By P. C. Clarke
This is the first of several articles I will write on the audience experience at small theatres. It is only my opinion, but it is based on years of attending performances at various small theatre venues in different cities, including Los Angeles.
Small theatres are, by and large, run By actors and For actors. They seldom make money in the sense that large Broadway or regional theatres do. Their principal reason for existing is to provide the actors who are associated with them a venue in which to perform as well as a place to explore works that interest them. They are largely supported by fund raising events, grants from various private and public funding entities, box office receipts and sometimes members’ dues. Keeping their doors open is a constant struggle.
My subject today is why they don’t provide their audience a better experience, and, more important, why they should strive to do better.
As I said above, the sole reason for these small theatres to exist is for the benefit of the actors. Where else can an actor hone their skills? How else can an actor have their skills noticed by casting directors, directors and producers who might get them actual paying work in film or television? How better to meet and socialize with others in your own profession? If you are a dedicated actor and lover of theatre and have not been lucky enough to be regularly employed on Broadway how else are you going to experience the thrill of standing before an audience and losing yourself in a role? These small theatres have to exist for the sake of our actors and for the art form itself.
The trouble comes when they try to attract an audience. The exercise is meaningless without an audience. Without an audience there is no theatre. In Death Valley there is a woman named Marta Becket who bought an abandoned mining town and converted its old meeting hall into a theatre for herself. She was a ballet dancer and she danced for the love of it. And yet, dancing in a huge room by herself was not enough. She decided that rather than dance to no audience she would create one. She proceeded to paint the most wonderful murals on the walls depicting an audience from Renaissance Italy. Sadly, she proved herself to be a better muralist than dancer, but my point is she couldn’t perform without an audience. Eventually, her quirky behavior and the absolute lack of any alternative entertainment for the thousands of campers in the park turned her into a cult phenomenon and she now dances for packed houses every night she performs. http://www.amargosa-opera-house.com/
So, if audiences are necessary for the art form and for the cash they provide, why don’t theatres treat them better? Why are attendees treated to dirty theatres, uncomfortable seats, dangerous staging, sad attempts at programs, bathrooms that are not handicap accessible, or are inaccessible during a performance? (Bathrooms that require you to walk across the stage is another rant in itself.) How often do we enter dark and unattractive “lobbies” to pay two or three times what we would pay to see a movie and then be told we have to wait on the street? Why can’t they make the effort to really provide a wonderful experience for the audience, start to finish? The answer is simple. The actors don’t care. They are only interested in their own experience. They don’t understand that they are selling a product and that they are approaching the price point where they will lose their audience forever.
Theatres need to rethink what function they actually serve for their audience. They sell an entertainment experience. They must compete with movies and theme parks and bars. They must set themselves up to be a fun, clean safe experience. If they don’t, they will be playing only to the members of their own companies (who usually get in for free).
It is not my point here to insult or tear down the small theatres or the actors who give them life, but rather to point out to them that there are things that they can do to increase the happiness of their audiences and therefore keep them coming back for more. Ask yourselves, what can we do to make the evening of these people who support us more enjoyable. And do it. Please. Please.
Or paint an audience on your walls.
![[title of show] at the Celebration Theatre](http://www.latheatrereview.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/1500_NpAdvHover.jpg)
Mr. Clarke, I found your article to be both entertaining and thought provoking. I loved the story about Marta Becket. I could almost see her out there in the desert night, twirling about, with all of her Renaissance “friends “ loyally cheering her on. Then, one day, a bored camper shows up, finds Marta to be a hoot, tells a friend and, now, Marta has made her dream come true. It’s such an inspiring story; very entertaining.
What I found thought provoking was your take on the lack of care in small theaters (I refuse to spell “theater” with an “re”, but please don’t let that colour your opinion of me). I’m fairly new to the world of small theater and have only seen, maybe, twenty plays tops, but I do share your feelings about the dinginess of some lobbies, crossing the stage to use the restroom and waiting on the street or packed tightly in the lobby until the audience can be seated. I’ve also sat in folding chairs that were brought on in the last minute to accommodate the “extra” audience members, sometimes sitting so close to the stage I often felt like yelling “Line!”. Until I read your article I just accepted it as status quo, but you’re correct, more care should be taken to ensure a better experience, especially when a ticket can cost twenty-five dollars.
I’m not sure if actors don’t care as much as they don’t know, though, as you said. It’s the old right brain/left brain thing, I suppose. Is it that they are so caught up in the play, their performance and everything else that encompasses being an actor, that they just have never thought about possibly breaking out the glass cleaner and wiping off the door? I suspect it could be the “that’s not my job” syndrome, that somehow all of that will magically get done, or, quite possibly, they are completely ignorant of the business aspect of theater. I didn’t state that out of disrespect to actors as a whole, it’s just that most people have their strong suits and, I believe, for most actors, it’s acting, not business. However, once made aware of these problems (such as your article has done), I feel it’s an actor’s responsibility to learn what can be done to improve the audience’s experience and implement this knowledge.
I understand that small theater productions usually have a very tight budget and if the storefront that has been converted into a theater has the bathroom in the back, there’s not much that can be done about that, but actors who cannot afford large entourages have to be aware of the quality of the entire production, from programs to clean lobbies. It only takes a few dollars and a little elbow grease to spruce up any public area. It would behoove them to stop for a moment, step back, and really take a look at their “space”. Then ask themselves, “do I feel welcome?”
Thank you, Mr. Clarke, for, hopefully, opening many eyes. By the way, does P. C. stand for Politically Correct?
Sincerely,
Steve Mancini
Dear Mr. Mancini,
You are correct in pointing out that I have assumed the worst of those that run these small theatres. I didn’t mean to be quite as hard as my piece may have sounded. There are of course many reasons why things don’t get taken care of in a theatre… or even in a theater. I’m just hoping to push a little in hopes that things that make a difference to audience members get moved up the to-do list a little.
And P.C. is probably better assumed to mean Probable Cynic.
P. C. Clarke
Dear Mr. Clarke,
As an actor in small and regional theaters, I was offended by your generalization of small theaters. Theaters such as the Long Beach Playhouse, Newport Theatre Arts Center and Gem Theatre in Garden Grove may have less than 200 seats, but they have loyal subscribers and take great pride in their theaters. They have Gala nights where champagne and hors d’oeuvres are served for typically only $5 more per ticket. They provide snacks and drinks at intermission and the volunteers are helpful and happy to be there. After my most recent performance, I spoke with some patrons who said they were “new” to attending live theater, but now prefer spending a night at the theater over going to a movie.
Maybe the scene in downtown LA is a different one, but don’t take down all the small theaters that produce great work and have loyal audiences. There are small theater enthusiasts out there (that aren’t actors) and I am so grateful they aren’t as cynical as you about attending a performance!
Dear A. McGuire,
I am very sorry you were offended. It was absolutely never my intent to offend anyone. If I did, I apologize. My intent, as my previous answer tries to explain, was to encourage theatre managers and members to strive to do their best to make an evening at the theatre an event to be cherished by those who pay for the experience.
I also want to explain that perhaps I should have defined “small theatre” in the piece. I was referring to the very small spaces, usually covered here in LA by the 99 seat Waiver Agreement (theatres seating under 99 people operate under a special agreement with Actors Equity relieving them of many of the responsibilities large Equity houses must adhere to) Theatres such as you describe, in the 100 seat and up range, have much larger budgets and employ full time house managers, maintenance staffs and often have a subscription base that provide them with the economic power to make their spaces very comfortable. You are very fortunate to be able to perform in them. I hope you understand that yours is not the kind of space I was referring.
I’m glad you were able to tell everyone about the wonderful experiences available at your theatre.
P.C.Clarke