Non-Profit Theatre in America: Where We Are

backtalk NON-PROFIT THEATRE IN AMERICA Where We Are Richard Nelson The American non-profit theatre movement is nearing disaster. Without an adequate sense of tradition or a sense of social responsibility, it is in danger of becoming a movement whose only purpose is self-perpetuation. This Idealistic movement begun some generations ago has been unable to achieve a living wage for its actors, a livelihood for Its playwrights; it demands that its designers accept twelve to fifteen productions a year just to make ends meet, and forgoes its responsibility to train directors while permitting, under the heading of financial survival, the average income of its audience members to climb higher and higher, until this once bastion of social ideals and aesthetic concerns has become the plaything of the upper middle class and the very wealthy. How did this happen? The principles behind the movement for not-for-profit theatre are almost self-explanatory, and the ideals behind these principles, obviously, laudable. First, there was the reaction to commercial theatre, which being essentially a business has as its criterion financial success over artistic achievement. Therefore, the non-profit movement was an attempt to overturn this criterion, putting artistic achievement above financial success. As should be obvious, it was the artists who desired this revolution, and in fact the early stages of the movement was indeed an artists' revolt. Second, there was the question of regionalism and decentralization of the American 87 theatre. For whatever reasons, be they regional pride or the recognition that regional cultural needs were not being met, theatres indigenous to their communities were founded all across the country. Again, however, artistic achievement was to be the number one criterion, with the added criterion of serving the needs of the community tossed in. Therefore, this revolution was a revolt carried out by artists and citizens-a revolt to decentralize, which would have put a smile on Thomas Jefferson's face. This age of innocence for the non-profit theatre movement, however, was unfortunately short lived and in its place came the great age of the builders. Had Robert Moses been born twenty years later, instead of roads he undoubtedly would have built theatres. Tens, if not hundreds, of theatres have been built or renovated as part of the movement to non-profit. Many are monstrous, though some are real jewels. But this monomaniacal attention to construction, which involved tremendous sums and active participation (shall we say influence?) of the financial community of the theatres' towns, restructured the initial thrust of non-profit theatre to where the criterion for theatre was once again irrevocably tied to financial success. And non-profit came no longer to mean a revolutionary reaction to commercial theatre, but a theatre where contributions get considered as normal income and a balanced budget becomes the bottom line. Were Peter Brook writing today about the American non-profit theatre, he would not say-all I need is an empty space-but: we have to have soft comfortable seats with plenty of leg room. "We have the building, now we have to fill it." I mean this line to be read as pejoratively as is possible, because it reflects the sickness which has overtaken the body of the American non-profit movement. No doubt, Sam Shubert must have said this sentence numerous times himself. We have built the buildings, now what the hell do we do with them? We have created institutions and managements more attached to concrete blocks than to artists ; administrators more at home with bankers than with actors and directors -and paid more like bankers than actors and directors. More than one administrator has justified his salary to me by saying that he himself had started poor, taken all the risks, worked fourteen hours a day, 352 days a year, and as he now had to constantly deal with major corporate officers, how could they "respect him" if he were not paid a salary commensurate with his responsibilities? To answer this, I need only to quote Eugene Debs from his Canton Speech: Give me the rank and file every day in the week. If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the...