Richmond Theatre Critics Circle Awards

Posted by Bruce Miller
The nominations for the RTCCAs (popularly pronounced Artsies or Ratcocs, depending on the sassiness of the one doing the pronouncing) were posted on Dave's Theater Blog late Monday evening. Many also refer to the actual awards as "hockey pucks," because of the circular design of the handsome acrylic trophies that are handed out. Meaning no disrespect, I've chosen a Canadian hockey puck to illustrate this article because: A - I couldn't find a photo on line of an actual Artsy, and B - well, I'll let you speculate about B.

Because I swim in the technological backwaters, I knew nothing about the announced nominations until Tuesday morning when I read a nice message that Jacquie O'Connor wrote on my Facebook wall. Our Managing Director, Phil Whiteway, received some sort of message on his blackberry, or whatever phone thing he has, on Monday night. From all reports, the phone of our Associate Artistic Director, Chase Kniffen, began ringing furiously shortly after Dave's initial posting.

I'm so out of the loop that it sometimes startles me.

Anyway, what a nice surprise to discover that Barksdale and Theatre IV are parties to 48 nominations--49 if you count our connections to Neil and SaraBelle November. I greatly appreciate all this recognition.

I really really really don't envy the Richmond theatre critics and the challenges they face in trying to come up with this list of nominees. I think it's great that they're giving kudos to theatres and theatre artists in Richmond. As an economic sector, we need all the attention we can get. But their job is next to impossible. With so many worthy performances, how can anyone possibly choose one set of theatre artists over another. All I can say is, I'm glad I don't have to do it.

My job is an easier one. I get to Monday morning (Wednesday night?) quarterback and make some additional "nominations" of performances that I admired, performances that didn't make it on to the final roster selected by the critics. My "nominations" represent nothing more than one humble opinion--which ain't worth squat. Like the critics, I'm sure I too will leave out people I really liked and am now forgetting, but since these nods of mine carry no weight whatsoever, I hope everyone will put up with my whimsy.

I also get to toss out some comments that have little to do with anything, but interest me nonetheless. It's a blog. So sue me.

First off, I loved everyone in the acting and design teams of the three shows I had the privilege to direct this season: Boleros for the Disenchanted (the wonderful and nominated Carmen Zilles is pictured to the left, next to the wonderful and not nominated Michelle Guadalupe), First Baptist of Ivy Gap, and On Golden Pond. Since I'm completely biased in their favor, I won't single out any one of them individually for recognition here. Except one. I know Joe Inscoe is nominated several times for other performances, but not to nominate him for On Golden Pond?? I thought he was exceptional. I'm just sayin'.

I'm a little surprised (but delighted) to see that Souvenir is considered to be a musical. At the end of the day, I don't care if the critics call it a musical, a non-musical, or an egg salad sandwich--I'm really glad that the excellent work that went into this show was recognized.

I already wrote to Jase Smith individually, and told him I thought his direction of Rent represented his best work thus far and deserved a nomination. I also think that Terence Sullivan was terrific in Rent. In my opinion, he was the major new "discovery" of the year. I thought Durron Tyre was incredible in Rent and deservedly nominated, but I don't think the character of Tom Collins is a lead. In my little world, Durron should be up for Best Supporting Actor in a Musical.

In like manner, I was surprised to see that Ford Flannagan's wonderful performance in Putnam County Spelling Bee was nominated in the Leading Actor category, while Debra Wagoner's performance in the same show in a role that was actually larger than Ford's was recognized in the Supporting Actor category. It seems like both of them were outstanding supporting actors to me.

And speaking of directors--I was, a couple paragraphs back--I thought Molly Hood (pictured to the left) did a terrific job with Twelfth Night. Here again, I applaud each of Barksdale's and Theatre IV's directors, but I'm biased so I won't single them out.

I enjoyed noting that The Sound of Music was abbreviated SOM and Servant of Two Masters was abbreviated SOTM. It reminded me of the previous season when Barksdale did Children of a Lesser God and Stage 1 did Children's Letters to God almost simultaneously. Good times. It made me try to think of other plays we might have produced last season with titles that could be abbreviated with some variation of SOM. But I came up with bupkis. It's late at night.

I think the strongest category may be Best Supporting Actor in a Play. All five nominees are equally deserving. And I can think of more than a few others who turned in equally impressive performances in this category--too many to single out. I'm excited that there's a new category for original work--something lacking in the past.

Maybe next year the critics can consider recognizing a break-through performance by someone previously unnoticed, or maybe a "Most Outstanding Debut" category. I thought Laurel Maughan, who is new to our ranks, contributed greatly to Twelfth Night. In the veteran category, I though Jackie Jones was particularly noteworthy playing Golda Meir in her one woman show at the JCC. Somewhere in between, Joe Carlson impressed, I thought, in Grapes of Wrath, carrying a difficult show on his emerging shoulders. Joe will contribute greatly to Richmond theatre's future, should we be lucky enough to hang on to him.

I'm so pleased that Hanover Tavern received some recognition this year; the Tavern was completely shut out in years one and two. I know there will always be those who feel under-appreciated, just like all of us at Hanover Tavern felt in 2008 and 2009. But I think the critics do an outstanding job trying to recognize good work everywhere, and trying to maintain a balance.

Richmond theatre lives and dies by its breadth and depth, and the critics work hard to find examples of excellence almost everywhere. Our theatre community would be greatly diminished without the estimable talents found at our dozen colleague nonprofits: African American Repertory Theatre, Cadence Theatre Company, Carpenter Science Theatre, Chamberlayne Actors Theatre, Firehouse Theatre Project, HATTheatre, Henley Street Theatre, Richmond Shakespeare, Richmond Triangle Players, Swift Creek Theatre, Sycamore Rouge, and the brand new Theatre in Battery Park.

Last but not least, I'd like to tip my hat to the kids in The Sound of Music--maybe in the best ensemble category. They were amazingly talented, professional and accomplished throughout a lengthy run, and were at the very heart of Central Virginia's most popular show of the past season.

So, those are a few random thoughts, signifying nothing. Again, I think the critics are doing a great job and I don't envy them. There's no way they could satisfy everyone. So I salute them, and thank them for their service.

--Bruce Miller

The Return of the "Artsies"

Posted by Bruce Miller
We were very pleased to wake up this morning to learn that Barksdale Theatre and Theatre IV have been recognized with several nominations for RTCC Awards (“Artsies”). RTCC stands for the Richmond Theatre Critics Circle. The six members of this august body include Mary Burruss, Susan Haubenstock, Julinda Lewis, John Porter, David Timberline and Joan Tupponce.

Phil called me at home this morning after reading the encouraging news on Dave Timberline’s blog - http://richmondvatheater.blogspot.com/. Phil and I are among the many who support the critics in their efforts to bring more attention to professional theatre in Richmond. Efforts like this take a LOT of work, and I’m very grateful to Dave, Joan, John, Julinda, Mary and Susan for volunteering all the time and brainpower required to pull off such a major initiative.

Like any and everyone else (including each critic, I’m sure), I think some of the nominations are a little crazy, and some of the omissions are downright criminal. But I know of no better way to get the job done, and no other group of people willing to invest the energy to make it happen. So what the heck, let’s all roll with the punches and be happy that attention is being paid.

Among musical nominations, the runaway winner this year was Stage 1, with a very impressive 16 nominations. Barksdale and Theatre IV followed, with 12 nominations each. Swift Creek Mill and the Firehouse scored an impressive 8 and 7 nominations respectively. Last year the big musical winner was Urinetown at the Mill, so it’s nice to see the kudos being spread around a little this year to other worthy productions and theatres.
Among non-musicals (and I’m counting Pulp as a non-musical, songs and all), Barksdale received 16 nods, with the Firehouse standing proud with 8, and Henley Street following closely with 7. Five nominations went to the Mill, 3 each to Richmond Shakes and CAT, 2 to Sycamore Rouge, and one each to the Triangle Players and African American Repertory Theatre--testimony to the breadth of theatrical excellence in our community.

Last year’s big winner in the non-musical category was the Firehouse production of The Late Henry Moss. (The photo above shows the on-stage view of last year's inaugural Awards Ceremony at the Firehouse.) Again, it’s nice to see the Critics Circle working hard this year to include lots of (even if not all) worthy nominees.

The Awards Ceremony will be held this year at our historic Empire Theatre on October 18. Tickets are only $10 and available at the Empire box office – 344-8040. All profits from the event will be donated by the Critics Circle to the Theatre Artists Fund.

Everyone is invited, and it should be a huge and great celebration. I hope you’ll all make time to attend and cheer on each of Richmond’s theatrical winners.

--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