Take More Chances? People in Theater Take Chances Daily

I was perplexed by the scathing review we at Theatre West received from Times theater critic Michael Phillips for Steve Allen’s “A Christmas Carol” in the Nov. 26 Calendar (“Allen Tries His Magic on ‘Christmas’ ”), until I read his Sunday article two days later, “Calling All Risk Takers.” As I am aware of your deadlines, I’m sure this latter piece was readied in advance of Phillips attending our production.

In the Sunday article, Phillips makes it clear that he does not want to have to sit through “A Christmas Carol” ever again. Given this prejudice against the piece, I find it dishonest for Phillips to review the play. But a deeper reading of Phillips’ Sunday piece makes it clear that he is simply out of touch with theater in this city.

Phillips states that “we’re all going to be better off if the new century ushers in more theater made by people who took a chance.” This statement ignores the reality that doing theater anywhere in the United States, but especially in Los Angeles, is by definition taking an almost foolhardy risk. Although Phillips is all for site-specific work, he simply refuses to recognize site-specific problems with respect to financing, marketing and audiences. The facile idea that we must go where fear points is truly juvenile, given the economic realities of nonprofits in this city. But even at a national level, Phillips ignores the fiscal realities that prompted the head of the National Endowment for the Arts to flatly assert at this year’s Theatre Communications Group conference in San Francisco that “there is no support for pure art.”

Indeed, both TCG and the NEA have bought fully into the essentially Reaganomics argument that the arts need to “add value” in order to be funded. That there is nothing inherently valuable in the making of art. That without some ancillary benefit to society at large, art is not worth doing. The result has been a national retreat from funding the arts, which has accelerated what had already been poor giving locally. Fighting this particular battle is less the province of individual theaters than the Los Angeles Times editorial pages.

Phillips states that more theaters should do original works by Los Angeles writers. This year, six of our seven main-stage productions are world premieres by Los Angeles writers.

He also states that if by following his prescription, some L.A. theaters fall by the wayside, “this may be OK.” Certainly reminiscent of Ebenezer Scrooge’s line, “If they’re going to die, they’d better do so quickly, and decrease the surplus population.” How this is supposed to provide more opportunities for playwrights by reducing the number of places where their work can be done is beyond my logical resources.

Phillips calls for nonprofits to find more grants or gifts so we won’t be so dependent upon audiences. Does he seriously think nonprofits don’t try to raise as much money as possible? Can he possibly be that naive, or just someone who has no experience in this particular arts community? Perhaps he needs to read The Times’ own excellent coverage of giving in Los Angeles.

But then he wants the theaters that have been working in this community and are made up of members of this community to do work that more reflects it. As his previous opinions demonstrate his absolute ignorance of the artistic community, and the difficulties of producing plays here, how could he possibly know what “reflects” the community at large?

It’s hard to make plays from scratch. Musicals are even more difficult. It’s an unfair burden to expect us to break through a critic’s self-admitted prejudice against a piece of material, in addition to ignorance as to how nonprofits work, as well as the particular environment that is Los Angeles theater. Phillips may not understand this, but doing an original musical version of “A Christmas Carol” is an enormous risk for a company of our size, exhausting our physical, financial and technical resources. It makes demands upon a company membership that are perhaps not obvious to an outsider, or someone unfamiliar with the community.

*

The Los Angeles Times is the leader for arts coverage in Los Angeles. As a newspaper, you set an ethical standard that others aspire to reach. Your critical reaction to a piece is more important than all the other media outlets--perhaps more than all of them together. It’s vital that that reaction be untainted by any other agenda. Certainly, as Phillips’ own published remarks make clear, that is not the case in this instance. It is unfair to a great newspaper, a great theater and a great artist like Steve Allen to have this be the review of record, just as it is unfair to the artistic community as a whole to have such uninformed views expressed by the lead theater critic.

John Gallogly is executive director of Theatre West and directed its production of “A Christmas Carol.”

Counterpunch is a weekly feature designed to let readers respond to reviews or stories about entertainment and the arts. Please send proposals to: Counterpunch, Calendar, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles CA 90053. Or fax: (213) 237-7630. Or e-mail: Counterpunch@latimes.com. Important: Include full name, address and phone number. Please do not exceed 600 words. We appreciate all proposals and regret that we cannot respond to each.