Small theaters

Re “A Happy Medium,” commentary (Feb. 9): It’s great to see Don Shirley’s enthusiasm for mid-size theaters. I concur. But in his comparison of the Obies in New York (which gives awards to mid-size and small theaters) to the LA Weekly Awards (the only ceremony in town exclusively honoring theaters of 99 seats or less), Shirley is comparing big apples and oranges. In New York, the Obies exclude theaters in the Broadway district, which is amply represented by the Tonys, the New York Drama Critics Circle and so forth. L.A. has no such geography, so the Weekly uses the one clear dividing line that still separates the larger theaters from the smaller ones -- the 99-Seat Plan. Sorry that Shirley finds that offensive, but I imagine some people find it vexing that theaters in Long Beach never get an award from the Valley Theater League. Mid-size theaters are perfectly well represented in the Ovations, the Garlands and the L.A. Drama Critics Circle, among many other outlets.

Shirley then remarks, “The Weekly editorially champions ‘living wage’ ordinances. But its theater awards enshrine a theatrical arena in which living wages are rare -- and ignore theaters that try to pay actors something closer to a living wage.” Is Shirley trying to imply that the Weekly Theater Awards are now hypocritically in cahoots with -- what -- sweatshop owners? The newspaper’s small-theater focus is not an endorsement of poverty, it’s an attempt to salute those artists for doing their work in an apathetic if not hostile environment. Shirley fails to grasp that obvious distinction. Actors in mid-size theaters get a paycheck; those in most small theaters rarely even get a review. For the Weekly to pull focus from the smaller theaters to the larger ones would be like robbing the poor to pay the rich. From an alternative newspaper, that would be hypocrisy.

Steven Leigh Morris

Theater editor, LA Weekly

*

Don Shirley’s commentary makes a persuasive argument in favor of mid-size theatre in L.A. PLAY7 is mentioned, along with Edgefest, as a successful association of small theater organizations that actually tend to eclipse the recognition of mid-size theaters in town. We appreciate the compliment, but PLAY7 would like to point out that while most of our member companies are currently 99-seat theater makers, it is not necessarily our ambition to remain so.

PLAY7 is about “independent” theater. Shirley succinctly demonstrates the machinery that helps keep our organizations small and mediocre, but his solution is to patronize forgotten mid-size houses, rather than to support 99-seat organizations as they evolve.

No PLAY7 company aspires to remain under the constraints of that contract forever. Working in 99-seat theater is a lifestyle that is simply not sustainable over the long term. The fear of burnout haunts us every time we choose to engage in the logic-defying act of creating theater on this scale.

The 99-seat contract is, let’s be honest, a showcase model for burgeoning actors and theaters. The performance opportunity for actors in L.A. is well understood, but what advantage does it pose for producers of theater? It’s simply the cheapest, fastest way to get the job done. Ideally, the 99-seat contract is a way to allow organizations to avail themselves of good talent while building a platform for growth. We hope that our investment in cooperation will teach us how to live out our artistic ambitions while eventually paying all of our workers. It is an exciting time in L.A. for audiences. There is the opportunity to witness history in the making as a multitude of very ambitious artists from theaters of all sizes lay the foundation for the future. The menu of mid-size theater in L.A. is certainly worth attention, but don’t forget about the mid-size theaters of tomorrow.

Jonathan Winn

Founder and marketing chairman

PLAY7