Before I get to attempting to answer the initial question, I'll pose another. Why would WNEP *want* to be a household name? One one hand, the simple fact is that once a theater company (or an actor, painter, band, etc.
) becomes extremely well-off and well known, the drive to keep that success begins to dull the art. Lookingglass is going through this right now - they are discovering that with their new, state of the art space comes the expectation to produce shows that *everyone* will like and pay inflated prices to see. With that kind of success, being risky with the art amounts to self destructive behavior.
Thus, mediocrity floods in and de-spices the work the way Chilis and the Olive Garden do to their entrees. On the other hand, the benefits of a certain amount of "fame" include financing, more impressive opportunities in terms of scope and vision, and, most importantly, more people to see the work. As Fred just pointed out (in a recent email), if WNEP did a season of Mamet and Miller, we'd clean up because we have established the quality of our abilities and people like the *safer*, more well-known choices for their entertainment dollar.
The easy road for WNEP would be to eliminate the risk in our work, silence our individual artistic voices to do brilliant reproductions of someone else's stuff. But didn't Mamet and Miller have to make the same choice? And didn't they choose to go their own way?
If the Organic Theatre hadn't committed to doing the (at the time) unknown work of a kid named David Mamet, he'd be working as a clerk somewhere and no one would have ever seen Jack Lemmon say 'cocksucker.' WNEP decides to do a production of "House of Games" - it is pretty successful, both critically and financially; the audience comes from areas that haven't heard of WNEP before. After much soul searching, WNEP decides to put off the production of an original play written by a member of the company to do a production of "The Crucible" - again, critical and financial success - a Jeff Recommendation - awards and the prestige of getting the awards - grants are granted - donations are up from sectors that aren't friends and family.
A company member pitches heavily for WNEP to do "Sexual Perversity in Chicago" - it's a comedy in many ways - and practically guarantees another Jeff citation - after all, we're on a roll, aren't we? It does well - no awards this time, but a solid audience base and at this point, the company has enough money to pay a couple of folks full-time salaries to maintain the office and outreach program. What are the odds, given the above timeline, that WNEP's next show is going to be "Soireé DADA: Neue Weltaffen," or "pretty things," or "The Lost Shakespeare Play"?
More likely it'll be another brilliant reproduction of a known work. "So?" you ask "The success of those shows gives WNEP the opportunity to do the riskier work.
" In principle, you are correct. In practice, I've yet to see any group do that. Why?
Because money and security is seductive. Because keeping what you have is an almost primal instinct. Because only an insane person would want to go from packed houses to houses of five.
Is it that WNEP trucks exclusively in original works? I don't think so - Collaboraction, The House Theatre, and the now defunct Defiant Theatre all do original works. They are examples of spectacle over substance, form over content.
WNEP is a content-driven theater - we fall short on the spectacle aspects. I will note, however, that our most commercially successful productions involved a certain amount of spectacle (MHB with the transformation of the space, LB with the Murphy Boat, Christmas My Ass with the set pieces (not ours, btw) and costumes, Statuette with the Hollywood sign). So.
..back again to my question - why isn't WNEP a household name?
Before I get to attempting to answer the initial question, I'll pose another.
News RSS