Bill McNulty

Bill McNulty

The Actors Center Journal Vol. 2, No. 2

Actor’s Voice:

Below is a letter to the Editor reprinted in its entirety from a very thoughtful gentleman named Bill McNulty. We don’t feel any further explanation is necessary. We asked for feedback and suggestions to this Journal and this is what Mr. McNulty sent us:

Feedback? Suggestions? What you are suggesting sounds very much like the revival of the resident company concept. I could not be more supportive of such a plan; nor could I be more skeptical that we will ever see such companies founded again.

I joined the resident company of Actors Theatre of Louisville in 1976. At that time the theatre was in the middle of a phenomenal growth period, driven, in part by Jon Jory’s visionary leadership, but also most certainly due to the bond created between the theatre and the community by the resident actors. It was clear that Louisvillians saw us as “their” actors; they came again and again, anxious to see us take on different characters and styles; they greeted us on the street, in stores and restaurants and other establishments all over town and talked to us about our work and about the theatre in general. We were not necessarily treated as celebrities, but rather as respected members of the community, providing a valuable service. It was good for the town, good for the actors and good for ATL.

Times have changed. Gradually the idea of maintaining a corps of resident actors became less compatible with Mr. Jory’s artistic ambitions and, perhaps, less popular with our board of directors and the newer members of our ever burgeoning management culture. From the mid-nineties the company was allowed to dwindle; some actors were not invited back; some left of their own volition, but none were replaced. Now, it’s pretty much down to me. I see myself as the last dinosaur in the swamp. And even I am only hanging on by a thread. Were it not for the fact that I direct the annual production of Dracula and am pretty well ensconced in the role of Scrooge in the annual Christmas Carol I would most likely be gone by now.

My own personal dilemma aside, I think it’s important to mention changes I have noticed in four significant populations. The first would be the resident company. At one time we had a company of eight to ten actors performing in all manner of productions from the classics to the most avant garde, from intense drama to screwball comedy. That company split their workdays between performing whatever the current production might have been and rehearsing for the upcoming show; thus each actor was doing the work that two actors would be hired for at theatres without resident companies. As I’ve said, that population has ceased to exist.

Interestingly, as the resident company was shrinking, the administrative population was enjoying robust growth. New positions were being created. Soon those who’d been hired for the new positions found themselves in need of assistants, and sometimes their assistants needed assistance. Many people in these administrative positions were involved in developing strategies to insure the financial health and stability of the theatre; clearly a resident acting company was not regarded as good business.

Similar growth could be observed in the technical and design staff; again, new positions were created, and each designer and department head found the need for assistants. Consequently, we do have an ample number of resident artists; there just don’t happen to be any actors among them.

One way to explain this phenomenal growth is to note that the two central figures in this company and just about any regional company are the Artistic Director and the Managing Director. Both of these people deal directly with management and administrative folks everyday; they are colleagues and friends and, thus more likely to be treated sympathetically in matters of hiring and firing. The Artistic Director wants his or her own work to be seen in the best possible light and, therefore, favors a good many high calibre design and tech people employed on a permanent basis. Who can blame them?

Last but not least, as our resident company diminished and our management, tech and design population burgeoned, our attendance and subscribership fell precipitously. A few years ago our mainstage was downgraded from LORT B to LORT C, and as of this year we are doing one less play per season.

There are complex reasons for the community’s diminished interest in attending our productions. My friends in management will point to changes in the economy and the culture, and those are valid explanations. But no one will discuss the absence of the resident acting company, which, to me, is the elephant in the room. If the subject comes up at all, it is hastily dismissed as simply impractical in this day and age. “Too many salaries.” “We can’t afford that many acting positions for full seasons anymore.” And yet, as I look around the theatre I see a tech/design staff that has more than doubled and an administrative staff that has at least quadrupled since I arrived in 1976 at a time when our subscribership was running at about ninety-five percent.

I don’t think I need explain to anyone reading this the artistic benefits of a skilled, community based ensemble. It seems to me that such ensembles were intrinsic to the original artistic mission of most regional theatres in this country. Their absence from most of those companies today would seem to violate the initial commitment made by those theatres to their respective communities.

One can see that this selective downsizing has severely impacted the work of the American playwright as well. Because these theatres have chosen to economize by reducing or eliminating their acting companies while increasing salaried staff, fewer large cast plays are being produced. That means not only fewer classics but fewer modern pieces with more than four or five characters. Playwrights are keenly aware of this; they know that if they hope to be produced in this country they must consistently contrive to tell their stories with the fewest possible actors. Two and three handers are hugely popular and a good monodrama, these days, can take you far.

This is not intended to be some self pitying jeremiad. I’ve managed to eke out a decent living here in Louisville, and I’m grateful for the career ATL has provided me. Nor is this some personal assault on Marc Masterson or Jennifer Bielstein [Artistic and Managing Directors, respectively]. I like and admire both of them; many of my complaints have to do with circumstances they inherited. Instead I offer my observations as a cautionary tale. If any new theatre company is to be founded, and if an enduring resident acting ensemble is to be a feature of that company, the maintenance of the ensemble must be insured in the original charter as a sine qua non rather than a matter determined by the whim of the Artistic Director, the Managing Director, or their successors.

Having said all that I must also observe that, although the model you propose would go a long way toward reviving the original spirit of regional theatre, it doesn’t quite strike me as a truly “national” theatre. This is a huge country, it would seem that more ground needs to be covered than simply having four or five resident companies located in major metropolitan areas.

I would suggest four or five touring repertory companies circulating throughout the country, visiting as many resident theatres, campuses, or other local venues as possible. If each community shared in some of the production costs and funding was provided by the National Endowment it might just be economically feasible. A given visit to a particular locale might last an entire month during which a repertoire of five or six plays could be offered to the community and the actors could perhaps participate in workshops and lectures.

Most of our larger urban centers already have a fairly diverse array of theatres for their residents to choose from. Although a sophisticated state funded company would probably not be unwelcome in places such as Chicago, D.C., NYC, etc., does such a system really serve the cultural needs of the nation as a whole?

Louisville is a relatively small town, and I know for a fact that the presence of Actors Theatre has made a huge difference in the cultural development of this community. But there are other towns the size of Louisville and towns smaller still that would benefit enormously from even the occasional visit by a great company of actors. It seems like the kind of thing that not only the general population would be drawn to, but also something that local and state boards of education could get excited about.

The big question, I suppose, is can anything like this be done in this economy and in this culture? It would take some passionate and very well connected people to take it to Washington and make it happen. If any such persons are reading this, and you could use some help, sign me up.

Tags: Bill McNulty, Theatre