weebelly.com

I opened the July/August American Theatre to an article about a theater in Maryland that partnered with three nearby colleges to create a voucher program.

The article, A Not-So-Impossible Dream, by Eliza Bent, discusses the process used by the Marlyand Ensemble Theatre: the theater sends vouchers to the colleges; the colleges distribute them to faculty, students, or staff; the student (or whomever) shows up at the theater and gives the voucher and gets in free; the theater then bills the colleges for the cost of a reduced ticket–for the colleges the money actually comes out of the student life budget.

This is one way that this theater has been encouraging younger people to come to shows and also, that the colleges have been encouraging students to see theater–especially in programs where it is important and can be tied to curriculum (an excellent example being that con-con is putting up the Pulitzer Prize-winning Buried Child in the fall) which is always good for a literature department!

As the article rightly points out, this would be one way to combat the ‘gerification’ of modern American theaters. For convergence, as I’m learning, this is one of the main challenges for several reasons: first, it is difficult (read, impossible) to sustain operations from ticket sales alone–theaters need investment from their community and this is difficult for con-con as its appeal is not to this deep-pocketed, older market which seems to relish a more conservative type of theater, in both content and structure; second, the type of theater that con-con produces is in-your-face, usually multimedia enhanced–a type that should appeal to a younger crowd; and third, con-con runs plays that are generally out of the main stream–contemporary, experimental, ‘dangerous’, and usually regional premieres (or in my case, a world-premiere).

I have no illusions about how difficult it would be to set up something similar here, but am thinking about trying to push it with as many people as I know. Obviously, I am interested in doing this on behalf of convergence, but the fact is, this is something that would be great in Cleveland more broadly. There is a density of both theaters and colleges here and I’m sure Karamu, CPT, Dobama, Bang and Clatter, the Play House, and even more would be interested. To use business parlance, it’s a win-win for everyone!

I have come to the realization that I can be quite easily outraged. I’ve discussed this topic before, but in the context of playwriting and some of the choices of subject matter that I’ve made: revolving around injustice. I’ve got quite a fierce sense of fairness and the accompanying anger that goes along with what I perceive as being unfair. Of course, sometimes the things that I get angry about can be a little bit less than important–or at least, relevant to my own life. One such subject is the eponymous title for this entry.

There is an article in today’s Cleveland Plain Dealer by Jeremy Gerard (actually of the Bloomberg News) who writes of the “Phony Tony voting” that occurs and that, “Many of the Tony Awards announced…will be given out in flagrant violation of Tony rules.”

So, what are these rules? We’ll pretty simple: a Tony voter is obligated to “see each of the 36 shows that opened this season.” And even if this goal is not achieved, the voters need to see all of the shows in a category if they intend to vote in that category. Seems pretty straightforward to me, how about you? Now, I’m not naive about the time requirement involved here. There is one. Especially if you have a lot going on in your life: and really, who doesn’t? For my blog and a related site I’ve been trying to get off the ground (theatreincleveland.com) that is my goal: to see all the productions in Cleveland–which I’ve found to be a heavy task indeed. BUT, I would never stoop to blogging or reviewing a play I didn’t see–let alone vote on one.

It seems to me that if you’re given the privilege of voting (as voting for the Tony should be) you should meet the obligations outlined and that’s just the way it goes. Of course the reality is that most voters don’t even bother to see the shows they vote against. So, going back to my opening, is it FAIR to vote for a show when you haven’t bothered to see the others in the category? Or worse, and likely the case, is it FAIR to vote for a show you didn’t even see? It certainly calls into question motivations.

So what the hell? I mean, you just go and vote however you want for whomever you want with no regard for being informed? What is this, national politics? For Christ’s sake, at least Art could try to hold up a light in the wilderness regarding these matters. And who the hell is responsible for this process anyhow?? We’ll, let’s see.

Charlotte St. Martin (great name), “executive director of the Broadway League” (no relation to the infamous Redheaded League for you Sherlock Holmes fans) “the trade organization that co-produces the awards, did not return calls over two days of inquiries.”

That’s always a good sign. You are assured that everything is on the up-and-up when the ‘executive director’ doesn’t return calls. I love that one, by the way, it is such a great scheme to avoid a public display of your incompetence. After all, you’re not on the record one way or the other, so your incompetence is left solely to speculation. I, of course, choose to look at the very worst possible scenario–and with a name like Charlotte St. Martin I can’t be too far off in my judgment.

So who else? Come on, who else is supposed to be controlling this mess? Oh, how about the Tony Awards themselves? Well, glad you asked:

“Andy Snyder,” spokesman for the Tonys “said in an e-mail that verifying the votes isn’t the responsibility of Tony Award Productions.”

After all, why should it be? They’re only responsible for…the Tony Awards…?

Here is where the heat level in my neck and face begins to cause flushing. After all, isn’t it the responsibility…the RESPONSIBILITY of the organizations involved in something to make sure that it is fair, accurate, and NOT FRAUDULENT…after all defrauding the public is a crime, isn’t it? But, here is where that little voice inside my head starts asking questions like: in the grand scheme of life, how important a thing is this, really? How much power over your paranoia do you want to grant a Charlotte St. Martin or an Andy Snyder? Or the irresponsible majority of Tony Award voters who base their vote on the hear-say at the bar where they sidle up every night? Their opinions formed by others, or worse: precritical bias, racism, sexism, sexual preference, star-bias, or any host of other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the play, the performance, or anything RELEVANT to a show.

As much as I hate to agree with Andy Snyder (because I do believe the Tony Awards Productions should have some responsibility for ensuring non-fraudulent activities if its going to grant an award and make people’s careers and spread manure on national television), I do agree that the responsibility for fulfilling the commitments outlined (and NOT LYING or engaging in FRAUD) lies (pun intended) with the Tony voters. If these people cannot fulfill the simple obligations outlined for their participation in the voting, they should be stripped of their rights in the first place (and this does fall to the Tony Awards Productions and the saintly figure from the League). And according to Gerard, “Ensuring an honest vote wouldn’t be difficult to do. The press agents keep tabs on all the members of the press who show up.”

So the bottom line? As Gerard writes:

“more than a third of the Tony voters don’t actually bother to see the shows in contention for Broadway’s signature prize.” Which reduces the whole value of the award to that of a “popularity contest.”

Keep that in mind when you watch the awards tonight (if you bother) and certainly if you intend to make anything of the outcome later on down the road.