Archive for the ‘Blogs’ Category

Raconteur Reviews

Thursday, June 12th, 2008

Check out this from The Other Paper and our other review at  Ohio News Network. And come out for the show- this is the FINAL WEEKEND!

~Jill

“Two short plays about love on its last legs”
BY RICHARD ADES
The Other Paper, June 5, 2008

If it weren’t for the buzz of conversation filtering in from the next room, you might think you were back at 2Co’s Cabaret.

The Raconteur Theatre Company is making its debut with a double bill that includes Douglas Hill’s Roulette, the kind of relationship play that often kept viewers entertained at the now-defunct cabaret. Adding to the illusion is the presence of J.T. Walker, a ponytailed actor who was sometimes seen at the Short North venue.

Walker plays Matt, a Tucson resident who has been no more successful at marriage than he has been at finding a career.  When wife Janine (Jill Ceneskie) pushes his buttons once too often, he decides to hit the road for Las Vegas.

Only one problem: Matt doesn’t have enough money to get there. After some arguing, Janine decides to take him, if only to get him out her life once and for all.  

So the two drive off, which is when things start to get weird. Matt begins finding wads of dollar bills in his formerly empty wallet, while their junky car seems to sip gas at a rate that would make a Prius jealous. These and other unexplained occurrences make Janine suspect the universe is trying to tell them something,  but Matt, for reasons he keeps to himself, is in no mood to listen.

Working under Tricia T. Jones’s skilled direction, Walker isn’t bad as a man who has trouble expressing himself, though his craft was sometimes too obvious on opening night. Ceneskie is more natural as Janine, a woman whose attitude toward her difficult husband can change from anger to protectiveness to affection within a span of seconds.
Marital tug of war: Jill Ceneskie and J.T. Walker in the Raconteur Theatre Company’s production of Roulette.  Photo by Sam Blythe
The same can’t be said for the other play on the After the Afterglow double bill, Justin Toomey’s Aster, Holger Gunn. An original work by a Raconteur board member, the one-act begins promisingly enough but eventually falls apart.  

Like Roulette, Aster looks at romance past its prime. It’s a credit to Toomey’s dialogue- writing skill that the play initially captures viewers’ interest despite relying on that most self-conscious of gimmicks author who has a conversation with his own characters.

Andrew Cronacher is good as the writer who tries to come to terms with a failed romance by creating a stand-in for his former lover. Molly St. Cyr is nearly as good as the vaguely mocking stand-in, except that her soft voice is sometimes hard to hear above the scraps of conversation drifting over from the other side of the host coffeehouse.

Though a mixture of psychology and philosophy makes the pair’s early conversation interesting, Toomey then commits the error I of introducing a third character (Sam Blythe) who seems totally superfluous. The play goes downhill from there.

The work’s saving grace is that it doesn’t take long to see it-if you decide to see it at all. One nice thing about Raconteur’s freshman effort is that it doesn’t force viewers to attend both halves of the double bill. Pay $5 (rather than $8) and you can leave early after seeing Roulette - or arrive late and see only the briefly interesting Aster.

Either way, you get the chance to sample Columbus’s newest theater company for a minimal outlay of time and money. If you’re like me, the experience will leave you eager to spend more time with the group in the coming months.
The Raconteur Theatre Company will present the After the Afterglow double bill through June 14 at Kafe Kerouac, 2250 N. High St.  Roulette will be presented at 8 p.m. Thursday-Saturday; Aster, Holger Gunn, at 9:15 p.m. Thursday-Saturday. Running time: 2 hours, 10 minutes (both plays, plus intermission). Tickets are $5 for one play, $8 for both.  614-804-1695 or http://raconteurthetre.com

Rehearsals Beginning!

Monday, April 21st, 2008

Wednesday will mark the first ever rehearsal held for Raconteur Theatre Company!  It’s going to be a busy one.  The casts and directors for both one acts will be meeting, and we will be covering the following bases:

-introductions of all present

-read thru of each show

-actor headshots and publicity photos taken

-bios collected

-costume measurements taken

Hopefully we will be videoing the rehearsal as well in order to post some of the fun for you on our website (assuming some fun is had!).  Keep an eye out for updated actor info off our current show page and for video of this rehearsal and upcoming guerrilla marketing stunts!

With endless tasks to tackle,

Jill

Value of Theatre

Friday, March 28th, 2008

Really good post on Theatre Forte about what’s important about theatre, about why an audience member might choose to go to a live play instead of the movie theatre or staying home to watch a DVD.  I encourage you to read it and the comments folks posted about it.

What is the Value of Theatre?

by Matt Slaybaugh

First of all, this post is part of a Theatre Think Tank initiative - a group effort to crack this nut. Please also visit Theater for the Future, Rat Sass, Theatre Ideas, Parabasis, The Next Stage, Steve on Broadway, Theatre is Territory, Freedom Spice in the New Mash-Up World, Mike Daisey, An Angry White Guy in Chicago, Bite & Smile, That Sounds Cool, A Rhinestone World, GreyZelda Land, On Theatre and Politics, and The Devil Vet.

And be sure to check back here for additions to that list. (UPDATE: There’s a better list here.)

What is the “value” of theatre? We need to figure out what it is that theatre does well and better than other art/entertainment forms. Then we need to figure out a positive way to describe those things to people who do not already identify themselves as theatregoers.

Theatre is local, and a group experience, and exchange does happen. Yes. And those are good examples because they are qualities that theatre excels at, even though they’re not necessarily things you can’t get elsewhere. Are those, then, the qualities that we can leverage into the concrete end-result we’re hoping for - greater attendance? (Or is that the gold at the end of the rainbow? Is it even bigger? A sustainable model? I think that’s another discussion.)

What does make theatre different, and, indeed, why WOULD anyone choose it over NetFlix? Is relevance the key? Obviously, we hope to make our art relevant to our potential audience members. So, we choose universal themes and/or write about current events. That’s one advantage of theatre - it can be quick. But that’s not unique, the news is quicker, so are radio talkshows. I don’t think we can definitely prove that theatre is better at being relevant than books, movies, etc.

Relevance is important, but it also sounds like importance. I bet if you ask the “great unwashed masses” if theatre is “important” in the world, they’d say yes. If you asked them if they go, well, we know the answer. I think the symphony is important here in my hometown, but that motherfucker’s about to go out of business, and it’s at least in part because people like me don’t go often enough.

What about form & content? When we talk about relevance, we’re primarily talking about the content of the play and I’d like to avoid that a bit in this discussion. Certainly the content of our work has a great affect on ticket sales, but for the moment, we’re searching for qualities that you can find in most - if not all - theatre, community or professional, big or small, straight or … musical.

(At this point I have to tangent and say that it’s quite possible there is an important split somewhere. I find my company’s has very little in common with the latest Broadway smashtacular. At some point, we may wish to acknowledge that some of that stuff is in a different category than what we’re working towards.)

So what do we sell (if we are going to go ahead admit that this is in part about selling the art)? What do we emphasize? Believe it or not, my company found a really great marketing company to give us some Clarity. Seriously, that’s what the process is called. You can look them up on the web at www.youngisaac.com. So, we’ve spent a lot of time examining who we are and what we do and what we want our potential and current customers to do about it.

One lesson that Artie Isaac has emphasized is that we shouldn’t hide who we are or try to trick the consumer. We can’t act like our art isn’t kind of like school or church sometimes. Yes, that turns some people off, but we’re never going to win them as loyal customers by tricking them into showing up. It’s much better to admit we’re kind of like school and church, and realize that there are actually a lot of people who like school and church. If we can get all of those people in the house, we don’t need the others. It’s like the Republicans not worrying about the middle, and just focusing on turning-out all of their base. (And it’s the opposite of John Kerry dressing up like a hunter and trying to pretend he’s not a rich dude who loves his jet-ski.”

We’ve learned things from Artie that have already been talked about on theatrenet in the context of this discussion. Here’s a list.

  • Theatre happens here.
    This one is very specific to us, but not true of all theatre if you’re talking about where the artists come from. Of course, if you’re talking about the fact that it always happens in the room where you’re sitting, it is true for all theatre, no matter what. In that way all theatre is locally grown. The fact that our art is locally grown is a strength. It makes us different, even from other theatres in the area.
  • Theatre happens now.
    The fact that our art is live and “risky” and not canned makes us different, even from the Broadway Series, and a lot live music. There’s nothing between us and them.
  • You can’t do theatre at home.
    Yes, that’s a strength. We can’t hide the fact that going to the theatre takes more effort than renting a DVD, but not everyone actually wants to sit at home. We need to sell to the people who WANT to leave the house.
  • If you’re not careful, you just might learn something, or be moved somewhat.
    This one is also not true of all theatre. I personally think that’s too bad, but it’s a personal preference. Maybe it should be more like this …
  • Theatre cannot be ignored.
    Not quite the same as being live. You’re in the room, so are the actors. There’s an exchange of energy and contact. You’re attitude and actions actually affect the performance in real time. And of course, so theatres make it easier to not-ignore the art by creating ways for people to connect with the artists.
  • People like a group experience.
    There’s tons of research, technical and anecdotal, that shows that people want to talk to each other at the theatre, that they want more time and forums to discuss the dhow with each other afterwards. People also want something to talk about later on. Call it cocktail party chatter. And theatre is novel, it gives you something new to discuss, a little bit of status.
  • Another way to chart some of this is here:

    This is a diagram from one of our Young Isaac sessions. The kind of theatre I like goes somewhere in the top-left box, the one that says “Move Me”. Not that people who prefer comforting entertainment don’t want to be moved, but the further you get to the bottom of the chart, the more likely it is that they want to be manipulated into emotion response in a perfectly predictable way. Maybe they wanna cry or cheer, but they probably don’t want to learn anything in the process.
  • Let me throw this out there as well. Anne Bogart says she has only one original idea, and it’s this: People need 7 things from art - Empathy, Spectacle, Participation, Ritual, Entertainment, Magic, and Learning. Of those, I’d say that theatre does participation, ritual, and magic better than just about anything else.Certain church has it all over us for ritual, but we’re not competing with church, right? Magic is just that, a man becomes a dog, becomes a woman, becomes a tree. A box becomes a chair, a table, a spaceship. You can’t really do that in movies, it’s too hard to escape verisimilitude. In the theatre we’re almost always doing magic.

    I think we just discussed participation, didn’t we. If you’re in the room, you’re a part of it. You can’t help it. Watching DVDs or movies, or even live music, you can turn away and ignore it. I suppose you could try to ignore the play in front of you, but you might get kicked out if you distract others.

    So, theatre - here & now, community experience, participation, magic all the time, gets you out of the house. Awesome. Now, how do we talk about this? How do we communicate this? Bumper stickers?

    Ben Cameron (Remember him?) does has some ideas on this as well.

    One theatre I know has distilled its three primary values into three talking points, capturing them small cards wallet sized cards that can be easily pulled out mid conversation when precise verbiage is needed and precise supporting facts and figures are warranted. Every Board member has one. It clearly distills the value that they want to convey, and together, by singing the same songs in the same language, by consistently using the same three “key messages” as media trainers would say, the entire organization is working to build critical consciousness in its community. Let’s carry it further: if we really want to make that difference, it’s time to make those cards not only for every Board member, but for every actor. Every technician, every administrator, every custodian in our employ. No matter what the media does or doesn’t do for us, we have the power to build the consciousness from the bottom up.

    Assume he’s talking about “every actor. Every technician, every administrator, every custodian” everywhere in every theatre. Does the theatre as a whole have a mission? What is it? Is it the something we can all get behind?

    You know who has a similar problem? Democrats. Oh yes, oh yes. For a really fantastic explanation of how democrats fail to “frame their ideas” read some George Lakoff. The general idea is that Democrats (and theatre-people) need to find a way of describing their vision of the world (and/or their art) in a way that is exciting and easily understood. Republicans sound like their ideas are simple, but (if you’re talking about real Republicans) they’re not. It’s just that a lot of very smart people have spent a lot of time and effort to figure out how to distill their complicated ideas into simple, direct, passionate statements of values. It wouldn’t hurt for a bunch of theatre people to do the same. (If only we could find a group of smart, engaged people who share ideas about theatre with each other in public on a regular basis. Hey! What just a darn minute …)

    I don’t think I have any ideas of how to spread this gospel of the theatre that are any better than Ben’s. I really think it’s a matter of repeating it over and over and over. To each other, to other people, to our audiences. We need to equip our audiences with the words and the way to spread this message for us. I’ve heard plenty of true blue theatre lovers sputter out, “There’s just something about being there …” Which isn’t wrong, it’s just ineffective.

    All together now! Theatre is a communal experience that only happens here & now, that enables participation, that is magic all the time, and that gets you out of the house.

    Kind of a clumsy slogan.

    Thoughts? Ideas? To the comment-mobile!

    This is the end of the post for now. We’ll continue to delve into this further all together across all these blogs today and in the days to come.

    As always, thank you for visiting. I can’t wait to see what the others are writing.

  • See comments
  • How to sell tickets

    Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

    The following blog is by Ken Davenport, that off-Broadway producer in the iPhone commercial.  He’s talking about why the Broadway model for selling tickets is flawed.  More relevant to us, he’s arguing that face to face sales by someone who is passionate about the “product” is the key to making a sale and to breaking into an “alternative demographic.”  Makes me think of the impassioned speeches Andrew has made about working our butts off to make sure people come to see the play that we’ve worked so hard to produce.

    Scott Walters of Theatre Ideas responds to Ken’s blog, emphasizing the importance of  an artist interacting with “someone they don’t even know. Showing a little bit of the product, and talking about it from a standpoint of commitment to it.”  http://theatreideas.blogspot.com/2008/03/selling.html

      

    Hit the street to find out how to sell.

    http://kendavenport.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/hit-the-street.html

    Streetsellers Guess what is happening in the photo to the right.

    Give up?  I’ll tell you.

    That’s Janine and her daughter Ellen.  They’re from Ohio and they came in to New York last weekend.  They’re staying at the Milford Plaza and plan on seeing a musical and going to The Empire State Building.

    That’s Duane in the red sweatshirt.  He’s from the Bronx.  He’s an underground rapper who records his own music and then sells it on the street in midtown.

    And that’s Ellen, digging into her purse to buy this unknown artist’s CD for $10, even though she’s never heard of him before, and even though she “doesn’t really like rap.”

    So what happened here?  How the heck did Duane get a tourist to fork over cash in the middle of midtown, and how did he penetrate an alternative demographic?

    There is nothing more powerful than the live pitch. It’s why telemarketing, Tupperware parties and door-to-door sales still work.  It’s not as fast as the internet, but if you’ve got an unknown product and are trying to break through to a resistant demo, do you really think a banner ad is going to do it? 

    Duane believes in his product.  And Janine and Ellen could feel that.  And they aren’t just buying a CD.  They are buying Duane.  Great sales people know how to make themselves a part of their product.  That’s not only how to convert one sale, but it’s how to get a customer for life.

    This is why who works at your box office and who is answering your phone line is so important.  This is also why Broadway is at a significant disadvantage in its current model.

    Box office ticket sellers are hired by the theater.  Not by the Producer. 

    Imagine if you were the owner of a GAP. You rent a storefront on 5th avenue.  You stock it with your product, you advertise, etc.  And then your landlord sends in your sales team.  Huh?

    You don’t get to screen them.  You don’t get to train them.  They don’t have to wear your product.  You can’t fire them.  You don’t even sign their checks, yet you have to reimburse the landlord for every penny of their salary and benefits.

    You wouldn’t stand for that, right?  You’d find another storefront.

    That’s the way it works on Broadway.  And because of the limited availability of “storefronts”, we take it.

    Same thing for the phones.  As a producer, you have no control over Ticketmaster or Telecharge.  And, as a producer, you also have no choice but to use them.  They come packaged with your theater agreement.  And yes, the theater owners get a kickback from the ticketing companies, and the Producer gets no financial benefit.  In fact, Telecharge is owned by the Shubert Organization.

    With the amount of money producers are risking on shows, we deserve to be able to choose the best sales team for us.  Maybe we’d use Telecharge and maybe we’d hire a lot of the great Local 751 members out there.  But we deserve that choice.  Having a choice means competition.  And competition is what makes businesses and industries stronger. 

    If I were choosing my sales team today, the first person I’d interview would be Duane.

    American Regional Theatre

    Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

    I saw this post on Available Light’s Theatre Forte blog last month.  It’s a compelling commentary on the state of regional theatre in our country.  As Raconteur takes shape and we develop our operating model, we must remember the lessons so vividly illustrated below.

    [Posted by Matt Slaybaugh on February 11, 2008]

    The Best Post You’ll Read This Month

    It’s not one of mine. It’s an article for Seattle’s “The Stranger” and it’s by Mike Daisey. Who I’m gonna start calling “the bravest man in the American Theatre”.

    I won’t hide it from you, loyal friends, I cried reading this, even as I sit here at Luck Bros coffee shop, 300 steps from my front door.

    Seven years ago, I left Seattle for New York–I abandoned the garage theaters and local arts scene and friends and colleagues–because I was a coward. I’d already tried to sell out once, by working at a shitty Wal-Mart of a tech company, but I knew I would not survive in the theater if I stayed. I fled to New York to bite and claw a living out of the American theater as an independent artist because I was young and stupid enough to think that would actually work. Today, my wife and I are one of a handful of working companies who create original work in theaters across the country. We’re a very small ensemble: I am the monologuist; she is the director. We survive because we’re nimble, we break rules, and when simple dumb luck happens upon us, we’re ready for it.We return to Seattle maybe once a year. During my first week back this time, I ended up at a friend’s party, long after the rest of the guests had gone, in that golden hour when the place is almost cleaned up, but the energy of the night is still hanging in the air. We settled down in the kitchen under the bright light, making 4:00 a.m. conversation and, as all theater artists do, I asked the traditional question: “What are you working on?”

    My friend’s face fell, for just a moment–she’s a fantastic actress, one of the best in the city, with an intelligence and precision that has taken my breath away for years. She corrected a moment later, and told me carefully that she wasn’t going out for anything now–that she was giving it up. She has a job-share position at her day job to let her take roles when needed, but now she is going to go permanent for the first time in her entire life. After 15 years of working in theaters all over Seattle, she’d felt the fire go out of her from the relentless grind of two full-time jobs: one during the day in a cubicle, the other at night on a stage.

    She said what really finished it for her was getting cast in a big Equity show this fall and seeing how the other Equity actors lived–the man whose work had inspired her all her life, living in a dilapidated hovel he was lucky to afford; the woman who couldn’t spare 10 dollars to eat lunch with colleagues without doing some quick math on a scrap of paper to check her weekly budget. These are the success stories, the very best actors in the Northwest, the ones you’ve seen onstage time and time again. Their reward is years of being paid as close to nothing as possible in a career with no job security whatsoever, performing for overwhelmingly wealthy audiences whose rounding errors exceed the weekly pittance that trickles down to them.My friend looked at me imploringly–she’s close to 40, at the height of her powers, but the sacrifices of this theater ask for raw youth: When she arrived in Seattle, she’d eat white rice flavored with soy sauce for lunch for a month at a time. “Maybe if I was 23 again,” she said. “Maybe not even then.” She looked down at the table as she said this, and I felt a kind of death in the room.

    The institutions that form the backbone of Seattle theater–Seattle Rep, Intiman, ACT–are regional theaters. The movement that gave birth to them tried to establish theaters around the country to house repertory companies of artists, giving them job security, an honorable wage, and health insurance. In return, the theaters would receive the continuity of their work year after year–the building blocks of community. The regional theater movement tried to create great work and make a vibrant American theater tradition flourish.

    That dream is dead. The theaters endure, but the repertory companies they stood for have been long disbanded. When regional theaters need artists today, they outsource: They ship the actors, designers, and directors in from New York and slam them together to make the show. To use a sports analogy, theaters have gone from a local league with players you knew intimately to a different lineup for every game, made of players you’ll never see again, coached by a stranger, on a field you have no connection to.

    Not everyone lost out with the removal of artists from the premises. Arts administrators flourished as the increasingly complex corporate infrastructure grew. Literary departments have blossomed over the last few decades, despite massive declines in the production of new work. Marketing and fundraising departments in regional theaters have grown hugely, replacing the artists who once worked there, raising millions of dollars from audiences that are growing smaller, older, and wealthier. It’s not such a bad time to start a career in the theater, provided you don’t want to actually make any theater.

    The biggest reason the artists were removed was because it was best for the institution. I often have to remind myself that “institution” is a nice word for “nonprofit corporation,” and the primary goal of any corporation is to grow. The best way to grow a nonprofit corporation is to raise money, use the money to market for more donors, and to build bigger and bigger buildings and fill them with more staff.

    Using this lens, it all makes sense. The worst way to let the corporation of the theater grow is to spend too much on actors–why do that, when they’re a dime a dozen? Certainly it isn’t cost-effective to keep them in the community. Use them and discard them. Better to invest in another “educational” youth program, mashing up Shakespeare until it is a thin, lifeless paste that any reasonable person would reject as disgusting, but garners more grant money.

    Every time a regional theater produces Nickel and Dimed, the play based on Barbara Ehrenreich’s book about the working poor in America, I keep hoping the irony will reach up and bitch-slap the staff members as they put actors, the working poor they’re directly responsible for creating, in an agitprop shuck-and-jive dance about that very problem. I keep hoping it will pierce their mantle of smug invulnerability and their specious whining about how television, iPods, Reagan, the NEA, short attention spans, the folly of youth, and a million other things have destroyed American theater.

    The numbers are grim–the audiences are dying off all over the country. I know because every night I’m onstage, I stare out into the dark and can hear the oxygen tanks hissing. When I was 25, the Seattle Rep started offering cheap tickets to everyone under 25. When I turned 30, theaters started offering cheap tickets to everyone under 30. Now that I’ve turned 35, I see the same thing happening again, as theaters do the math and realize that no one under 35 is coming to their shows–it’s a bright line, the terminator between day and night, advancing inexorably upward. A theater I’m working at this year is hosting a promotional event to coax “young people” to see our show. Their definition of young? Under 45.

    There are clear steps theaters could take. For example, they could radically reduce ticket prices across the board. Most regional theaters make less than half of their budget from ticket sales–they have the power to make all their tickets 15 or 20 dollars if they were willing to cut staff and transition through a tight season. It would not be easy, but it is absolutely possible. Of course, that would also require making theater less of a “luxury” item–which raises secret fears that the oldest, whitest, richest donors will stop supporting the theater once the uncouth lower classes with less money and manners start coming through the door. These people might even demand different kinds of plays, which would be annoying and troublesome. The current audience, while small and shrinking, demands almost nothing–they’re practically comatose, which makes them docile and easy to handle.

    Better to revive another August Wilson play and claim to be speaking about race right now. Better to do whatever was off Broadway 18 months ago and pretend that it’s relevant to this community at this time. Better to talk and wish for change, but when the rubber hits the road, sit on your hands and think about the security of your office, the pleasure of a small, constant paycheck, the relief of being cared for if you get sick: the things you will lose if you stop working at this corporation.

    The truth is, the people in charge like things the way they are–they’ve made them that way, after all. Sure, they wish things could be better. Who doesn’t? They’re dyed-in-the-wool liberals, each and every one of them, and they’ll tell you so while they mount another Bertolt Brecht play. The revolutionary fire that drew them to the theater has to fight through so much shit, day after day, that even the best of them can barely imagine a different path. They didn’t enter the theater to work for a corporation, but now they do, and they more than anyone else know the dire state of things. I’ve gone drinking with the artistic directors of the biggest theaters in the country and listened to them explain that they know the system is broken and they feel trapped within it, beholden to board members they’ve made devil’s deals with, shackled to the ship as it goes down. I’ve heard their laughter, heard them call each other dinosaurs, heard them give thanks that they’ll be retired in 10 years.

    Corporations make shitty theater. This is because theater, the ineffable part of the experience that comes in rare and random bursts, is not a commodity, and corporations suck at understanding the noncommodifiable. Corporations don’t understand theater. Only people, real people, understand theater. Audiences, technicians, actors, playwrights, costumers, designers–all of them give their time and energy to this thing for a reason, and that dream is not quantifiable on any spreadsheet.

    As I drove home from my friend’s house that night, I felt myself filling up with grief. There will be some who read this who will blame her, think she should have sacrificed more, that this is a story of weakness. But I stand by her. I know in my heart she has given full weight, just as so many other artists have given over the years. Much of the best theater of my life I have seen in the garages of Seattle, unseen and forgotten by many. But I remember. Theater failed my friend, as it is failing us all, and I am heartbroken because we will never know the measure of what we’ve lost.