a drama critic,
my husband is a lawyer representing creative people. I think that
Frank was eloquent in what he said, and there¨s nothing that any
of you have said that I basically disagree with. But if there¨s
anybody that not only the city but the country wants to hear from,
it¨s the artists. It wants to know what the hell is going on. I
loved what you were saying, all the practical things, but the answer
is there: This happened in our city. You need to speak out, create
in whatever way you can and begin to explain to all of us what is
happening, what did happen and where we¨re going. To worry about
whether you¨re going to perform in an abandoned subway car, or you¨re
going to do it at the Roundabout or wherever • please just do what
Frank said and start doing it. It¨s almost two months, and we haven¨t
heard enough from our great artists. The New York story is here,
and you¨ve described it, and I want to see something coming out
it very, very soon.
Rebeck: That¨s a powerful thing you just said. The arts are starting
to do this now, but you all have to keep your ears to the ground.
In film, TV and theater, the way artists get to their audiences
is always mediated by intermediaries. A lot of people are starting
to work directly, so you¨re going to have to look to the Internet
and to other sources for information. We¨re going to do a piece
at Actors Studio in a month or so.
Jefferson: I also have to say that artists, too, need time to process.
I¨ve heard people talking since the 12th or the 13th. A number of
people were simply going through crises, especially young artists,
about ìShould I even be doing this?î Older artists don¨t feel that.
You want your art to really capture all those complications. Sometimes
that can take a month or two months.
Melich: I realize that, but the name of this session is ìBrave New
World,î and we¨ve got it.
Morphos: I think, from the artists that I know up here, you won¨t
be able to stop them.
|
