THEATER NOTES : Big Names Split From Met Theatre

The Met Theatre board has split in half.

Most of the big names associated with the Met--actors Holly Hunter, Ed Harris, Amy Madigan and playwright Beth Henley--and four other board members have left to form a new company, probably somewhere in West L.A., Santa Monica or Venice.

Left behind at the Oxford Street theater in southeast Hollywood are six actor/board members who plan to continue operating the Met as before.

When it was reconstituted from dormancy at the Oxford Street space in 1991, the Met was set up as a loosely bound alliance of actor/producers, then numbering 18. Each would help support the space financially, though no annual dues were required. Each would be able to produce whatever he or she wanted--or nothing at all.

There were signs that the loose structure was fraying. A fund-raiser last month was described as do-or-die. At the time, Hunter referred to the theater’s “creative but frail” support structure.

More recently, the faction that has now left proposed a reorganization. Acting as a smaller and more active board, they would run the theater--more aggressively than in the past, including such tactics as picking seasons rather than simply moving from one project to another. Founding members who weren’t on the active board would still be able to produce at the Met, but they would not have financial responsibilities and they wouldn’t be able to vote.

When negotiations between the two factions foundered, the slightly larger group--which includes actors Tom Bower, James Gammon, Darrell Larson and Beth Ruscio in addition to those already named--decided to leave. Larson, a spokesman for the departing group, said that while organizational problems were paramount, his group also was concerned about “problems with the neighborhood” that made theatergoers “reluctant to come down,” even to acclaimed shows. Outside consultant Corbett Barklie suggested reorganizing the board and moving, Larson said, and that is what his group is doing, with Barklie leading the search for a new space.

The new group doesn’t have a name yet. Members of the group had joked about calling themselves “Greedy Elitists,” Larson said, reflecting the acrimony of the dispute.

But seriously, folks, Larson wished the Met well. “Breaking up is hard to do,” he noted. “It has been painful. There are a lot of inner connections between both factions.” He said the action has “galvanized” the group that remains, some of whom had not been active in recent years, as well as his own.

Remaining Met president Paul Koslo--who had produced or co-produced such shows as “Circe and Bravo” and “Curse of the Starving Class” at the pre-1985 Met and “Scar” in 1992--acknowledged that he had not been active in recent years because of other commitments. But he didn’t like the way negotiations were handled--”we felt we were being dictated to. I think they just didn’t want to play any more with the rest of the board.”

“The Met is still here,” Koslo said. The group that remains includes actors Joe Cortese, Martin Kove, Alan Vint, Laura Owens and Robin Riker. A new play about the L.A. riots, “Souls on Fire,” executive produced by Danny Glover, will open at the Met on May 3. With such relatively affluent actors as Hunter and Harris leaving, isn’t the Met now more financially vulnerable than ever? “We’re not poor,” Koslo replied, though he quickly added, “I might be poor after all this.”

*

THE BEST: Each year, when the Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle announce nominees for their annual awards, they dutifully include the advisory that there can be multiple award recipients--or none--in any category. Generally speaking, the top 30 vote-getters receive awards, regardless of category.

This resulted in more anomalies than usual in this year’s awards, presented last Monday. In three separate categories, for which there were a total of seven nominees, there were no winners. Yet in the featured performance award, four out of five nominees won.

“That is awful!” declared presenter Betty Garrett, when she realized that one of the five nominees would be singled out as a non-winner. “I hate that! . . . Of course being nominated is just as good as winning. And if you swallow that, I’ll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.”

Unlike, say, Oscar or Tony winners, most LADCC winners cannot really claim to be the “best.” Chances are they’re sharing the award with others. Nevertheless, many winners ignore this and do claim--in ads or program bios--that they received an LADCC “best.”

This year the award ceremony emcee, actress Nan Martin, admonished winners to refrain from undue “best” claims. Don’t call your mother and claim you’re the “best,” she commanded. Winners can say they were cited for “excellence,” she allowed (“outstanding” is another permissible claim). “Admittedly this goes against human nature,” Martin conceded.

Indeed. Later in the same ceremony, Martin was heard referring to “the award for best director.”