Ruminations from the Old School

Posted by Bruce Miller
To one and all-- I'm sorry I ever wrote my spoof of Susie's review of Lend Me a Tenor. Over on Dave's Theatre Blog, which I enjoy, it seems to have created a mini-firestorm, which was not my intention.

Here's what people seem to think. I read Susie's mixed but mostly favorable review of Tenor, didn't think it was favorable enough, wrote a scathing attack on her and Richmond critics in general, posted it on the Barksdale blog, at which point someone calmer and wiser "dropped the hammer" on me, and commanded me in fear and trembling to take the post down.

Here's what I think happened. I read Susie's mixed to mostly favorable review and thought it was pretty much on the mark. I also thought it was a crystal clear example of subjective, rather than objective criticism. Since it was a mixed but mostly favorable review, and pretty much on the mark, and since Susie is my professional friend, I thought it was safe for me to spoof the review, with everyone knowing that my spoof was written in good clean fun.

Call me crazy.

I think it's a very good thing that all of us, theatre artists and critics, are passionate about what we do. I also think it's very easy for blog posts, and particularly anonymous comments, to come off as nastier than they're intended to be. That's a lesson I should have learned long, long ago.

For the record, I never thought that Susie wrote a negative review of Tenor. I read her review just like you did. I'm not stupid. I know it was mixed but mostly positive. If I had written a review of Tenor, which I think is a real crowd-pleaser and lots of fun, my review would have been mixed but mostly positive. I don't think everything we produce is perfect. Quite the opposite. I think all of us at Barksdale are our own toughest critics. I'm glad about that. I think that's what has encouraged and allowed our artistic quality to improve over the years.

My point in writing the spoof was to shine a light on what I guess is an "old school" / "new school" debate in journalistic circles. Dave reports that during the recent criticism seminars he attended in California, a prominent film critic and speaker stressed the importance of avoiding the "dreaded O," or something like that, with "O" standing for objectivism.

When I took criticism in college a very long time ago, around 1972, we were taught the exact opposite. "When you write subjectively, " our professor would say, "you make the critique about you. Your readers are not picking up the paper to know more about you. They want to know about the play you are critiquing."

If you write subjectively, we were taught, your criticism risks being influenced by what you had for dinner, whether or not you have a head cold, whether or not your bills are paid, whether or not you just had a fight with your significant other, whether or not you could find a date for the performance. None of this is relevant to the quality or success of the performance you are reviewing. None of it should be included in your review, consciously or sub-consciously. All that personal stuff is relevant only to you.

If we ever wrote "I believe" or "I feel" or "it seems to me" or anything like that, it was crossed out with a big red pen and our grade was lowered for each offense. "It's not about you," was the mantra. It's about the play.

What I was taught, and what I believe, is that artists are entitled to informed, objective criticism, not a personal reaction based even in part on previously established bias or state of mind. I think Mark Persinger's comments on Dave's blog are on the mark, sorry, in this regard.

Dave seems to think, and I can somewhat understand, that objective criticism is impossible, because all journalists write subjectively, like it or not.

Those are our opinions. So be it. "New school" is no more right or wrong than "old school," and vice versa. But, perhaps, it's worth consideration.

In all my journalism classes, we were taught to write in "inverted pyramid" style, even in reviews. My journalism mentor, legendary U or R professor Joe Nettles, long revered as the "dean of Richmond journalism," stressed that the "inverted pyramid" style (I encourage you to Google it and find more info than you need) not only led to good, effective writing, it also allowed readers to opt out of any given article after a paragraph or two having learned the most important information the writer needed to convey.

Readers of my age (61) or older have been trained, subconsciously, to expect the most important information to be in the first few paragraphs. Most of Richmond's ticket buyers (not all, thank God) are my age or older. If they skimmed the first five paragraphs of Susie's review of Lend Me a Tenor, and read no further, they would have closed the paper believing that the most important information was that the T-D theatre critic hates farce and invites others to join her. They would have read nothing in the first five paragraphs about Susie's opinion of this production of Lend Me a Tenor.

It's not the end of the world, my friends. I'm not steaming with anger. I just thought it was a perfect time to discuss "subjective" vs "objective" journalism.

I wrote the spoof because I thought it would be funny, in a Jon Stewart kind of way. I copied the first several paragraphs of Susie's review almost word for word. I simply exchanged the words "subjective criticism" for "farce."

It came off nasty. I'd forgotten that that's what emails and blog posts do sometimes. You can't type in tone of voice, raised eyebrow, glint in eye, or twisted smile.

That's when I take blog posts down--when I become aware that they're being interpreted in a way not intended. When my trusted colleagues, Chase Kniffen and Billy Christopher Maupin, told me that the social media world was abuzz regarding my "attack" on Richmond's critics, I followed their suggestion and removed it from public view. I apologized publicly, on the blog, and privately to Susie. She was great about it all, as I suspected she would be. My apology was and is sincere. Not cause I'm kissing up to her or any critic. I just think everyone who means no harm is due respect. I never intended otherwise.

Susie is a valued professional friend, as is Dave. As a side note to one of Dave's commenters, it's a small community, and a lot of us are going to be friends. I think that's just the way we're wired, not any attempt on anyone's part to win influence with anyone else. The good news is, none of the current critics hang out in the lobby after a show and play kissy face / drinking buddy with the artists they are about to review. Only one critic in my memory did that, which I too found unprofessional. That critic is no longer here.

As for the objective/subjective issue, debated at length on Dave's blog, well, I think Dave and I will just have to disagree. Nothing wrong with that. I find some validity to his point of view. I expect he finds some in mine. I know we both respect each other.

Perhaps what is most interesting is that when Susie began her review by proposing a test, suggesting that all readers who enjoyed farce stand over there, and inviting all readers who hated farce to stand over here, with her, critics seemingly could not understand how that could be offensive to theatre artists. When I spoofed the review, and suggested that all readers who enjoyed "subjective" criticism stand over there, and invited all readers who hated "subjective" criticism to stand over here, with me, the general reaction was that I was issuing a "pointed" attack.

Bottom line: I have affection and respect for the critics and the artists. I mean no ill will toward anyone. I prefer my drama to be on the stage. I do think it's interesting to consider and discuss these things, however, even while remaining truly sorry that my initial spoof caused the reaction it did.

--Bruce Miller

"Black Nativity" Makes Joyful Noise

Posted by Bruce Miller
Today is the final performance of Black Nativity, co-produced by African American Repertory Theatre and Barksdale. Dave Timberline said this about the show in his STYLE review:

"The holidays are celebrated on stage in a myriad of ways, but I have never seen an observance more exuberant than the African American Repertory Theatre's Black Nativity. The production — one part musical theater, two parts tent revival — nearly burst through the confines of the intimate Gottwald Playhouse at CenterStage, the cast of 27 conjuring big voices in support of a slew of Christian spirituals.

The show's highlights are provided by a half-dozen lithe and lovely dancers — most of them still in middle school and members of the City Dance Theatre (the two boys — Johnnie Mercer Jr. and Brandon Penn — perform in every show, two groups of four girls alternate performances). They bound across the stage with wondrous abandon, expertly choreographed by Willie Hinton. Backed by a peppy four-piece combo (musical direction by James Henley) and evocatively outfitted by costume designer Margaret Joyner, both the singers and the dancers lend a contemporary energy to the tried-and-true story of Mary and Joseph and their trip to Bethlehem.

Narration and inspirational rhetoric are provided by Alfred Powell, a charismatic preacher. Director Derome Scott Smith has chosen his ensemble members well and several of them are given moments to shine — Topaz Wise’s solo on Now Behold the Lamb and Michael Braxton’s uplifting Mary Did You Know each gave me goose bumps."

Reviews don't get much better than that. The show has now transferred to the historic Empire, and if you'd like to catch today's final performance at 3 p.m., good seats are still available at the Empire box office. You can call 344-8040 or just show up prior to performance. All tickets are $20.

It's been a thrill for us to work with Derome and his exceptionally talented cast on this terrific production. It was our first partnership with AART in a while, our first residency at CenterStage, and Richmond's first production of Langston Hughes somewhat amorphous classic. I think I can speak for everyone when I say that all of us have learned a lot.

The leadership teams of AART and Barksdale will be making decisions in the coming weeks about whether or not to bring a new and improved version of Black Nativity back next year. In most cities where Black Nativity is presented, it has become a not-to-be-missed annual tradition, much like The Nutcracker.

Many thanks to the talented singers, dancers and designers who have brought this Broadway Christmas classic to such vibrant life right here in River City.

--Bruce Miller

"Souvenir" Earns Finely Tuned Assessment

Posted by Bruce Miller
Dave Timberline has written a wonderful review of Souvenir for STYLE Weekly, under the perfect headline, A Diva’s Delusion. Do STYLE critics get to write their own headlines, or is their editor simply more in tune?

I encourage you to read Dave’s complete critique at http://www.styleweekly.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=23F0929397E74CCFA1232BE45E07BE04&AudID=307AACC9CB4748F1BF28EC3057EA1071. I know. I need to learn how to make a link. It’s on my list.

Here are the review quotes we’ll be pulling:

“Endearing!
Entertaining and Extravagant
Played to tuneless perfection
The lesson is that passion can provide joy
Fine playing and singing
Generates plenty of guffaws!”

--David Timberline, STYL:E Weekly

Dave’s review is informed, specific and well written. I appreciate Dave and his work.

In his review, Dave repeats a story about an accident that took place in the audience on the night he saw the show, a story he had related earlier in depth on his wonderful blog. People have asked me if I mind so much attention being paid to this incident.

Here are my honest thoughts. I do NOT mind Dave relating the story on his blog or repeating it in his review. He's writing about one of the things that makes live theatre so extraordinary--that irreplacable sense of moment. My only reservations about either mention are as follows.

Barksdale and Theatre IV (and many if not all theatres) have a long history of welcoming everyone into our artistic homes. We are, in fact, proactive in our efforts to do so. On rare occasions, distractions occur when differently abled individuals fall or become inadvertently noisy during performances. Both a fall and disrupting noise occurred on the night Dave attended. The fall literally stopped the show. (Kudos to the consumate professionalism of Debra Wagoner; she managed the situation perfectly.)

I think it is honest and appropriate for Dave to comment on this distraction, but I do not want any comments to embarrass our audience members or staff, all of whom did everything they could do address a challenging situation. Knowing Dave and his generous heart, I know that he doesn’t want to embarrass anyone either. I also know he doesn’t want to discourage our efforts to welcome any and all patrons into our theatre.

It’s a fine line we walk when we try to be inclusive and create a distraction-free environment at the same time. As I mentioned earlier, most times it comes off without a hitch. But in one performance out of a hundred, we learn lessons on how to better manage things in the future. Dave happened to attend one of those rare performances, and it is appropriate for him to report on his experience.

Changing subjects, I will discuss in a future blog post how I select the words I pull from a review, and why I didn’t feel comfortable pulling great phrases like “A bravura performance!” and “Uncontrollable laughter” from Dave’s excellent review.

Till then, see you at the theatre!

--Bruce Miller

No Extra Qualifier Needed

Posted by Bruce Miller
Thanks to Dave Timberline's blog, I found John Porter's blog, where John publishes print copies of his reviews. You can find it too, at John Porter's review of "Boleros" .

John wrote a very lovely review, which I appreciate.

So far we've received two raves and possibly the best word of mouth we've had in years. And the phone's not ringing. There's always a danger, when you reach out to an underserved part of the metro population, that your regular ticket buyers will think this play is not for them.

In my opinion, nothing is further from the truth. As Susie Haubenstock stated in her review, "Funny yet poignant, Boleros touches a universal chord." Jose Rivera is such a gifted writer that this very personal story about his parents becomes everyone's story. I LOVE the play, and I hope everyone will come.

Anyway, John Porter's entire review is worth reading, so I encourage you to click on the link above and check it out. Until then, here are the review quotes we're pulling to include in our future marketing efforts:

"Remarkable!

This play is one of the most exciting evenings I have spent in a theatre. No extra qualifier needed.

Who knows how long it will be until we are treated to something so beautiful again?"

John Porter, WCVE-FM

If you'd like to meet the amazing cast of Boleros, please join us tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. for our monthly Bifocals meeting. All six cast members will participate in a panel discussion entitled, A Long Way from West Side Story - What it means to be Latino in the USA Today.

Hope to see you at the theatre!

--Bruce Miller

In Praise of Richmond Theatre

Posted by Bruce Miller
People are suggesting I add my voice to the comments on Dave Timberline’s fine blog, specifically his post of last Wed, Jan 7, entitled “Comment-ary.” To be honest, I tried to post a comment, but it didn’t work. I never seem to be able to post a comment from my home computer anymore. I don’t know what’s wrong; it just ain’t workin’.

Then the more I thought about it, the less inclined I felt to jump in. I have too much to say, and it wouldn't really work as a comment.

The post and the 15 comments that follow it on Dave's blog discuss two, and only two, anonymous opinions that were among the several comments posted online at the Style website, responding to Dave’s year-end wrap-up article. The first comment reads:

“My husband and I moved here from Bethesda, MD almost seven years ago. We were frequent patrons of the theater in Washington, although we never subscribed anyplace. We have been disappointed by the lack of professional theater in Richmond. Most of the shows in Richmond are more like the community theater shows in Washington, which has an excellent community theater scene, but it's just that - community theater. The things that Richmond theaters consider cutting edge look like old hat in other cities. I agree that Scott Wichmann is a wonderful actor, and I look forward to seeing Audra Honaker soon. We would love to see more talent in Richmond. If that means more union theaters, that is what we should try to get.”

I pretty much agree with this comment, and I don’t feel in any way offended by it. None of us should. She’s basically saying that when Richmond theatre features talent like Scotty and Audra, she feels satisfied. When the cast is less talented that these two A-teamers, she feels like she’s watching community theatre. I could add ten names of Richmond actors whom I consider to be in the same league as Scotty and Audra, and my guess is that the Bethesda theatre fan hasn’t seen those ten, or at least hasn't seen them doing their best work. I’ll bet she’s seen other shows that feature B-teamers, or C or D-teamers, and when she does, she longs for her theatres back home in D. C. that can afford to hire Scotty’s and Audra’s all the time. She makes the “if that means more union theatres” comment seemingly unaware that Audra is non-union.

I basically feel the same way she does. I think Richmond has some shows that come off as “professional,” and a lot of shows that come off as “community theatre.” As Ms Bethesda hastens to add, there’s nothing wrong with good community theatre. Would all of Richmond’s theatres like to offer “professional” shows and nothing but? Probably. Do we? No way. Why? Money.

Of course it's not just about actors. Set, costume and light design and construction also effect considerably whether or not a show comes off as "professional." Ditto direction, choreography and music direction. Each of these components is also tied to that old standby ... money.

And yes, what Richmond audiences consider "cutting edge looks like old hat in other cities." Other larger cities, yes. You could say the same thing about any other aspect of Richmond's culture--music, dance, restaurants, bars, clubs, museums, etc etc etc.

The second comment is so much the same-old-same-old that I bet I know who wrote it. It reads:

“Much of the problem, and one of the distinguishing features of Richmond's theatre scene from that of other, demographically similar communities, is the lack of professionalism in the industry in Richmond. There is almost no serious union work, which means the most talented and dedicated professionals have to go to some other, more supportive market to ply their trade. With just a single union theatre, operating on the lowest paying union contract, and the occasional "Special Performance" contract non-union theatres use (terrible money, no benefits), and very limited union TV/film work, there's no incentive for talent to remain here. And audiences are to be congratulated for opting not to spend large sums of money to see theatre which is less than fully professional. The symphony and opera and ballet would never dare use non-professionals (except for children in the Nutcracker, of course) why is theatre allowed to get away with doing so?”

I think this comment is mostly hogwash. With only a few exceptions, Richmond does NOT offer less AEA work than most “demographically similar communities”; Richmond offers more. Richmond's "single union theatre"--I presume he means Barksdale--does NOT operate on "the lowest paying union contract." There are several AEA contracts that pay less. Some talented and dedicated professionals leave Richmond for work in other markets; others stay—Scotty and Audra being two prominent examples. As I've opined before, this is a sign of Richmond theatre's strength, NOT its supposed weakness. Who would say, "Several VCU grads moved on to pursue their doctorates at Harvard and Yale," and consider that to be a negative?

Those who always see “other, more supportive markets” as being greener, should check-in on a regular basis with actors in the D. C. talent-pool. I hardly ever hear from a D. C. actor who doesn’t complain that there’s “no work” in D. C., and talk about how lucky we are here in Richmond. And as for the symphony, opera and ballet never using “non-professionals”—I will in no way disparage my talented colleagues who perform with these great organizations, but if Anonymous is defining “non-professional” as “non-union,” and he is, a significant number of them are non-union and work with compensation packages similar to or less than the compensation packages offered at Barksdale.

I agree that Richmond theatre should be better funded and be able to employ more AEA actors, thereby encouraging more AEA actors to move to or remain in our community. I’m all for better pay for all theatre artists. But wishing for money doesn’t make it magically appear. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to congratulate audience members for ignoring Richmond theatre simply because state and local funding falls so far below national norms. There’s a lot of great theatre in Richmond, and those who can’t see it are, for whatever reason, blinded to the truth.

I’m not trying to say we can shrug off constructive criticism. I don’t think we can or should. I don’t think we do. The Richmond theatre community lacks nothing when it comes to being self-critical and self-assessing. I know very few members of the theatre crowd who support the status quo. My worry is NOT that we sit around congratulating ourselves and basking in glory. My worry is that we eat our young. Negative voices are often the loudest and get the most attention.

Friends, there are people out there with axes to grind. They are resentful of Richmond theatre’s successes. They’ve been hurt, they feel abused, they can’t stand someone or other’s guts. Probably mine.

And they blog on and on, almost always anonymously, and then we debate on and on regarding the validity of their beefs. I think it’s time to be positive and move on.

It’s time we start appreciating what we have here. Often, our published voices paint a picture for the rest of the community that says we don’t think we're very good. The published voices supporting dance, music and opera in Richmond are not nearly as self-critical.

I LOVE theatre in Richmond, warts and all. I believe there are a million ways to make it better. I feel like I’m dedicating my life to doing just that. So are a lot of other talented people. When it comes to talking about Richmond theatre to the general public, I'm going to say it's GREAT, because in many ways it is, and because that's an important step to bringing in new audience members.

Many of the naysayers, in my opinion, have their own agenda that has little to do with improving theatre in Richmond. Maybe I’m all wet. I don’t think so.

--Bruce Miller

Thoughts on the "Richmond Cultural Census"

Posted by Bruce Miller
There’s an interesting discussion occurring on Dave Timberline’s blog, Richmond VA Theater.

Under A Must Read, posted Dec 9, and Some Reactions, posted Dec 10, Dave discusses the survey of Richmond arts patrons that was conducted earlier this year. A summary of the findings of this survey has been published by the independent consulting firm Wolf Brown as the Richmond Cultural Census. These findings are available online. (I stole that link by cutting and pasting from Dave’s blog. He knows how to do it.)

Within the summary, the following statement occurs:

“Attending live stage plays or musical theatre productions was cited as ‘a vital activity’ by less than 10% of all respondents and another 44% said that they ‘enjoy it occasionally’, a significantly lower proportion than expected based on previous cultural census studies in other cities.”

“The real story here, however, is the low percentage of respondents who cite going to stage plays and musicals as vital activities. In other areas, we have seen these figures as high as 20% to 25% 'vital activity.'"

I agree with everyone that this is a cause for concern, sorta. I also agree with those who suggest that the concerns should be leavened with a little perspective.

1. Wolf Brown states forthrightly that the survey is not a scientific instrument. No attempt was made to reach a statistically representative sample. Those who participated in the survey all self-selected. In other words, those who took the survey were either individuals who wanted to take the survey or individuals who were encouraged to take the survey. Please consider this statement which appears in the fine print of the Wolf Brown findings: “The reader is cautioned not to use the survey data to generalize about all residents of Greater Richmond.”

2. I’m aware that colleagues in other disciplines distributed the survey to hundreds of their supporters and urged them to indicate their sincere and vital support for and interest in the discipline they all loved. That was a smart and good thing for my colleagues to do. I failed to do the same. No one at Theatre IV and/or Barksdale emailed the survey to those who are passionate about theatre. To the best of my knowledge, no theatre leader in town blasted the survey off to the theatre community. My bad and our bad. Big time. Because of this failing, I honestly feel that theatre lovers are under-represented.

3. In every arts discipline except theatre, the survey questions defined the discipline in terms of mass media or low to no cost personal involvement. Please consider these examplies. When survey respondents were saying that the literary arts were of vital importance to them, the top category of participation was “read books, newspapers, magazines for fun.” Who among us would not agree with that? When survey respondents expressed vital interest in dance, the four top categories were “watch dance on TV,” “see praise dancing,” “social dancing,” and “make up your own steps.” Those who showed vital interest in music chose as their two top categories “listen to music on local radio” and “buy music for your own collection.” The top draw for the visual arts was “collect art for home.” The main attractions for history and heritage programs (museums etc) was “watch history programs on TV” and “read books or magazines about history.”

Only in the category of theatre was the art form defined more specifically. Respondents were not asked if they liked to “watch theatre on TV" or "see comedies and dramas at the movies.” The two top areas of “vital interest” in theatre were “attend musicals” and “attend stage plays.” In no other arts discipline did “attend a live performance of this discipline” make it to the top of the “vital interest” column.

4. When it comes to making ticket purchases as opposed to voting in a survey, theatre wins hands down. A study was conducted a couple years back to see if it made sense to establish a community-wide box office. Every major organization submitted data regarding the number of tickets sold to the general public through the various box office outlets during the previous year. Ticket sales to Barksdale, Theatre IV, Broadway Under the Stars, and theatre events at the Modlin Center represented nearly 70% of all tickets sold. In other words, theatre outsold all other performing arts disciplines--combined.

5. One can presume that a large percentage of those with a “vital interest” in theatre would subscribe to theatre. In the last six years, the Richmond theatre subscriber base has been kicked in the teeth TWICE. In 2002, subscribers to TheatreVirginia were left holding three tickets for TVA shows that would never take place. No refunds were offered. Three or four years later, subscribers to Broadway Under the Stars were left holding four tickets for BUTS shows that would never take place. Again, no refunds were offered. Had I been one of these subscribers, my “vital interest” in theatre would be considerably dampened.

6. Every study I’ve ever read—and I’ve read a lot of them—indicates that 2 to 3% of the American population cares passionately about the art form of theatre. In a comment posted on Dave’s blog, Rick St. Peter wisely quotes Jon Jory, the legendary artistic director of Actors Theatre of Louisville, saying something like “no theatre that’s ever existed has attracted more than 2% of its potential audience.” The Wolf Brown survey says that 7% of all Richmond respondents say that “attending a musical” is “a vital activity for me,” and 6% say the same about “attending a play.” Truth be told, those figures are pretty impressive.

None of this is to say that theatre movers and shapers like each and every one of us should not take important lessons away from this survey. After a fairly careful study, here's some of what I consider to be the salient facts:

25% of all respondents said that they “haven’t but would like to try” “attending play readings.” Based on this and other observations, Barksdale will be establishing a play reading series next year.

19% of all respondents said that they “haven’t but would like to try” “taking classes.” Based on this and other observations, Barksdale will be attempting to fill this need in the near future.

24% of those people who have a history of buying few tickets to performance events indicate that they “haven’t but would like to try” “attending musicals” and “attending plays.” Through our new Entertainment Stimulus Package, Barksdale and Theatre IV have reduced prices on 10,000 tickets in the remainder of our 2008-09 Seasons to reach out to those who haven’t been attending due to higher ticket prices. We will also continue our existing $15 rush ticket policy.

All of us who care about theatre have much to learn. That’s one of the things I love about my job. There’s something new to learn every day.

And to those of you who do love the theatre--and don't worry, we know you're out there--please know that all of Richmond’s theatres wouldn’t be here without you. If you can and feel so inclined, please buy a ticket to a play today! And ask your friends to join you.

--Bruce Miller

Three More Rave Reviews

Posted by Bruce Miller
We received three more rave reviews this week, drawing crowds of laughing, loving theatregoers.

Weighing in on The Clean House, Dave Timberline provided the following quotes:

“Masterful!
A Smart Story ~ an Air of Enchantment
Amusing, Moving and a Little Bit Magical
Exceptional Performances ~ Sweet, Supportive Chemistry
Refreshing and Inspiring!”

--David Timberline, STYLE

Adding their kudos to the glowing review written earlier for Driving Miss Daisy by Susie Haubenstock of the R T-D, Joan Tupponce and John Porter contributed the following:

“Remarkable!
Depth and Feeling ~ A Joy to Watch
As comfortable as a plump easy chair
Derives its humor and tenderness from life
Just Plain Fun!”

--Joan Tupponce, Richmond.com

“Tremendous!
A Great Script ~ A Good Cast
The chemistry between Williams and Bynum is especially strong
An old sweet song, fresh in our hearts
A Great Evening!”

--John Porter, WCVE-FM

Daisy is joining Barefoot in the Park and Smoke on the Mountain as our biggest Hanover hits since reopening the theatre almost three years ago. Joy Williams, Jim Bynum and Garet Chester continue to earn standing ovations at every performance.

The Clean House is proving to be a real crowd pleaser at Barksdale Theatre Willow Lawn, adding immeasurably to the success of the Sara Ruhl Festival, coproduced by Barksdale Theatre and the Firehouse Theatre Project. Audiences are loving discovering a joyous new play by a dazzling new playwright.

If you still haven't seen Driving Miss Daisy or The Clean House, why not make your plans today. They are both wonderful shows that I know you'll enjoy. $15 rush tickets are available for all seats that remain unsold three hours before curtain. Call the box office for more information - 282-2620. We're extremely proud of this outstanding pair of heartwarming hits.

See you at the theatre!

--Bruce Miller

Casting and Comments

Posted by Bruce Miller
As I’ve mentioned before, I read and appreciate Dave Timberline’s informative blog, http://www.richmondvatheater.blogspot.com/. A lot of important theatrical issues and perceptions are raised and discussed on his electronic bulletin board.

Recently Dave hosted some interesting and well intentioned chat about casting in Richmond theatres. It all began when an anonymous commenter reported on remarks made by an unnamed director at the start of an unnamed audition. In his remarks, the director asserted that his unnamed theatre was open to newcomers. The anonymous commenter suggested that these remarks were somewhat disingenuous, noting that when the auditions were over, a well-known Richmond star was cast in one of the leading roles and a talented newcomer was overlooked.

This initial comment was followed by a lot of dialogue about whether or not the anonymous commenter should have stated these opinions anonymously since they could be perceived as being critical of the director, the theatre, and/or the actor cast.

It’s all good.

Now I’m going to pull a Warren Beatty. At least I’ve always heard it’s a Warren Beatty. When in 1973 Carly Simon wrote and sang, “You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you,” Warren Beatty, one of Ms Simon’s former romantic interests, called to thank her for the song.

After reading all the chat about the unnamed director, I’m pretty sure it’s me and that the unnamed auditions being alluded to were the recent auditions for Shirley Valentine and Driving Miss Daisy. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry. If I’m right, then I guess I am that vain. Now, if I only looked like or had the talent of Warren Beatty.

Before the auditions for Shirley V and Driving Miss D, several actors called to ask if roles had been pre-cast. When I told them “no,” they expressed disbelief. Several had heard from the “best of sources” that Irene Ziegler was playing Shirley and Betty Ann Grove was playing Daisy. It’s no surprise to anyone that I love Irene Ziegler and Betty Ann Grove, and both women have ably owned these roles in the past. But I assured all comers that the roles had not been pre-cast for the 2008 productions.

That can’t be true, some actors intimated. No theatre would pick shows like these without having someone in mind for the demanding roles of Shirley and Daisy. There are some actors we’re interested in seeing, I intimated right back, but no roles have been pre-cast. Everyone has an equal shot. Please come.

That was the truth.

Before the auditions began, I was pleased to see a large turnout and several new faces in the crowd. I’m humbled by large turnouts and new faces.

I made a few welcoming remarks and thanked people for coming to the auditions, particularly the new people. I reiterated that all roles were open. I stated what I believe to be the truth, that Barksdale theatre and every other theatre in town welcome newcomers, and frequently cast newcomers. I acknowledged that we also cast Richmond’s best actors on a continuing basis, because of their talent.

When the auditions were over, four actors were cast. Two of the four (Jill Bari Steinberg and Jim Bynum) will be acting at Hanover Tavern for the first time. The third actor (Garet Chester) will be appearing at Hanover Tavern for the first time since 1976. The fourth (Joy Williams) will be reappearing at the Tavern after a starring gig there two and a half years ago.

All four were cast because I thought they were the ones best suited to the roles. I feel really blessed to have these four wonderful actors in the two shows.

The anonymous commenter on Dave’s blog notes that there was a very talented actor from out-of-town who auditioned for one of these four roles, and that there was considerable buzz about this actor’s talent. That is completely true. That actor’s talent did not go unnoticed. And let me extend that thought, if I may. There were several very talented actors there, all of whom were top contenders for the parts. None of their talents went unnoticed.

As several folks mentioned on Dave’s blog, there is a lot more involved in a casting decision than what may be perceived listening to three audition speeches.

Scripts call for specific physical types, which some actors meet and others don’t, no matter how well they may read.

Budgets allow for certain expenditures that enable the employment of some actors and discourage the employment of others, based on their financial requirements.

Ticket sale goals encourage the casting of actors who have earned positive name recognition in the Greater Richmond marketplace—and I stress the word “earned.”

Barksdale accepts its responsibility to professional actors who have earned (there's that word again) their place in Greater Richmond’s top tier, and who may not stay in Richmond if they can't find professional employment opportunities.

To me, all of this supports my contention that:
1 newcomers are welcome and frequently cast
2 Richmond’s best actors are cast over and over again because they are Richmond’s best actors

If newcomers fail to come to auditions because they think they have no chance, Richmond theatre will suffer. If our most talented veterans leave Richmond because they can’t find enough employment, Richmond theatre will suffer. In an attempt to address these conflicting realities, producers juggle to the best of their abilities.

As a final note, Guys and Dolls is currently employing 26 actors. Thirteen of them are acting with Barksdale for the first time.

--Bruce Miller

Dave's Dithyramb

Posted by Bruce Miller

Richmond currently has two major theatre critics—Susan Haubenstock at the Times-Dispatch and Dave Timberline at STYLE Weekly. I don’t mean to diminish the importance of Mary Burruss (Dave’s colleague at STYLE), Joan Tupponce (writing for both Richmond.com and, sometimes, WCVE-FM), John Porter (sharing the WCVE-FM beat with Tupponce), Jerry Sober (Petersburg Progress-Index) and/or other scrappy scribes at smaller or more distant papers throughout Virginia. And I’m not intending to overlook the blogs.

But in today’s media environment, the T-D and STYLE still rule the roost. Because of publication schedules, Susie’s review in the T-D almost always hits the streets first, and Dave’s opinions appear in STYLE usually a week and a half later. Lucky are we that Dave somehow managed to beat the deadline this time. His review lit up the pages of STYLE yesterday, and it’s another RAVE. Looks like we’re off to the races!

Under the headline “Broad Comedy,” David Timberline begins his review as follows:

“The sexes may share equal billing in the title of the classic musical Guys and Dolls, but the show focuses more on the male side of the equation. Nothing makes that clearer than the scintillating, showstopping number, Sit Down, You’re Rockin’ the Boat, that comes near the end of Barksdale’s Broadway-caliber production, playing at the Empire Theatre.”

“The always-amiable Nicely-Nicely Johnson (Jason Marks in excellent voice) leads a ragtag bunch of shysters, hoodlums and lowlifes in a rollicking song of sin and potential redemption. It’s an exuberant, testosterone-fueled high point in a show filled with exceptional ensemble scenes expertly assembled by director and choreographer Patti D’Beck.”

And in what follows, the glow grows even brighter. There’s even a great, half-page color picture of the craps game taken by our Marketing Director Sara Marsden, because our photographer was out of town last week!

Here are quotes we’ll be excerpting from Dave’s review:

"Excellent!
Barksdale’s Broadway-caliber production
Scintillating! Rollicking! Exceptional!
Heartwarming and highly amusing
Barksdale seems determined to make
Summertime Sizzle!"

The phones are ringing off the hook every day at our box office, so please consider joining the throng and reserving your tickets now. I think this is, in several important ways, a “Broadway-caliber production.” I’m proud as a peacock to be associated with all the wonderful artists who are thrilling our audiences night after night.

So far, we've had standing O's at every performance. Call for your tickets TODAY! We look forward to seeing you at the theatre!

--Bruce Miller

Do Two Slam Dunk Reviews Make Doubt: A Parable a Hit?

Posted by Billy Christopher Maupin

If they don't, then perhaps four sold out shows in the first two weekends of performances do.

Dave Timberline's review "Nun Better" appears in tomorrow's issue of STYLE Weekly.

A few highlights:

"No need to think twice: Barksdale’s

Doubt: A Parable is a winner."

"...an edgy and engrossing delight."

And my personal favorite quote from the review:

"Under Keri Wormald’s meticulous direction,

the Barksdale’s cast doesn’t just do justice to

John Patrick Shanley’s

Pulitzer Prize-winning script;

it delivers a precision-cut gem of a production,

each facet sharp and sparkling."

Tickets may be reserved online through the Barksdale Theatre website or by calling the box office at 282-2620.

(The full review may be viewed by clicking "Nun Better" above or via http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=16373.)

Coffee & Conversations on Tuesday Morning 2/12

Posted by Jessica Daugherty

Coffee & Conversations Tomorrow at 9:30 AM

Critically Speaking:
A Look Inside the Minds of Richmond's Theatre Critics

Panel:
Susan Haubenstock
Mary Burrus
Dave Timberline
Joan Tupponce

Moderator: Jill Bari Steinberg

Tuesday, February 12
9:30-10:30 AM at Willow Lawn
Open to the public. No RSVP required.
Suggested $3 Donation includes Rostov’s Coffee, Hot Tea and Pastries

Looking at LORT, Crunching the Numbers

Posted by Bruce Miller
Over the last six years, there’s been a lot of fervent discussion about whether Barksdale should become a LORT theatre. Quite a few folks have been involved in these discussions, and all opinions are welcome.

LORT stands for the League of Resident Theatres, which is a membership organization comprised of the nation’s leading professional theatre companies. LORT exists for many reasons, but one of the most important is to represent the 76 member theatres in collective bargaining with the three artist unions: AEA for actors and stage managers, SSDC for directors and choreographers, and USA for designers.

It takes money to operate as a LORT theatre. To super-generalize, LORT regulations require higher ratios of union (AEA) actors than Barksdale uses currently. This would make it more difficult, at least philosophically, to hire non-union locals.

Those ratios are one big issue. Barksdale has a long standing commitment to Richmond-based theatre artists. Money is another.

TheatreVirginia was a LORT theatre. TheatreVirginia went out of business in 2002. There are lots of reasons why, but a fundamental reason was that as ticket sales and funding failed to grow, TVA could no longer meet the expenses of its LORT obligations.

The STYLE report card implied that Richmond’s current lack of a LORT theatre was one of the reasons for actors moving on to larger markets. As I've mentioned earlier, I'm not convinced that artists are leaving at a greater rate than before, and I'm even less certain that the lack of a LORT theatre is the reason for the departure of the ones who are choosing to move on. But we're very open to everyone's input as we continue to analyze the pros and cons of such a major decision.

The global view is this. I think there are at least ten metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that are larger than Richmond and don’t have a LORT theatre: Sacramento, CA (#26), Orlando, FL (#27), San Antonio, TX (#29), Las Vegas, NV (#31), Columbus, OH (#32), Charlotte, NC (#36), Austin, TX (#37), Nashville, TN (#39), Jacksonville, FL (#40) and Memphis, TN (#41).

And there are plenty of great theatres that we all know and love that aren’t LORT. In Chicago, of the 55 AEA theatres, only three are LORT. And the 52 that are not include Steppenwolf, Victory Gardens, Chicago Shakespeare and Lookingglass. Closer to home, neither Signature Theatre in NoVA nor Wooly Mammoth and Studio in D. C. work under LORT contracts.

Barksdale Theatre at Willow Lawn’s current SPT contract allows for a higher ratio of non-union locals (the union uses the term non-professionals). Currently our seasonal contract requires that we issue AEA contracts to 60% of all cast members and 100% of all stage managers, with a cap of six AEA actors required for shows with casts of ten or more.

So what does LORT really mean? Well, for one thing, it gives you a seat at the adult table in terms of national standing. As Dave Timberline mentioned, David Leong at VCU would love to see us join LORT, because it would add more prestige to the resumes of his students who work with us.

You would not be off the mark to say that, in terms of “professionalism” and "national standing," SPT is one notch below LORT, and one or more notches above several of the other options that are out there. Barksdale Theatre at Willow Lawn is Richmond’s only SPT. Prior to 2001, Barksdale used AEA actors only in rare instances and employed them under Guest Artist agreements. Barksdale at Hanover Tavern still uses Guest Artist agreeements.

There are currently 76 major professional theatres that are members of LORT. Of these, 61 are located in MSAs larger than Richmond/Petersburg. One, the Actors Theatre of Louisville, is located in the 42nd largest MSA, only slightly larger than Richmond/Petersburg, the 43rd largest MSA (if you separate Washington D. C. and Baltimore into two MSAs). Fourteen are located in MSAs smaller than Richmond/Petersburg.

These 14 professional theatres, listed in order of the size of their MSAs, are:

Goodspeed Musicals in East Haddam, CT, the 44th largest MSA;
Hartford Stage Company in Hartford, CT, also in the 44th largest MSA;
Studio Arena Theatre in Buffalo, NY, the 46th largest MSA;
Geva Theatre Company in Rochester, NY, the 49th largest MSA;
PlayMakers Repertory Theatre in Chapel Hill, NC, the 51st largest MSA;
Capital Repertory Theatre in Albany, NY, the 57th largest MSA;
Clarence Brown Theatre Company in Knoxville, TN, the 77th largest MSA;
Arkansas Repertory Theatre in Little Rock, AR, the 79th largest MSA;
Syracuse Stage in Syracuse, NY, the 80th largest MSA;
Portland Stage Company in Portland, ME, the 97th largest MSA;
McCarter Theatre in Princeton, NJ, the 134th largest MSA;
Alabama Shakespeare Festival in Montgomery, AL, the 135th largest MSA;
Barter Theatre in Abingdon, VA, the 152nd largest MSA; and
Berkshire Theatre Festival in Stockbridge, MA, the 301st largest MSA.

In an effort to compare apples to apples, we’ve been looking at these 15 professional theatres to see how they are able to afford LORT membership in communities similar to or smaller than Richmond/Petersburg. I encourage you to investigate these theatres yourself and join in our strategic planning.

More to come.

--Bruce Miller

Richmond's Role in American Theatre

Posted by Bruce Miller

To clarify one thing from my last post … A couple folks thought I was intending sarcasm when I said “maybe after I retire, Terrie and I will be so lucky” as to hang with Dave and Holly Timberline. No sarcasm was intended. Terrie and I like the Timberlines a lot.

And for whatever it's worth, here’s another thought on the STYLE “report card.” This one relates to actors leaving town for larger markets. Call me a glass half-full kind of guy (I am), but may I suggest that the fact that Richmond theatre artists sometimes move on to greener pastures is a testament to the strength of the Richmond theatre scene, not the weakness.

Throughout my 33 years, there has always been a percentage of talented theatre practitioners who start their careers in Richmond and then move onward and upward. From where I stand, that percentage hasn’t become noticeably larger or smaller in recent years. It’s pretty much stayed the same. That’s healthy.

Talk to Woody Eney. He left Richmond many years ago to seek the opportunities available in larger markets. So did Hansford Rowe, Blair Underwood, Steven Furst, Emily Skinner, Joe Inscoe, Dianne Pennington, Rusty Wilson, Burt Edwards, Denise Simone, Dee Slominski, Bev Appleton, Jeri Cutler, Sean MacLaughlin, Duke Lafoon, Jason Butler Harner, Skip Harris, Joe Doran, Michael Cole, Tom Hewitt, Foster Solomon and Susan Sanford, Kathy Halenda, Scott Wichmann, Maury and Yvonne Erickson, Cliff Todd and Michelle Carter, Lynn Keeton and Alan Flannagan, Laine Satterfield, Eddie Pierce, Kris Koop, Tia James, Scott Nogi, Chris Evans, Sara Heifetz, Robert Easter, Walker Jones, Brad Greenquist, David Winning, Michael Kingman, Jake Mosser, Jerrold Solomon, Michael Hersh, Larry Shue, Jack Cummings, Corey Bradley, Susann Fletcher, Andy Umberger and countless others whose names didn't immediately come to mind in the 30 or so seconds it took me to type this sentence.

Others like John Glenn, R. L. Rowsey, Denise Simone (the second time she left), Rick St. Peter and Jack Parrish left Richmond for full time opportunities in smaller markets, and they’re doing great.

Some of those who emigrate return; some find success on Broadway and/or in Hollywood; some switch careers. It’s all good. It's sad to see each of them move (really sad for me in a couple cases because they were close friends). But their departures were and are a fact of life—nothing less, nothing more.

Richmond is not New York, Chicago, L. A. or Philadelphia. It never will be.

But for those who appreciate the many wondrous things that Richmond has to offer, it’s better than a major market. It’s home. Ask Joe Inscoe.

What I don’t understand is why anyone would look on this as some sort of negative blot on the profile of Richmond theatre. It doesn’t make us look bad, it makes us look good. We should wear it like a badge of honor. Many of those whose names appear in the list above have established major careers; a few have achieved national recognition. Would any of them have done so well in the national spotlight were it not for the experiences, opportunities, successes and failures they encountered here in Richmond? We are and should be proud of our artists who move on, and proud of ourselves for ably filling the niche that Richmond fills in the national theatre scene.

Robin Harris-Jones (my friend who is quoted in STYLE and on this blog) and the others who have moved on most recently (Chris Steward, Hannah Zold, Andy Nagraj, Jonathan Spivey, Christopher Clawsen) will continue to be in the Richmond theatre family until they decide to cut the tie. And you know what? Most theatre artists who move on don’t cut that tie. They stay in the family forever.

The world is a small place and getting smaller every day. Richmond plays a vital role in the national theatre scene. The artists who leave town to pursue opportunities elsewhere are not gone, forgotten or unreachable. Many of them return to Richmond for a show every now and then, and are welcomed back with open arms. Ask Duke Lafoon.

Or better yet, come see him in Doubt, opening at Barksdale Willow Lawn on Feb. 15, and see for yourself what he's up to. And will Duke's performance in Doubt be all the better because of the experiences, opportunities, successes and failures he’s encountered since moving to NYC? You tell me.

--Bruce Miller

Random Thoughts on Blogs and Baltimore

Posted by Bruce Miller
I try to keep up with the several interesting theatre related blogs in Richmond, most notably Dave Timberline’s posts on http://richmondvatheater.blogspot.com/. I enjoy reading what Dave writes. Also, the comments posted by other readers are often informative, challenging and fun. Reading Dave’s blog is a good way to keep up with what fellow theatre types (Richmond and beyond) are thinking and saying.

I recommend his blog to you. Once there you can find links to lots of the more personal blogs written by Richmond theatre artists, several of which are also consistently interesting.

On the Barksdale site we offer links to all the theatres in town, but we don’t offer links to the blogs. Since many of the writers/owners of these blogs frequently review, audition for and/or work on our shows, we maintain a respectful, professional distance.

For the record, I like, admire and respect both David and Holly Timberline, and I’ve known them professionally for over two decades. I was there when they met. But I don’t hang with them. Maybe after I retire, Terrie and I will be so lucky.

If these ramblings are starting to make no sense, it may be because I’m bouncing off of recent comments in his blog.

I seldom post a comment on Dave’s blog because the world now has more than enough opportunities to hear my point of view. I’ve become one of those the press turns to for quotes. For the first 25 years of my 33-year career, that was not the case. But things change with time.

There’s been a robust blog conversation at Dave’s place recently regarding STYLE Weekly’s “report card” on Richmond theatre. My main beef with the “report card” was the whole Baltimore thing. (Not Taylor Baltimore--love her!) Baltimore the metro area. I think it’s clear to almost everyone (except, apparently, the editors of STYLE) that implying that Richmond’s population is larger than the population of Baltimore is … let’s say “misinformed.”

Baltimore and Washington are considered frequently to be one Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); so are Richmond and Petersburg. And that's as it should be. Go to MapQuest and you’ll find that Barksdale at Hanover Tavern and Sycamore Rouge are 2 miles farther apart (43 miles separate the two) than are Arena Stage in D. C. and Center Stage in Baltimore (41 miles).

The US Census Bureau defines an MSA as “one or more adjacent counties or county equivalents that have at least one urban area of at least 50,000, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.”

The Washington/Baltimore MSA is the fourth largest metro area in the nation, with a total population, based on the most recent census figures, of 8,211,213. The Richmond/Petersburg MSA (which includes the cities of Richmond, Petersburg, Hopewell and Colonial Heights, the town of Ashland, and the counties of Amelia, Caroline, Charles City, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, King and Queen, King William, Louisa, New Kent, Powhattan, Prince George, and Sussex) is the nation’s 42nd largest metro area, with a total population of 1,194,008.

In other words, according to the U S Census Bureau, the MSA population of Washington/Baltimore is nearly seven times larger than the MSA population of Richmond/Petersburg.

MSA populations indicate not only the number of potential ticket buyers available to a theatre. They also almost always correlate with the number and strength of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in each MSA, and the number and strength of private foundations. Larger cities like Baltimore tend to provide more local government funding to their major arts organizations than do smaller cities like Richmond. And those states that include the larger MSAs almost always provide more state government funding to their major arts institutions.

Leading professional theatres in larger MSAs therefore have access to more donated funds, and typically derive 40 to 50 percent of their total revenues from contributions.

Leading professional theatres is smaller MSAs have significantly less access to funding. Barksdale Theatre and Theatre IV derive 28% of total revenues from contributions. Based on our combined annual budget of $5 million, the difference between 28% and the national standard of 40% is $600,000 per year. Imagine how much more we could do, how much better we could be with an additional $600,000 per annum.

“Report cards” are good when they recognize and reward your strengths while challenging you to be aware of and work toward addressing your weaknesses. “Report cards” are not-so-good when they measure your acheivements against unreasonable expectations and wind up demoralizing a community to the point where people no longer have the will to address those weaknesses.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone involved in Richmond theatre to feel demoralized. Don’t get me wrong—Richmond theatres (especially Barksdale Theatre and Theatre IV) need to continually identify weaknesses and work to make them better. There is great need and opportunity for improvement and growth.

But by most reasonable measurements, Richmond theatre is now stronger than ever. Best of all, our theatres are uniquely Richmond, as they should be. We do everyone a disservice by insinuating that we could or should be more like theatres in Baltimore.

That’s my opinion. More to come.

--Bruce Miller

365 Days/365 Plays gets Shoutouts from STYLE Weekly and Richmond Times-Dispatch

Posted by Billy Christopher Maupin

Thanks to our incredibly awesome publicist, Judi Crenshaw, I have done three phone interviews this past week with three different publications (Richmond.com, STYLE Weekly, and Richmond Times-Dispatch). I constantly feared saying something incredibly ridiculous and then reading the article saying to myself "Wow[or some other word that I shouldn't publish here], did I really say that?" But these fantastic writers, Karri Peifer, David Timberline, and Celia Wren, respectively, have written articles that illuminate the project in such an exciting, beautiful, intriguing (how I could go on) way! The Richmond.com link I posted last week, so here lie the links to the article that appeared in STYLE Weekly yesterday and the article that appears in the weekend section of the Times-Dispatch today.

David Timberline's piece in STYLE can be read here.

Celia Wren (who was so absolutely incredible to speak with) 's article in today's Times-Dispatch can be read here.

And just so you don't have to hunt back to last week, here is the link to Karri Peifer's feature on Richmond.com.

I also want to give a shoutout to the two other directors in our 365, Darius T. Epps and Kaye Weinstein Gary, who have two of the most unique, refreshing visions that I have encountered.

(Darius is pictured to the left. Kaye is pictured to the right.)