Role of Home Team is Vital to Theater Community

Sunday, December 12, 2004
By Charles Fee, Special to The Plain Dealer

In sports, in business – and in the arts – nothing outperforms a real “team” of players.

Is there any doubt that the Cleveland Orchestra sounds so good because they play together so much? Imagine an orchestra of brilliant musicians, each a star in his or her own right, brought together for a single concert series, then disbanded as a new “orchestra” takes the stage for the next concert series. We might hear some exquisite moments of music, but would they achieve the subtle strengths of a unified ensemble?

Of course not.

So when did the idea of a regional theater supporting a resident artistic company become quaint, outmoded and ultimately, insupportable? Somewhere along the line, we lost our belief (or maybe just our interest) in the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

We don’t think of theater companies as teams of artists anymore. They are simply temporary homes for “hot” directors and “star” actors – and the shows they send to Broadway.

Most of the American regional theater community abandoned the idea of sustaining resident companies in the 1980s. Our work has deteriorated ever since. Just as important, our audiences have lost a sense of identification with our companies, subscription sales have evaporated, and our ability to play a real role in setting the agenda for our communities has all but disappeared.

Seemingly overnight, the idea of building a team, of sustaining a resident company, has been abandoned. In its place, many of the largest not-for-profit, regional theaters have become showcases for “stars” and the research-and-development wing of commercial theater in New York. The surest sign of success in San Diego or Seattle or New Haven, Conn., has become the development of plays destined for Broadway.

The synergy, at first, seemed perfect: Commercial producers needed to lower the costs of development of “risky” new works – particularly large-cast undertakings such as musicals. Regional theaters had great facilities, large technical staffs capable of producing at very high levels. They also had an even more important ingredient – capital – in the form of large subscription-based audiences.

In other words, the subscribers to a season of theater in San Diego could be leveraged to guarantee a decent “tryout” for a commercial production in New York. The cost – and risk – of developing commercial work is much lower when supported by the not-for-profit theater sector, and the potential upside for the “tryout” company could be enormous.

But how has this played out for local audiences? And how do arts donors – in any city – feel about supporting work that is designed to become “commercialized” as it moves to New York? Do they become investors in “Big River” when the La Jolla Playhouse’s production moves to New York? Will regional-theater artists reap the benefits of commercial salaries and recognition in New York? And ultimately, what is the mission of the not-for-profit theater when it becomes the platform for developing commercial work?

It is thrilling to see “Tommy” or “Big River” or “Into the Woods” (all shows that went on to Broadway success) being created in your hometown. And it is intoxicating for members of a company’s board of trustees to know that the theater they support, and the artistic director they have dinner with, has become internationally famous!

The not-for-profit theater company should, at the very least, be able to recoup the cost of production when one of its plays becomes a commercial property. It may even become the beneficiary of a real revenue stream if the show goes on to be a Broadway hit. All of this can, has and still does occasionally work.

But more often than not, this model compromises the regional theater’s greatest asset: a company of artists developing work as a team without the pressure of “commercial” success. Once a theater sets its sights on the commercial viability of its work, the structure of the company changes to reflect that goal.

Productions are developed from the top down. That is to say, from the money down. That means that commercial producers make many of the decisions that would have fallen to the artistic director of the regional theater.

The primary artistic team for the production often comes with the package and rarely involves the artists that have built the identity of the theater company over years. The resident theater company and its artists become liabilities for the commercial producer who, naturally, will look for “stars” to launch the new project. And, most importantly, our audiences stop identifying with our companies as part of the community – we are no longer the “home team.”

Suddenly, the most familiar names in the commercial theater are interested in working in your hometown. And, seemingly overnight, the potential for the resident artists to work in the very company they have helped develop is reduced to the second stage, the summer Shakespeare play or the holiday classic.

The typical motto today is, “If you want to work in St. Louis, you better move to New York.”

The short-term gain for a theater company can be great. But in the long term, the company inevitably suffers the consequences. Once we let go of the resident team and move to a pickup company, we have undermined the very structure needed to create great work – the ensemble, the team and the loyalty of our fans that comes from sustained identification with the players.

Great Lakes Theater Festival is a prime example of a company that has learned this lesson through experience. From resident artistic company to star-centered productions to Broadway-bound commercial co-productions, we’ve been through all the hoops.

Where we stand today is clear. Great Lakes Theater Festival will work to develop and sustain a resident artistic company of significant talent: working together over several seasons to create a clearly identifiable voice for its artistry. We want a group capable of the highest level of ensemble performance, with a hunger for and commitment to the classical repertory. We also want people to have an investment in the mission and values of the company as well as the community they serve.

Yes, there are difficulties brought on by sustaining a resident company. Familiarity can breed contempt – which is to say, if new members are not regularly introduced to the core company, an audience might become tired of seeing the same actors in the same roles year after year. Artistic compromises, particularly in casting, must sometimes be made to accommodate the company. Successful members will inevitably leave the company to pursue other opportunities.

It is our belief, however, that the strengths inherent in a resident company clearly outweigh the risks. As we look around the country today, it is clear that those theaters that have steadfastly – and against the popular trends – held onto the idea of a resident company are among the most financially stable, artistically adventurous and deeply embraced.

In Cleveland today, it may be more important to focus on building our artistic future from the riches already existing in the community than look to the outside for the “star” who will put us on the map.

The next time someone says, “If we could only figure out how to attract the creative class to Cleveland we’d be saved,” let’s tell them we’re here, working, and making a difference already.

Fee is producing artistic director of the Great Lakes Theater Festival and the Idaho Shakespeare Festival.