|
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
New
York’s Public Policies: Scenarios for the Future
Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2001, 9 a.m.
Moderator:
Robert Marx, vice president, The Fan Fox & Leslie
R. Samuels Foundation
Panelists:
Jed Bernstein, president The League of American
Theatres and Producers
Alan Eisenberg, president, Actors¨ Equity Association
Marian A. Godfrey, director, culture program, The
Pew Charitable Trusts
Kathleen Hughes, deputy commissioner, New York
City Department of Cultural Affairs
Virginia P. Louloudes, executive director, Alliance
of Resident Theaters/New York
Fran Reiter, former NYC deputy mayor for economic development
and planning
Bruce Weber, theater critic, The New York Times
Michael Janeway: Good morning. I¨m Mike Janeway, director of the
National Arts Journalism Program, and co-host for this conference
with my colleague Evangeline Morphos from the School of the Arts
theater program. For those of you who weren¨t here yesterday, our
format • because we have such a full schedule with large panels
• is that business and conference as usual are out. We are going
to skip usual formats and routines, such as opening statements by
panelists. Each panelist¨s biographical information is given in
detail in your conference materials. We¨re going to go straight
to directed conversation by our moderators: in this case, Rob Marx,
vice president of the Samuels Foundation.
Rob has had a long and rich career that includes work with the NEA,
the New York State Council on the Arts and Lincoln Center¨s New
York Public Library for the Performing Arts. We leave it to the
discretion of the moderator whether the clock and the schedule will
permit time for Q&A, but we have a block of time marked off for
an open session where Q&A can go, this afternoon at 2:30. The National
Arts Journalism gong • is here, in case things get out of hand.
(laughter from audience)
Marx: The title of our panel is ěNew York¨s Public Policies: Scenarios
for the Future.î And when I read the schedule, I was pleased that
the ěPoliciesî in the title is plural, because we know there¨s no
such thing as the arts community of New York • there are a lot of
different communities that all intersect, and for that reason alone,
there are many, many different public policies that also intersect
in various ways. We have all of these geographic and discipline-based
communities, and numerous points of view to match, so we¨ll be looking,
I hope, at various needs regarding government and its relationship
to the theater as an indigenous industry of New York. We don¨t often
think of ourselves as an indigenous industry, but we really are:
both commercial and not-for-profit. And what kinds of actions and
risks and worries and concerns • and maybe some positive outlooks
• have come about in the wake of the September 11 disaster?
We have seven panelists to my left, and we have one hour and 15
minutes. So, there will be no opening statements, because if we
had opening statements from everyone they¨d be closing statements
at the same time. Instead, I hope what happens is that we¨ll have
a discussion among our seven very informed and experienced individuals
and see where they agree and • I hope, for the sake of our own information
• where they disagree. So I encourage all of you to interrupt each
other, jump in and disagree.
I want to start, just as a point of departure here, with a quote
from our comptroller, Alan Hevesi • and this appeared in [The New
York Times¨] Bob Herbert¨s column on Oct. 25, just last week: ěIn
addition to the enormous human toll, there is the dramatic loss
of infrastructure and earning power. Businesses that were destroyed;
businesses that were hurt; businesses that are contemplating leaving
New York CityČ We heard more about that on the news this morning.
˙Čeither temporarily or permanently; and businesses that that are
floundering because of the fear factor, like the airlines, the entertainment
industry, Broadway, and so on. We¨ve already lost $47 billion with
the destruction of the World Trade Center offices, the downtown
devastation, and for the rest of this fiscal year • eight months
to go • it¨ll be another $45 billion or so.¨î Now Bob Herbert: ěThat¨s
an economic hit approaching $100 billion over two years. The attack
and its aftermath, combined with an already-faltering economy, will
have a gruesome effect upon the city¨s budget. Estimates of deficit
for the current fiscal year range from $738 million to more than
$1 billion, and the expected deficit for the following fiscal year,
which begins next July 1, is $4 billion. That¨s the city¨s projected
local deficit.î
So, to get us going, I just want to start with Fran, and ask: Under
the economic circumstances • and you can always count on Fran to
have a strong and focused point of view • under the economic circumstances
that have been outlined by Hevesi, what can the theater community
expect in the way of public policy and aid, as of Jan. 1, from a
new and totally untested city governmentňand one that is, perhaps,
quite uninformed about the theater?
Reiter: Well, I¨m not sure they¨re uninformed. Certainly Mr. Bloomberg
has been a supporter of the arts, a major contributor • he¨s not
a neophyte, in that sense. And I think Mr. Green as well, generally
speaking, has good feelings about cultural New York. So I don¨t
know that that¨s so much an issue. The issue is how they¨re going
to be tested, in terms of the enormous pressures that are going
to be put on them from all kinds of constituencies across the city,
all of which will say, ěI¨m the most important.î I think that there¨s
a positive note for at least some of the theater community, and
the cultural community in general. I do believe that over the last
decade or so • certainly over the last eight years • there¨s been
a growing understanding on the part of government of the vital role
that culture plays in the New York City economy. That was not always
the case. You don¨t have to go that far back to know that Ed Koch
had very little feeling for the cultural community, and budgets
during his administration were cut. During the fiscal crisis of
the late ¨80s and the early ¨90s, libraries and cultural institutions
took enormous hits.
Eisenberg: Fran, then why does the mayor constantly cut the arts
budget?
Reiter: Actually, that¨s not true. Well, this mayor, or all mayors?
Eisenberg: This mayor.
Reiter: This mayor hasn¨t really cut the cultural affairs budget.
He¨s cut it, and then allowed it to be restored in a buy-back. In
the Dinkins administration and in the Koch administration, they
just cut it.
Marx: When you say ěbuy-back,î you mean the restoration of the funds
through the City Council?
Reiter: Well, we need a balanced budget: we¨re required by law.
The mayor does a budget, and the City Council, historically, doesn¨t
want to cut anything. So, the mayor makes the cuts, and will tend,
as a negotiating tactic, to cut those things he knows the City Council
really doesn¨t want to have cut. And the City Council has been very
protective of cultural institutions and libraries. So what the mayor
does is, he cuts it. They come back to the negotiating table and
say, ěYou can¨t cut culturals.î And the mayor says, ěWell, we have
to cut something. So, buy it back.î And that¨s the dance that¨s
been played for the last eight years. And, in fact, it¨s been very,
very effective. And culturals and libraries have really not been
cut, while there were massive cuts in government • in the first
two years in particular, in ¨94 and ¨95, when the city was facing
$2 billion and $3 billion deficits, before the economy turned around.
And after that negotiation, culturals were basically held harmless.
That wasn¨t true prior to the Giuliani administration. When the
economy first faltered, the Dinkins administration made massive
cuts to the cultural budget, and it¨s not that those cuts have been
restored, but it hasn¨t gotten any worse.
I think that we do understand now that the number one attraction
for tourists to New York • a $20 billion industry • is culture.
And more specifically, within the cultural world, Broadway is the
number one cultural attraction. What does that mean going forward?
I think it means that as it pertains to major institutions that
are great attractors of visitors to the city, and the dollars they
generate, there¨s going to be an effort to protect them. It¨s really
to the rest of the cultural community • the not-for-profit theater
companies that don¨t tend to play in that world as much, the dance
companies, the smaller orchestras, the smaller museums in the other
boroughs • I think they are the ones who may be looking at some
difficult times. Because ultimately, what¨s going to happen is that
decisions are going to have to be made, and who knows whether the
next mayor is going to be willing to withstand the pressures. We
need more daycare centers. We need more money in education. We need
more money in housing. We need more and more and more and more,
and we¨re facing a $4 billion deficit. So something¨s going to get
cut somewhere. The upside, I think, is that this industry, this
indigenous industry, is now finally recognized, even by the most
parochial of government officials, as being important, as being
a vital part of the economy.
Marx: What brought that about?
Reiter: What brought it about was better research. What brought
it about was the communication of that research and, frankly, a
mayor who believed it. When, in 1993, during the transition • that¨s
when you sort of divvy up the government among deputy mayors. My
predecessor¨s deputy mayor for economic development was John Dyson.
Dyson was the first deputy mayor for economic development to have
cultural affairs within his purview, which sent a very, very strong
signal. Now, does that mean that the administration viewed all cultural
affairs as being important to the economy? No. But it did recognize
at least that a major, important part of cultural New York and Broadway
theater was extremely important. And I think that was a step in
the right direction.
We¨re talking purely economics now. The social impact of cultural
New York, not only on visitors but more specifically on those of
us who live and work here, is equally important on a whole other
level • maybe even more important in defining who we are as a city.
But during difficult economic times, if you ask me what my sense
is, I cannot believe that we¨re not going to withstand some more
cuts over and above the 15 percent that was already mandated in
the post•Sept. 11 period.
Marx: Now, government arts policy covers a lot within that umbrella
heading. There¨s labor, real estate, education, tourism, taxation,
funding. Are there existing arts policies, in any of those areas,
that absolutely must change in the wake of Sept. 11? Ginny? Kathy?
Kathy, you looked like you were just about to say something.
Hughes: I was just about to say something....it¨s always hard to
follow Fran in saying anything.
Louloudes: That¨s why I let you go.
Hughes: (laughs) I think the word ěpolicyî needs to be redefined.
And in fact, there needs to be a greater emphasis on, as you say,
policies within government. I think we are on the threshold, both
with a new government, with a crisis, that can always be turned
around to be an advantage if we¨re creative, and with the work that¨s
gone into a process that the arts community • to use that oxymoron
• has come up with called the Cultural Blueprint, which is about
to be issued. I think the need for looking at policies that direct
government¨s attention is more critical now than it has been in
the past..
Marx: And how substantially has the Blueprint been revised in the
wake of Sept. 11?
Hughes: Much of the work that was done on the Blueprint was such
good, solid work and indicated what needed to be done so clearly
that • although I haven¨t seen the last and final draft • I don¨t
think it needed a lot of additional work, in light of that. The
economic downturn was clear before Sept. 11. The discussions that
will follow it will, of course, capture the issues from the aftermath
of Sept. 11, and so I think that the need for it to be drastically
revised just simply wasn¨t there.
Marx: And Ginny, is there a need for change of existing policies?
Louloudes: Yeah. (audience laughs) I¨m going to go on a limb here.
Somebody once told me that if you think you don¨t have a policy,
look at your budget. Your budget clearly indicates a policy, because
you allocate resources based on a philosophy. This city is allocating
the lion¨s share of its money to 33 or so Cultural Institutions
Groups, and then there are another • how many?
Hughes: 530.
Louloudes: 530 in the category called Program Groups. Now, the Cultural
Institution Group came together for a wonderful reason. Prior to
the city coming together • when Brooklyn was separate from Manhattan
• there were some amazing institutions, like the Brooklyn Museum
and the Botanical Garden. And when the city came together, I think
in a moment of real brilliance, the city decided that it was going
to own those buildings and it was going to protect them and insure
them for the public. Well, a lot has changed in the last 100 years,
and those buildings and those companies have become some of the
strongest organizations in the world. They have phenomenally strong
boards, they have enormous opportunities for fundraising.
Now, the other irony is that theater • American theater • was in
its infancy stage then, so there are only two theaters that are
Cultural Institution Groups out of the 33. The New York Shakespeare
Festival, thanks to the tenacity of Joe Papp, and Queens¨ Theatre
in the Park, thanks to the tenacity of Borough President Claire
Schulman. There are another 360 theaters. Of those 360, 98 get city
funding and the rest don¨t.
The government policy is one of haves and have-nots. And I think
that if we look at the economy and we look at the capabilities of
all the arts organizations, we need to divvy up the money a little
differently. It is a very tough thing to ask any mayor to do. I
would not want to be either Mr. Bloomberg or Mr. Green and have
my new commissioner of cultural affairs tell me to do this, because
it would mean that you¨re angering the most powerful board members,
many of whom have made contributions, and many whom have a lot of
clout. And that¨s why the change, I believe, hasn¨t happened.
The only thing I can hope is that the urgency of Sept. 11, and the
imminent economic crisis that it is going to create, will, like
it or not, force us to come together and rethink everything, and
not look at historical funding or what was done in the past, but
look at everything with a clean slate. That is a highly, highly
idealistic thought • it probably sounds tremendously naŻve, and
it probably won¨t happen.
Reiter: It probably won¨t happen. (audience laughs)
Eisenberg: I did a very brief statistical run in preparation for
this, and • I support everything Ginny said, except maybe for the
part that it will not happen. You know, that may turn out to be
true.
I just did what we call ěactor work weeks.î One actor in a show
for 10 weeks is 10 work weeks. And 10 actors in a show for one week
is also 10 work weeks. And so far this season, the work weeks for
some of our most important but small not-for-profit theaters, like
the Atlantic or Primary Stage and so on, are down by almost 50 percent.
Off-Broadway is doing fine, at least for the moment, because these
are really theaters above 14th Street. But theaters like the Irish
Rep, New Federal, which is another group of theaters, are also down
by almost 50 percent. So that¨s just in the last three or four or
five months. And whether that¨s a combination of Sept. 11, or just
that the funding is down for the seasonČ
It sounds Pollyannaish, I suppose, but I would like to see some
sort of arts advisory panel giving some advice to the city as to
the way the funding should be done. It doesn¨t just have to go to
the Metropolitan, or Lincoln Center or the Roundabout. It¨s the
smaller theaters, for whom the $5,000 or $10,000 grant would mean
so much more than much larger sums to some of our most important,
prestigious and well-thought-of organizations. So, I¨d like to see
some kind of advisory panel steer Mr. Green or Mr. Bloomberg in
a somewhat right direction.
Marx: Bruce Weber.
Weber: Any discussion over cultural policy or the arts in New York
almost always focuses on money. And one of the things that we seem
to be agreeing on is there¨s going to be considerably less money
in the future. So, perhaps the discussion might be better focused
on what else might be done, aside from finding ways to raise more
money for these organizations.
Louloudes: I¨m not saying we necessarily have to raise more money,
but maybe we reallocate the incredible amount of money we already
have differently. I agree with you. It would be naŻve of us to say
that anyone should come up with more money for us when we¨re in
the crisis we¨re in. But there could be a redistribution.
Marx: But in those divisions between the haves and have-nots, which
apply to the commercial theater as much as the not-for-profit, how
do we begin, for the first time, to really create a unified voice
for this industry? It was one of the things that just sank us during
the NEA crisis. The big institutions weren¨t interested, because
they don¨t get that much money out of the government at this point
in time, and you¨d go in and you¨d try to make that case with the
large institutions, and they¨d say, ěOh, come on. Those are the
little guys. We wish them well, there¨s no ill will here at all,
but we can¨t allocate our time for that.î There are divisions that
have been between commercial and not-for-profit. How do we begin,
in marching beyond Sept. 11, to come together and look upon ourselves
as one unified industry that has to speak with a focused, direct
and aggressive voice to benefit everybody?
Reiter: I don¨t believe you can.
Marx: OK.
Reiter: I think that that¨s a utopian notion. Because there are
such differences in the needs and the ways of working between the
commercial theater and the not-for-profit theater. Broadway is a
commercial industry. Yes, there are not-for-profits that produce
on Broadway. But they generally do so under different circumstances
and very often will incubate those productions at their own houses.
Not always. Some have theaters now on Broadway. But speaking specifically
of the commercial Broadway theater, the notion that they are part
of • or should be part of, or brought into • one uniform theater
policy, I think, is crazy. I think it¨s a waste of time. It is a
whole different world. Government, in my view, is not going to fund
Broadway theater. Government is not going to get involved with policies
regarding Broadway theaters, with the exception, maybe, of tourist
and promotion and real estate.
Marx: Or taxation.
Reiter: Or taxation. Those are, generally speaking, totally different
issues than those that are facing Ginny¨s members. Or even off-Broadway,
though I would say that off-Broadway commercial theater has much
more in common with the Broadway commercial theater than it does
with the Soho Rep, or the Public Theater, or any of the other smaller
not-for-profits. So I think we make a mistake in thinking that we
can come up with one uniform, united industry policy.
Eisenberg: Fran, it is a vertical industry nonetheless, starting
at the smallest and going up. And in the same way that you said,
maybe, that the mayor finally understood the reality of the theater,
maybe there¨s still a place for commercial theater to recognize
and merge with not-for-profit theater: that it is a vertical industry,
and it¨s in everybody¨s interests to merge interests and try to
come up with a platform that one can go forward with. I¨ve always
wondered why doesn¨t the industry have a Jack Valenti. I mean, there¨s
got to be some sort of industry czar merging interests, or trying
to merge interests.
Bernstein: Alan, I think you¨re right. But when we started at the
League, five or six years ago, there was this big debate about re-slicing
the same-sized pie in order to accomplish marketing things, or in
fact expanding the pie. And I think that¨s what Ginny is saying.
If you¨re an actor at the Public Theater, in a show that just plays
down at the Public, you can¨t live off what you get paid for doing
that. Now, if you take money from the Public Theater in order to
give it to other theaters, you¨re going to have less productions,
less work weeks, less money to pay who¨s there.
So unless you make the pie bigger • and I think saying that we have
a common interest, or a common platform, doesn¨t mean that we have
to have exactly the same feelings about everything • that¨s the
only way to raise the awareness and raise the importance of how
we make theater, in the mosaic that makes up New York. It¨s not
only important for tourism and real estate, as Fran says quite rightly,
but how do we make it important in neighborhood businesses? How
do we make it important in local neighborhood politics? Why aren¨t
local council people tied into the theater and being lobbied, day
after day after day, by those theaters in their neighborhoods? Periodically,
the outer-borough councils scream about why Broadway doesn¨t reach
out to the boroughs. And that is quite true. We should be doing
a better job there. But certainly there are theaters in all those
boroughs that should have more awareness.
Louloudes: Well, they do. The theaters in the outer boroughs do
know their council people, and the council people know the theaters.
I mean, we are locally based. We know who our elected officials
are. We vote. And they know we vote. I don¨t know what the Broadway
people do, but we know who they are, and they know who we are.
Reiter: I didn¨t think, Ginny, that you wanted to take the money
from the Public and other theatersČ
Louloudes: No, I didn¨t.
Reiter: Čyou wanted to take it from the Metropolitan Museum of Art
and give it to theaters. (audience laughs)
Louloudes: I certainly don¨t want to take it from any actors¨ salaries!
Because then Alan Eisenberg will kill me! (laughs) No, but I mean,
I think of it as this huge endowment that is bigger, probably, than
some of the city budgets of some of the cities in Nebraska. That
perhaps you don¨t need money from the City of New York.
Eisenberg: Rob and I met when Rob was the theater director at the
Endowment, and I used to go down there regularly to discuss issues
with him and try to lobby for money through Rob. The commercial
theater, which in many ways still lives off the not-for-profit theater,
was never there. You never saw the commercial theater really interested
in the endowment, then or even now, though of course it has much
less importance. I mean, Equity right now is lobbying for extra
health insurance for its members, working with the city and the
state. Where is the League in trying to support the actors on that
issue?
Bernstein: Alan, as you well know, The Actors¨ Fund is coordinating
all of our efforts, and we are right there with everybody else.
Eisenberg: Hey Jed, you¨re missing my point. You¨re really missing
my point.
Marx: Well, let me ask you this. Among various proposals, whether
it¨s Equity or someone else, we heard from John Breglio yesterday.
I¨m wondering, in a discussion of specific proposals, what Jed¨s
response would be to John Breglio¨s tax initiatives, which he discussed
yesterday.
Bernstein: Well, there are several tax initiates happening. John¨s
is certainly an interesting and creative one, to take the Empowerment
Zone legislation and try to get it applied to Broadway. If that
ever could happen, that would certainly be interesting • and worthwhile.
We have been pursuing tax relief based on the advice we¨ve been
getting from Washington, which is to plug into the existing tax
initiatives that are going on down there. If there is going to be
a capital gains tax relief, for example, we¨d better make sure that
it applies to theatrical investment. If there¨s going to be a rollback
or a restoration in the T&E at deduction, then we¨ve got to make
sure that it applies to theater. We¨ve been advised that there will
be no specific industry tax relief for any industries, with the
exception perhaps of insurance. So between us, between what John¨s
trying to do and the initiatives we¨re pursuing, we¨re trying to
cover the waterfront to make sure that commercial theater is included
and covered, no matter what gets passed.
Marx: Is there any coordination among these separate efforts? Or
are the people in Washington • who are hearing incredible stress;
they¨re hearing the League, they¨re hearing from PBS, they¨re hearing
from various people • are they talking to each other?
Bernstein: Well, I think people are talking to each other. We¨ve
had several meetings • the so-called community-wide meetings • and
we also got together with most of the commercial industry accounting
firms and lobbyists to talk about strategy. That doesn¨t mean that
there isn¨t room for multiple views,. It just means that certainly,
communication should be paramount.
Marx: Now, labor is a major factor in all of this, especially when
you¨re dealing with Washington. So I want to ask Alan what needs
• and not just the needs of Equity but the needs of organized arts
labor • are being defined as in this moment of crisis.
Eisenberg: There aren¨t any, actually. None of these initiatives
in any way • perhaps there aren¨t any • have gone to see what labor¨s
needs are. We¨ve been working on one particular issue in terms of
a deduction. You have a 2 percent floor at the moment, by which
only after 2 percent can you deduct your expenses. Actors are treated
as employees under the IRS, but they live as independent contractors,
in that they¨re constantly looking for employment • so they have
agent¨s fees and union¨s fees. All of these are tax deductible,
but subject to a floor. We are trying to eliminate the floor, which
is one aspect that we are working on, but again, we are coordinating
it by ourselves. We haven¨t really reached out, the way that these
other tax initiatives that Jed has talked about will certainly have
employment opportunities for not only actors but all creative personnel.
But no one¨s really said: ěGet some actors, get some directors,
or get some writers to go down to Washington.î
Marx: Marian has so far been quiet. And, Marian, from the perspective
of the Pew Trusts in Philadelphia, which has sponsored one of the
largest research efforts, in terms of arts and policy statistics
in this country, how do these arguments fit into a national overview?
Are they similar to discussions you¨ve heard elsewhere? Are they
totally different? Are they specific to local New York needs or
not?
Godfrey: Well, some of each, actually. On the one hand, there are
a couple of things that are radically different in New York than
in the rest of the country. One is that you have the extraordinary,
wonderful characteristic that doesn¨t exist anyplace else, of having
a whole city whose identity is primarily defined by culture, on
the one hand, and I suppose the finance industry on the other. And
you have a uniquely deep cultural infrastructure here that just
doesn¨t exist anyplace else. So when you talk about the haves and
have-nots in other cities, you¨re talking about maybe six or seven
haves and maybe another 50 have-nots. And it just is a completely
different ecology, and a completely different system.
On the other hand, you¨re also dealing with an acute crisis, with
what¨s happened to the fabric of this city with the bombings, whereas
the rest of the country is just dealing with what I think is going
to be a chronic problem: a very significant downturn in the economy,
which is probably going to last for a couple of years. I was having
a discussion yesterday with a policy analyst who works a lot at
the state level, who was saying that the general pattern in states
around the country seems to be not so much actual cuts but withholdings
of appropriations across the board in state budgets, which amounts
to about 4 percent. And they¨re doing that just prophylactically,
I guess. And that the arts are neither more or less favored than
other sectors in those withholdings. So, you have a situation that¨s
not as problematic elsewhere, in the acute sense.
On the other hand, from a long-term point of view, I very much agree
that more research is needed. It¨s very much something that the
panel yesterday, and Kevin McCarthy from RAND, were talking about.
There¨s a need for more data, so that you can immobilize the economic
arguments, which are basically the only thing the policy makers
have been listening to right now. They really, at the moment, only
listen to instrumental arguments. And you also need the attitudinal
data about what the demand really is, why people really care about
the arts, in order to help move the policymakers from being focused
only on economic development to being focused more broadly on cultural
development, which I think is a way to think about it, particularly
after Sept. 11.
One of the things we have working for us in the long term, thought
it¨s not going to be a help in the short term, is that policymakers
are beginning to kind of get the idea that cultural development,
more broadly, is the next big thing. That economic development,
narrowly, is not going to get them the help in their cities that
they need. They are getting that people are returning to a deep
need for a sense of place, which is something that culturals, as
fundamentally a local enterprise, can really support. They¨re beginning
to understand that cultural diversity is something that we must
understand, and if we don¨t understand it, it¨s going be to the
detriment of our society, and that culture is something • the arts
is something • that can help people grapple with issues of cultural
diversity in a constructive way.
So there are some opportunities out there, but they¨re long-term
opportunities. They need to be shored up with more information and
data, as well as better stories • which policy makers also like
to listen to. And those stories do particularly resonate with policymakers
who like the arts in the first place, there¨s no question. But stories
can also bring people along who didn¨t already get it. So the larger
picture is not that dissimilar, but there¨s no question that New
York is facing the kind of a crisis that you just don¨t see anyplace
else.
Marx: There has been a long-standing hostility to New York • and
especially New York culture • in the halls of government, especially
Washington. Do you see that being tempered in the wake of Sept.
11?
Godfrey: Well, probably for a while, anyway. Because I think there¨s
an enormous sympathy throughout the country for what¨s happened
in New York. And it¨s made people aware that maybe New York is the
city they loved to hate, but the reason they hated it was because
of all the wonderful things about it. And now I think there¨s a
certain level of sympathy that exists there. I don¨t know how long
it¨ll last.
Weber: One of the interesting paradoxes about the arts and public
policy is that the artists themselves are generally in the business
of criticism. They¨re generally in the business of being outsiders.
And at the same time that they are being sort of observant and critical
of this society and the government, they are perennially asking
to be included. One of the things I think would help • and that
you almost never hear from public officials • is it¨s OK to be an
artist. I think if you ask the people on this panel, ěDo the artists
themselves feel as though they are included as citizens, and taken
care of as citizens, are appreciated for what they do, within the
city structure?î they¨d probably say ěno.î
I lived in Chicago for a couple of years, and the difference between
the way artists feel about their city in Chicago and the way they
feel about it here is remarkable. There is a community • particularly
in theater • of actors and directors, that all love the mayor. It¨s
truly quite astonishing. And they feel that because they feel as
though they have helped to define the character of the city, and
not just held it back.
Fran and I disagree, I think, about the fracas at the Brooklyn Museum.
Reiter: I doubt very much that we disagree about that. (laughter)
Weber: I mean, my sense that what Mr. Giuliani did when he threatened
to pull funding from the Brooklyn Museum was that he sent that very
message • ělook, artists exist from our beneficence, and if they¨re
going to thumb their nose at us, then we¨re not going to be beneficent
anymore.î What he should have done, if he didn¨t like that particular
work of art, is get up and say, ěYou know, some of us can¨t relate
to that particular work of art. But it¨s in the museum, and if you
don¨t like it, demonstrate. Make your feelings known. Jump up and
down, but we can¨t do anything about it. This is what artists do.î
Marx: Which was Peter Vallone¨s position.
Weber: We¨ve all been talking about money, but I think that one
of the things that public policy ought to be turned toward is an
acknowledgement of the contribution that artists make in the city
• and not just artist/celebrities that are on Broadway, but artists
who are working in the tiny venues. That it¨s OK to come to New
York and work for no money, and put on a show in a tiny neighborhood
theater. That this is a good thing to do. It¨s a contribution to
society. I¨d like to see the mayor and city councilmen going not
just to the Metropolitan Opera or Broadway, but to the Atlantic
Theater Company, or to that tiny theater on Arthur Avenue in the
Bronx, or out to Brooklyn or the Soho Rep, as a vote of confidence.
It seems to me that politicians are always acknowledging pockets
of society in that way, but they very rarely nod at the artists
who make up the great body of the community that we¨re talking about.
Reiter: All of this raises a whole host of questions for artists
in New York. Housing questions, for example. If you believe • as
Bruce points out, and I certainly agree • that having an artistic
community in the greater community of New York is vital to defining
us as a city and making us a great place, well, it¨s becoming increasingly
difficult for artists who for 200 years have made their way to New
York to pursue their artistic dreams, and starved and lived in garrets,
and waitressed and all of that. It used to be that you could do
that and survive, but it¨s becoming increasingly harder to do that,
not just in Manhattan but throughout the city. And I have a real
concern that as those difficulties increase, we¨re going to see
less and less of a renewal of the cultural New York as a result
of that.
The policy that Bruce brings up, regarding what happened at the
Brooklyn Museum, is perhaps the granddaddy of all cultural policies,
which is: before you even get into a debate about how much money,
the debate is whether government should be involved in arts funding
at all. And my view, clearly, is that is should be • and to a greater
extent than it is. There will be people on both sides, including
supporters of the arts, that believe that government shouldn¨t fund
the arts because immediately they interfere. You can have a serious
debate about whether government should or shouldn¨t fund the arts.
But once it does, then it¨s got to step back and allow artists to
do what artists do. That¨s policy number one. But we¨ve got a lot
ancillary issues that impact artists here in New York. Ginny can
probably speak far better than I about the real estate issues, not
only in terms of housing, but the housing institutions as well.
Marx: Is it possible to recreate, in some way, the Rockefeller era
in initiatives for the arts that really led to huge expansion in
off-Broadway and off-off-Broadway in the late ¨60s and ¨70s? We
were talking about some of this at dinner last night, and I happen
to have in my own files at home the 1975-76 annual report of the
New York State Council of the Arts. This is 25 years ago. Even though
Rockefeller is no longer governor, we¨re still dealing with Rockefeller-era
budgets. Twenty-five years ago, pre-OPEC dollars, just look at some
of this. The New York Shakespeare Festival, back then, was getting
$700,000. How much does it get now, Fran?
Reiter: I think it¨s $60,000.
Robert Zukerman, New York State Council on the Arts: (from audience,
yells) 95!
Reiter: $95,000. Thank you.
Marx: Joe Papp¨s annual budget: $700,000. You want to know why Joe
was able to do a lot of plays? There it is. Playwrights Horizons,
this is 1975-76, Playwrights Horizons is a struggling young tiny
theater. They¨re getting $86,000. What would that be today? It would
about $200,000 now. Roundabout • Roundabout at that point is in
the basement of a supermarket on 26th Street: $85,000. I see Harvey
Lichtenstein right there. BAM was getting • from the theater program
of NYSCA alone, forget about dance and music • the theater program
alone was getting $250,000 in 1976. Studio Arena, the regional theater
in Buffalo, was getting $175,000. The Chelsea Theater Center, then
operating on the top floor of the Brooklyn Academy of Music, is
getting $158,000. This is real money. This is real government money
pouring into not-for-profit and off- and off-off-Broadway theaters.
At that point, there was a kind of executive patronage. There was
the sun king, of Nelson Rockefeller, who made the arts sort of part
of his portfolio. And the budget was just determined between the
governor and Seymour Knox, who was the chairman of the arts. It
was part of his portfolio. His political portfolio. He protected
it. It isn¨t in any way conceivable.
Reiter: I¨m not sure that it can come back on the state level, because
of how the budget gets done on the state level, if it gets done
at all. The State Assembly and the State Senate, being statewide
legislatures and playing that integral role in coming to a budget
resolution, I think it¨s unlikely that it would happen, even if
you had a governor like Rockefeller who got behind it. In this day
and age, it¨s virtually impossible. Could it happen in the city?
Absolutely. But as you point out, the mayor would have to make it
one of those key priorities. Mayors in New York have enormous power
and can make things happen. But it would have to be a priority,
and it¨s not a priority that a mayor is likely to get elected on.
I will say that the not-for-profit arts community has not played
the political game well in New York. And I can tell you from talking
to board members from a variety of institutions, and encouraging
them to get involved politically, that they haven¨t done a particularly
good job.
Marx: I just want to ask you one purely political question. Because
Peter Vallone, coming out of the Brooklyn Art Museum thing, really
stuck his neck out on behalf of the arts. And it seems to me as
an observer of the scene that he really got nothing.
Reiter: Zero!
Marx: Zero. So is there a legacy that comes out of the Vallone experience?
Reiter: I can relate to you a conversation I had with a very, very
wealthy individual in this city, a prominent person, big player
in one of the major cultural institutions in the city, who was approached
about doing a fundraiser four years ago • and this is someone who
raises millions of dollars, OK? But to this person, the notion of
hosting a political fund raiser was like, what planet did I fly
in on? And this was an institution that wasČ and I¨m being very
crass hereČ
Marx: That¨s allowed.
Reiter: Čvery political. This was an institution that had greatly
benefited from city largess during a difficult time, and the money
could very well have gone someplace else! And there is this [attitude]
• and not in the small, not-for-profit theater community; I¨m talking
about the major cultural institutions in this city that have the
movers and shakers on their boards • as if politics is beneath them!
And the fact is, whether it¨s Rudy Giuliani running on crime, whether
it¨s Ed Koch running on housing, politicians are going to pick issues
that resonate with large parts of the public, that push buttons.
And frankly, museums and theater ain¨t it.
Marx: And I assume you include the leaders of the commercial theaters
as well as the not-for-profit theater in that.
Reiter: Yeah, although the commercial theater, frankly, as members
of the ěbusiness community,î do a better job.
Louloudes: I¨ll tell you one way I think we can have another Rockefeller
era, and it would be in the reconstruction of downtown New York.
Historically, the arts have revitalized neighborhoods. And I think
affordable housing for artists near Battery Park City • I actually
wrote a letter to Peter Vallone about it, that I thought it would
be very important that an arts person should be put on the commission.
I think if every building had a theater or a studio or affordable
office spaces built into it for the arts, you would have this infrastructure.
You would add to the museums that are already moving down there,
and you would really create another cultural district. And you would
have 24/7 activity, which I think that neighborhood didn¨t always
have.
Godfrey: That¨s a wonderful vision. I hope it comes true. I think
that¨s a special case, though, in terms of whether there could be
another Rockefeller era here, or any similar largess flowing anyplace.
It¨s really important to remember that there¨s a historical reason
why that money was in place in the ¨60s and ¨70s and it isn¨t now.
You had public policymakers and the major philanthropies • especially
the Ford Foundation • in building the national arts infrastructure
in this country over a period of 20 years. It is now built. It¨s
arguably over-built. And I think even before Sept. 11, we were looking
at a Darwinian moment where we were going to start seeing some contraction.
I think if anything, Sept. 11 has merely exacerbated and speeded
along that process.
Back in the ¨60s and ¨70s there was a great sense of: This is a
country that had emerged from World War II. It had built itself
up industrially. People for the first time had leisure time of some
kind. They had resources that they could spend on things like the
arts for the first time. There was a great desire to increase the
quality of their emotional and imaginative lives. And so we built
this national infrastructure. But that is a time that is not going
to come again.
Eisenberg: You know, Fran just made a point that is so depressingly
true: that the arts ain¨t it, in terms of a political campaign.
I don¨t know how you could possibly alter that kind of sensibility,
because the artist, in this country, is not necessarily something
that people idolize or wish to become. I was really loath to answer
Rob¨s question before, in terms of what some of labor¨s policies
would be, in terms of what we like, but certainly subsidized housing,
which has been touched on, would be crucial. Child care would be
crucial. Rehearsal space and studio space in exchange for zoning
rights. Bring back some of the small entrepreneurs to the Times
Square area would be crucial, so you don¨t have to go to Queens
to get measured for a costume. All of these things would be part
of a policy that we would want a government to postulate and support.
But, I come back to what Fran said: It ain¨t the arts.
Marx: As we¨re sitting here today, we have another FBI warning to
be careful, regarding another terrorist threat in the next week.
What happens to the New York theater community if cultural tourism
does not come back short-term? We¨re going to start with Jed.
Bernstein: Someone asked me yesterday at a League meeting what our
plans were for the next attack. You know, we¨re still thinking about
this one. Here¨s an interesting statistic that Karen has, and probably
shared with you last night, and that is that, in the three weeks
after Sept. 11, the domestic tourism on Broadway, which is normally
at 50 percent this time of year, dropped down to 44 percent of the
audience. And overseas tourism dropped from approximately 11 or
12 percent down to 4 or 5 percent. That¨s still an enormous percentage,
when you think about it. At a time when everyone is colloquially
saying that there are no tourists in New York, half the Broadway
audience • and the Broadway audience is more or less at normal levels
• are tourists. So, I don¨t think we¨ve seen yet what it would be
like if tourists really stopped coming to New York, at least in
the arts. I think that we may get a taste of it this winter, if
the weather is bad • never mind other incidents, but if the weather
is bad and people just don¨t feel comfortable travelling. Then it¨s
things that you can¨t even control in New York.
Eisenberg: Jed, is there stuff that can be done with the other boroughs,
besides Manhattan, in terms of reaching out to audiences that might
be available?
Bernstein: I think so. I think that we love to focus on the so-called
tri-state area, meaning Connecticut and Rockland and everything,
and I think that we forget about the other boroughs. That¨s a really
good point, Alan, because we¨re talking right now about a print
campaign for November and December that is very locally focused,
and I don¨t think it really contemplates Staten Island or the Bronx
or Brooklyn. I think it¨s a very good point, because artsgoing and
theatergoing is obviously not just Manhattan, or at least it shouldn¨t
be Manhattan-centered.
Hughes: I think that¨s more than just a good point, I think it¨s
an essential point. We talk about a cultural tourism, and we¨re
thinking only of people from outside of New York coming into New
York. Cultural tourism includes people like me, living on 14th Street,
going to the Bronx to see a show. It includes people on Staten Island
• who generally are not as engaged in the cultural life of the city
because of the geographic problems they face getting into it • going
and being encouraged to do something. It makes me think of what
Fran said earlier. I think she got to the right point for the wrong
reasons. (audience laughs)
Reiter: As long as you wind up in the right place.
Hughes: Government responds to people. It doesn¨t just respond to
rich people, it responds to all people. And we need to make the
citizens of this city, all 8 million of us, care about culture.
I don¨t think that¨s an impossible agenda. I think it¨s a very possible
agenda.
Eisenberg: The city could give some money for a subway circuit,
which existed in the ¨30s and the ¨40s.
Hughes: That¨s right.
Marx: What was the subway circuit?
Bernstein: There were theaters all around New York City, in all
the boroughsČ
Weber: Brighton Beach, Washington Heights, they were everywhere.
Eisenberg: Exactly. They were everywhere, and they were commercial
theaters. It was like Summerstock in a way, as I¨ve been led to
believe. I spoke to Hank Gale about this a long, long time ago,
and it hasn¨t been developed yet. And it would be a relatively cheap
thing for the city to do.
Reiter: I think that the public cares, but they care in a very parochial
way. They care about their local theater company, which is why council
members are so responsive, whether it¨s to the local branch library
or to the local cultural institution. But they don¨t see it as part
of a larger whole.
You know, every poll shows how dissatisfied the public is with public
schools. And yet, if you poll parents about their specific public
school, they¨ll tell you their public school is great. It¨s a similar
kind of thing. Because you never want to admit that¨s what really
close to you isn¨t working. It¨s just not an issue, Alan, that becomes
a button-pushing reason for voting. They care about it, but they
don¨t care about it the way they do about job security or public
safety or even public schools.
To follow up on where we are post-Sept. 11, and having just gotten
back from London, I saw Mayor Livingstone on television, and they¨re
suffering over there because we¨re not going there. Tourism is taking
huge hits in London, and the theater is taking big hits • the commercial
theater in particular, in the West End • and he was on television
urging Londoners to go to the theater, to take advantage of their
wonderful commercial theater industry, now that tourism is off.
And the mayor here is making a similar plea: Go see a show.
I did a very quick calculation though, and I think this is a problem
that sooner or later has to be addressed, particularly for the commercial
theater, irrespective of Sept. 11. When I was 14 years old, I got
a job after school. At the time, I think, minimum wage was a $1.65
an hour, and I worked 14 hours a week, and I made about $23-$25
a week, working after school. And every Saturday, the place I worked
closed at 1:00, so every Saturday I hopped on the BMT, went up to
Broadway, bought a ticket, and saw a show. And at that time, I could
buy a ticket for about $7.50 and sit up in the mezzanine. So if
I made $23 a week, I was able to see a show and still have some
left over. In fact, still have a good deal left over, relative to
the whole. Today • I don¨t remember what minimum wage is; it¨s approximately
$5 an hour • that same 14 hours would make $70 a week for me. And
a balcony seat now costs $65.
We¨re being faced right now with a reality that I think we¨ve all
known about it, but it¨s coming up and punching us in the nose,
which is: there¨s an ongoing [cost] issue. And Jed¨s worked hard
at this, instituting Children¨s Week, and trying to get new audiences
to come into the commercial theater, and trying to get them turned
on, despite all the distractions of computers and television and
MTV and everything else, and building that next audience of, in
his case, commercial theatergoers. But cost is becoming an increasing
issue. And the great middle-class theatergoing audience is finding
it increasingly difficult to do that. So now all of a sudden, while
you still have 50 percent of your audience as tourists • there are
still tourists in New York, just not as many as there normally would
be this time of year • what are we going to do to get New Yorkers
to the theater, particularly to Broadway, when it is so expensive?
Marx: In that, there is, I think, an economic equivalency factor.
For decades and decades, the price for, let¨s say, a second balcony
seat in a Broadway theater, or the back of a first-balcony seat
in a one-balcony house • and certainly the price of an off-Broadway
ticket • was the same as a movie. When I started out it was $3.00.
Then it went up to $5, then $7.50. And I remember being shocked
because, like Fran, I would get on the subway from the Bronx, go
down with my friends from high school and junior high school, and
see a show. Except for the biggest hits, you could just walk in.
When I had to start paying more than $3.00, it was really shocking
to me. And there were no discount systems in those days. You just
walked up to the box office and that was it. There was a 300 percent
spread • 3 bucks to 9 dollars for downstairs, then 5 to 15, and
it went up accordingly.
Eisenberg: Rob, Showcase tickets • in which the actors get paid
nothing, no one gets paid anything • a Showcase ticket is now $20.
Marx: Right! I know, I know.
Reiter: That¨s incredible. I didn¨t know that.
Godfrey: But they get something, Alan. They get something.
Eisenberg: They get something. But still, it¨s a $20 ticket. (audience
laughs)
Marx: I¨m just thinking that, from the ticket-buyer¨s point of view...
I know so many people who say that they¨d go to the theater if they
could go to the theater the way they go to a movie. The way they
used to. You walk in, you put down the same amount of money, it¨s
totally informal. The show doesn¨t have to be the greatest thing
you ever saw, but there might be an actor you¨re interested in,
or a playwright who¨s emerging.
Weber: That¨s off-off-Broadway, actually. There is this kind of
availability.
Marx: Yeah, but prices are going up there, too.
Weber: Sure, but at least it¨s partially an answer to the question.
I mean, one of the things that could be addressed by the League
and LORT and our politicians and everyone else who is concerned
about the theaters is getting the message out: that if you want
to go to the theater, go to your neighborhood theater. I mean, it¨s
a big message that New York theater is not Broadway. And that message
doesn¨t really get out.
Reiter: One of the reasons it doesn¨t get out, though, is that theater
companies don¨t have the money to get it out. That one of the biggest
issues facing the not-for-profit theater community, and particularly
the smaller and more locally based community, is that they don¨t
have marketing dollars. And it is very, very, very difficult. Funders,
even for larger theaters, don¨t want to give money for advertising.
When I was at the Convention and Visitors Bureau, I met with a number
of heads of major foundations that fund cultural institutions, including
theaters, to say, ěThere¨s a real problem.î I mean, even the biggest
institutions don¨t have marketing budgets. The Museum of Natural
History doesn¨t have a huge marketing budget outside of the city
of New York. They spend it here. You don¨t see ads for the Museum
of Natural History in The London Times. I went to a number of foundations
and said, ěLook, we¨ve got some seed money. We¨d like to start a
fund to help institutions to do cultural marketing.î They looked
at me like I was out of my mind. It was the single worst meeting
I had while I was at the Convention and Visitors Bureau. They want
it for ballet, or they want it for a new production, or they want
to underwrite a new wing in a theater, or the green room, or whatever
it is. But they don¨t want to spend it on advertising and promotion.
Now. Look at a small theater company, and what do you think their
chances are of getting that word out?
The second thing I would say is that there¨s a lot of experimental
work that¨s also being done, and a kind of theater that a new theatergoer
may find inaccessible. Meaning that, a lot of smaller theater companies
are where the really interesting work is being done today. Getting
somebody who may be a new theatergoer interested in just going to
the theater: for them, Broadway is the theater. My view has always
been that if you can get them going to a Broadway show, and get
them used to sitting in the audience and loving live theater, then
you can get them to take a chance and look at something more experimental,
more cutting edge. But first you have to get them in. And for most
people in the world, that¨s Broadway. Whether we like it or not,
their view of theater is Broadway.
Louloudes: I just want to tag onto something that Fran said. A number
of our theaters sent their subscription brochures out bulk mail,
Sept. 9. And so a lot of marketing material was just thrown away.
Years ago we did a marketing campaign • and Jed and I were on a
panel, and we decided that it should come back • called Passport
to Broadway, to promote the field and the affordability and that
it¨s in every neighborhood.
I just disagree with one thing Fran said. I think some of the work
in our downtown theaters is so different from Broadway, that if
you come into Broadway and you like it, you probably won¨t like
what¨s happening downtown. It¨s a real schism that¨s happening.
The work is changing, it¨s more movement-based, it¨s not linear,
it¨s not as verbal, it¨s not kitchen-sink drama. And those groups
are functioning pretty well by e-mail, word of mouth, and the fact
that they¨re small and they have this buzz. I¨m not saying they
couldn¨t do more. I think we¨ve all underestimated word of mouth.
We all want a great review in The New York Times, and that¨s statistically
impossible. So then we want a good feature in The New York Times,
and the probability of that is impossible. And what we need to do
is create more word of mouth, and that¨s where we have to be really
creative and use the Internet, and use friends, and use promotional
discounts, whatever we can.
One last thing. Today begins ěTake Back Our Cityî week, sponsored
by The New York City Arts Coalition, and there are many museums
and theaters and orchestras that are offering free or discounted
performances • I know Sigourney Weaver was promoting it on the news
this morning on Channel 11. So things are happening, and other things
will happen, and, you know, it¨s a tough road.
Marx: I want to just pose one last question to everybody. If each
of you could take, today, one positive action to influence upcoming
government policy toward the theater, what would it be? We¨ll start
with Bruce and work our way back.
Weber: I would have the next mayor include a theatrical reference
in every public statement or at every press conference. Either a
quote from Shakespeare (audience laughs), or a reference to the
great off-Broadway show that he saw last week, or a simple encouragement
for people to go out and buy a ticket. But to sort of make it a
natural part of the discourse.
Reiter: Similarly, I think the mayor • a mayor • can do a great
deal to lead by example. Our politicians • not only our mayors but,
not to knock them around too much, but politicians by nature tend
to not be terribly worldly. (audience laughs) They¨re not! They
don¨t travel a lot. They don¨t. They¨re very, very parochial. I
mean, Governor Cuomo was an example: he never wanted to spend a
night out of town. He only wanted to get back to Albany. How ridiculous
was that?! (audience laughs) So, you knowČ (more laughter)
Marx: Say it! It¨s all right!
Reiter: I think that the mayor and our council members should be
going to the theater. That they should be out there at night. The
only council members you ever see at the theater are on opening
night, when they get a freebie ticket if they happen to be on the
Cultural Committee or the Parks Committee. I mean, get out there
and experience your own cities. Let the press tag after you. Who
knows, it may get them out of having to go to another rubber-chicken
dinner. ěOh, I can¨t go to your dinner, I¨ve got to go to the theater.î
Do that. Get out there and actually experience cultural New York
as an example to the rest of the city, so that people of the city
are reawakened about how many great things there are to do here,
and that there is more local support for what it is that makes this
city the greatest place in the world.
Marx: Ginny.
Louloudes: I¨d try to get on the revitalization committee and try
to get as many spaces and theaters built and affordable housing
for artists downtown.
Marx: Kathy.
Hughes: Well, we missed an opportunity by not having them here,
but I think hearing from this community, is what I would say. I
think that ought to be the first thing the next mayor does: convenes
the council, sits down with them, sits down with the arts communities,
and hears from them, And listens.
Godfrey: I¨m going to speak as somebody from Philadelphia and not
New York, and as a representative of a foundation that is not allowed,
in fact, to do anything direct in terms of influencing policymakers.
So I¨ll talk about the indirect way, and it gets back to something
that Fran was talking about before. What we¨re doing in Philadelphia,
both directly in our cultural funding and through our support of
the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, is heavily
investing in cultural marketing because of our belief that robust
audiences who are enthusiastic and excited are going to be the best
message you can get to a policymaker about the importance of arts
in your city.
Eisenberg: I¨d put a 25 cent tax on tickets, I¨d stop this restoration
fee on the theaters (applause) and I¨d turn the money back to purchasing
tickets so that kids could go back to the theater and we could go
back to $10 tickets.
Bernstein: Since I go last, I get to have two answers. One is, I¨d
fund the definitive study that proves that arts education has a
direct positive influence on students functioning in all other areas.
Math, science, English. There have been some studies that suggest
this, but it needs proof once and for all, so that you can look
a congressman in the eye, in Arkansas, and say, ěIf you cut the
arts classes, people will be stupider than they would be if you
didn¨t.î That¨s an example of expanding the pie.
The other thing I would do is • and of course, I can¨t do this at
the League, because we can¨t talk about pricing for antitrust reasons.
But if I weren¨t in this job, I would say, make the tickets to ěThe
Producers,î or to any hit show, $650 at the high end, and then make
them $5 and $10 at the low end. Protect the gross. Spread out the
price range, so that people can come at the low end, and people
can pay market value, and the creators of the show will justly get
their reward at the end of the day.
Marx: No shortage of ideas here. I just want to thank everyone for
coming at 9:00 in the morning, a valiant effort.
|
