J. Michael Miller
The Actors Center Journal Vol 2 Num 1
Publisher’s Piece
Being of appropriate age for reflection, I recall a moment in the late 1960’s, while perusing the just announced seasons of the so-called “regional” theatres, I was struck by the number of theatres producing the same play. Why, I thought? There were no Christmas Carols. These were plays by Beckett, Shaw, Ibsen, Brecht, etc. I came to accept the fact that that generation of artistic directors was tuned to world  wide dramatic literature and the current anxieties and concerns of their audiences. They were not going into a room together to collude on their coming seasons. They simply believed in what the theatre could contribute to any given society, and looked for brilliant plays to meet their audience needs. That they often chose the  same play just seemed to confirm that there is a “collective unconscious” at work.
The point is synchronicity, and its power.  Since 2006, when the first National Congress of Actors was convened, many of us have expressed concern about the  state of our not-for-profit theatres and their future. The theme of our most recent Congress was the “Marginalization of the Actor from our not-for-profit theatres.” Soon after, we witnessed monologist Mike Daisy performing his scathing piece on “How Theater Failed America” in theatres across the country. On January 9, Terry Teachout wrote a revealing little piece for the Wall Street Journal: “Why aren’t more classics on the list of the most produced plays.”  Those plays, most produced in our not-for-profits, from 2000 through 2009, were Proof (54), Doubt (48), Art (45), The Drawer Boy (36), Rabbit Hole (33), Wit (29), Crowns (26), Intimate Apparel (25), The Laramie Project and Glass Menagerie (23). Teachout concluded: “For me, though, the really big surprise was only one of the top 11 plays is a classic, and it was written in 1944. The others were all written between 1994 and 2006. In addition to The Glass Menagerie only five classics by playwrights other than Shakespeare made it onto the longer list. New playwrights deserve a chance, and it looks like most of our drama companies are giving it to at least some of them. But it also appears that far too many of those same companies may be steering clear of the classical revivals that are no less central to the continuing health of a theatrical culture-and that is very bad news indeed.” On January 10, Howard Kissel responded:
“This list reveals the weaknesses of today’s actors and playwrights.”[1]
Terry Teachout writes about the plays most frequently performed in the regional theaters over the last decade and is disappointed that there is a woeful lack of the classics. Terry, for whom my admiration and affection are enormous, is young and eager. I am old and cynical, and my view of the situation is darker. One of the reasons many of (the most produced) plays are attractive to regional theaters—apart from demonstrating how au courant they are—is that they can be performed by actors of average skill, actors better suited to appearing before the camera, which does much of the work for them. If it is true of our actors that they do not automatically have the technique to tackle the classics, it is even truer of our younger writers that they have learned little from tradition. All too often their work betrays a lack of awareness of the profound legacy of the theater. That is why some of the plays on the above list have no depth, no subtlety. When Arthur Miller was honored by the National Arts Club, perhaps 20 years ago, in his acceptance speech he regretted the shallowness of much contemporary dramaturgy. He compared younger playwrights to the Italian peasants of the Middle Ages, who drew enough water from their wells to suffice for that day’s needs. Behind them towered the aqueducts of ancient Rome, whose engineering genius they could no longer understand or use.
From Daisy, to Teachout, to Kissel and back to The Actors Center, clearly we share the same concerns, though we may have different views of the issue. What we share is a clear concern for the future of an art form that means a great deal to our society. The not-for-profit theatre seems, to many of us, to have lost its sense of cultural mission. Where there was once a synchronicity of purpose and vision, there seems to be a lockstep march toward Chamber of Commerce concerns. With malice toward none, we submit the following proposal. It is labeled as a “call to arms,” linking our arms in common purpose.  Agree with our views or not, feel to chose your own play, but join our effort to restore our theatre to our culture.
[1] Posted by Howard Kissel on his [New York] Daily News blog, January 10, 2010.