What it Takes II

Tom Loughlin writes in the comments:

There is, in my opinion, only one reason why people insist on going to NYC to try to "make it" when there are so many other possibilities in this country, and that's for the recognition. It's so much cheaper and so much easier to produce plays in so many other cities than New York, but seldom is this possibility seriously considered. . . There are spaces aplenty, rent is cheap, day jobs can be had, there is acting talent; but there is no lure of fame. Just the work. Makes me wonder sometimes if people really, actually do want to simply get their work produced, or produced in a particular place, and that's what they want to "make work." Is it for the glory, or is it for the work?

This is a frequently voiced sentiment whenever I talk about the realities of working in New York City. And every time it is laced with this bizarre hostility to New York City and the people who choose to work there, as if we must all be greedy egomaniacs for trying our hand here.

Needless to say, I disagree completely with Tom's analysis, and I also disagree with his methodology. Perhaps rather than condemn people who have made choices different than our own, and perhaps instead of assuming we know what someone else's motivations are, we could simply ask them a question or two and learn something.

For example, Tom could have just asked written the following:

Why do you stay in New York? Here in Buffalo there are spaces aplenty, rent is cheap, day jobs can be had, there is acting talent. What is it that keeps you there?

The difference between the two is the first gears me up for a fight (and I could bring it, and have written that post and deleted it) while the second opens up new avenues for conversation. So I'm just going to pretend that that's what he wrote in the comments, and respond to it.

Why New York, Tom? Good question. Believe me, I've thought about moving away plenty of times. Usually when I'm not working. I have some fantasy of moving to Portland, Oregon or Washington, D.C. or Richmond, VA and working there. And there's a good chance that within a couple of years, I could be (with a little determination and, well, luck) regularly getting paying work. But it wouldn't be enough to live on, almost certainly.

So, assuming I'm not getting enough to live on, we still have the issue of needing to day job it. Frankly, I've got a pretty sweet deal here in NYC, once you take as a given that I'm not going to make a living directing plays. I can temp when I want to, and leave it when I want to... something that is made possible by the staggering amount of business done in this city. I can also find work on other people's shows not directing (ADing, sound designing, whatever) with some frequency, which I probably couldn't do everywhere.

But I could probably do both of those things in a lot of places, which takes us back to Why New York? And there's a personal and a professional answer to that question.

I'll start with the personal one. I have a life here, and it's a life that I'm incredibly grateful for. I live in a positively wonderful neighborhood filled with interesting people, I regularly go get coffee in a neighborhood coffee shop that functions as a salon of sorts, where I can float from a table discussing the law with my friend Rachel, to sit with my friends Ayun and Mike (both writers) and talk about theatre and art, and ask them advice. I have a community of friends and loved ones and people I care about. I was walking with to the subway last night, and I was just thinking how many extraordinary people I know and work with and hang out with.

Now, I could find extraordinary people anywhere, but I have found them already here, and I'm not interested right now in re-finding a different group. Also, I have built a community of support around myself that I rely on when I need it. Also, my girlfriend, whom I live with, lives and works here, and is dedicated to her job, and that keeps us rooted here as well.

And, frankly, I love this city that I live in. It's beautiful and raucous and diverse and hard and sexy and gargantuan and complicated and like nowhere else. And the social experiment that we are engaged in here is one I firmly believe in and want to participate in. We live in a City made up of people who historically have warred with each other, and we live right on top of, next to, around each other, and despite it all, we have the lowest murder rate of any big city in the country. One of my best friends, Hamid, is a Palestinian-American. I'm a Jew. We are enacting one of the beautiful truths of this City together.

Then there are the professional and artistic reasons for staying here.

Here, I have more opportunities. There's no denying it. The number of plays done here every year means I have more opportunities to work that I don't have to create myself in the form of self-producing.

In New York, I have access to a pool of talented artists that is broader, deeper and cheaper than most other places. The sheer number of people here who want to work in theatre is staggering, and I get to take advantage of that regularly. Every city has some okay, some good and some great actors. New York has more of them. It also, of course, has more actors who suck, that's simply the law of averages. Designers are the other really important resource the NYC has in spades.

And then there is that, as a director, I find it constantly refreshing to live in a City that has so much art going on all the time. Even setting aside theatre, I can go see a small independent film at one of about six different movie theaters all within a half hour subway ride from me. We have the Met, The Whitney, The Moma, The Museum of the Moving Image, The New Museum, about 6 million galleries, Dance New Amsterdam, Dance Theater Workshop, The Joyce, The Kitchen, BAM and about a million other places. Even though I feel like I don't experience enough of it, I live in a City that breathes art and culture. We are one of the main industries in this town. We help keep it live and going. And I draw energy and inspiration from that.

This is why I stay here.

I don't really remember why I came here in the first place. I actually don't think I thought it through that well. But now that I'm here, I'm deeply in love. And leaving would be hard.

This is not to say I won't at some point. Perhaps I will want more than 800 square feet of apartment space, or to start my own resident theater somewhere, and build a space (something I just wouldn't consider doing here, with real estate being what it is). But for now, the above reasons keep me here, and keep me loving it, even when it's grinding me under it's boot heel like a spent cigarette.

That's why I titled this post and the last one "What It Takes". I'm not trying to complain, I just want to describe what the reality is like.

For those of you in the comments from New York or not in New York... let's talk. Let's ask questions. Why do you live where you live? What do you get out of it artistically and professionally?

Comments

[MattJ]

I just commented on Tom's post which speaks to your question here: http://www.apoorplayer.net/blog/?p=45#comments

There's also the dichotomy between building a freelance resume and self-starting. Like the difference between an Anne Bogart and a Doug Hughes for example. Developmentally, NY makes a lot of sense. But the artistic community is really, in the end, the thing. And opportunity.

[freeman]

It's all perspective. I didn't see Tom's post as all that challenging, obviously. I think he's voicing his own consternation at NYC as a sort of "center" even though it's set up in such a way to make it difficult to be an artist here. He's certainly not wrong about that.

We all have our reasons. "Fame and fortune?" No shame in it.

[Joshua James]

I believe I can answer part of the question.

One, more NEW work happens here than it does in Buffalo (or Iowa City, where I'm from). New work does happen in Iowa City (great work, too) but not quite at the number that happens here.

But here's the other, crucial difference. If I have a show go up and it gets great reviews in Buffalo (or Iowa) - what happens next? Can I get an agent? Can I get published? Will it lead to lots of other regional productions that will generate income.

The answer is no. The work, if produced to good reviews in Iowa or Buffalo, will be fulfilling in and of itself, but it doesn't translate to a career.

A good review in New York papers, whether it's the Voice (who chooses the Obies) or Time Out or the Times, can make a career and lead to many productions in the very cities being touted here as alternatives to nyc (such as Buffalo).

I've had good reviews in other cities and while I like them, the reviews didn't give me a boost one way or another.

Whether we like it or not, a rave review in the Times can change a writer's life. We've seen it. A rave in Buffalo may or may not.

Chicago is changing that dynamic somewhat (though many folks in nyc are unaware of the Jeff's, Chicago's version of the Obie) and there are playwrights and plays who break out from there. Similarily, Louisville and a few other places can put a playwright on the map (as happened with WIT) - but getting a big regionals attention is just as hard as getting the roundabout's attention (Naomi Wallace, who is from Louisville, told me that she was consistantly rejected by ATL UNTIL she went to London and had rave reviews for her work there) -

I'd like to do new work somewhere, I really would - I don't have the same love for the city that Isaac does (not that there's anything wrong with that)- but the cold hard fact of the matter is, there are more opportunities to support oneself doing new work here than most other places (except maybe london) - sure, it may take awhile to break through, but once you have, you're in a great position. This is where the agents are, this is the media capital, this is where the most influential producers of theatre are, this is also the publishing captial of the US.

Speaking from a strict business viewpoint, this is where the action is as far as theatre goes. There's television here, too, but if one's only goal was to write for television, than LA is the captial of that world. New York, whether the people of Buffalo like it or not, even whether I like it or not (believe me, I'd like to be doing theatre someplace less expensive to live).

[Joshua James]

I cut my comment off at the end - what I meant to say was that New York City, whether we like it or not, is the theatre capital of this country.

[Malachy Walsh]

I also don't think a poor players response was quite as challenging as taken.

But New York ain't all it's cracked up to be. And there's plenty of theatre business in the regions. In fact, I wonder, if you took Broadway out of the picture, would the collective regions do more overall business than the collective theatre companies in NY? There's a good possibility it would.

Keep in mind, too, that a lot of playwrights have their best work done somewhere besides New York, first. Shepard did his in San Francisco, Chris Shinn got raves in London - as did the playwright example offered by Joshua.

And finally, Chicago has been a great place for theatre for decades - since the mid 70s at least - and there's an arguement I've heard people abroad make that it's actually the best place to see theatre in the US.

If you ever visit Chicago and check out the scene, you might agree. There is audience there like I've never seen in NY's off Broadway or Off-off Broadway theatres.

New York's an important place to be for theatre, certainly, but there's a reason it's often commented that Manhattan is an island off the coast of America.

[Joshua James]

I agree about Chicago - but the agents are still mostly in nyc

[isaac]

Again, my goal is not to impugn anywhere else, but rather explain my own calculations. What I love about NYC and why I stay here, even though it's tough at times.

And to Matt and Malachy... I don't mind a challenge. Tom's comment wasn't challenging, it assumed a viewpoint on my part and then condemned it. There's a big difference between the two.

An interesting side note-- what Malachy, Tom and many others are saying is that it is actually easier to get recognized in regional theater within the context of the individual market.
Couldn't we then make the case that those who stay in the regions do it for fame (being big fish in smaller ponds) while those who tough it out in obscurity in NYC do it because they love the work?

See how offensive that argument is? Does my response make a little more sense now?

Malachy, if you took Bway out of the picture (and, to be fair, you'd have to take all touring Bway shows out of the equation in other cities), you'd still be hard pressed to find anything like the Indie Theatre scene anywhere else in the country. Some people don't need that. That's fine. I have noting against them. I just need that right now. That's the point I'm making.

[isaac]

Let me also expand this sentence:
"you'd still be hard pressed to find anything like the Indie Theatre scene anywhere else in the country" so it's not quite as wankerish and condescending as it sounds.

There are plenty of cities with Indie Theater scenes-- Chicago, LA, DC (to some extent) etc.-- I was talking about the size and scope and shear # of people and companies here. There's this crazy vibrant thing going on in this town that I like. There are crazy vibrant things going on in other towns that other people like. I don't think there's anything inherently superior about the work done in NYC. I've seen great work (and done some good work) outside of it. Actually, I personally find even the way we frame the conversation-- NYC. Regional, etc. To be confusing and unhelpful and condescending to those not in NYC.

But I do have my reasons for living here. If I didn't, I wouldn't live here!

[Laura]

I live in rural Alabama now. What do I get of it? Well... I don't bleed internally anymore like I used to when I lived in NYC.

I responded to Tom's entry on Gasp.

BTW, good luck on making your fantasies a reality. The air is better, the cost of living cheaper... Sure I miss the excitement of living in NYC. I don't miss the fear of terrorism. ;)

[Joshua James]

According to Homeland Security, living in Indiana is more of a risk to terrorist attack than New York City.

[Scott Walters]

I think you have to remember the context Tom (and I) write out of: we're college teachers. We see young, talented kids every day who think they HAVE yo go to NYC or they're not doing theatre. We spend time trying to convince them that they have a choice, and making as non-NYC choice is not cowardly or an admission of lesser talent. It isn't about questioning why those who are there stay, it is about validating that other choices are possible and valuable. Yes, as Joshua Hames says, a lot more new work gets done in NYC. But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- a lot more work gets done their because people go there thinking a lot more new work gets done there. If they went other places, a lot more work would get done THERE instead. Does NYC really need more actors and directors and playwrights and designers? Does it need it as much as other cities in this nation? Could we somehow agree to validate the other theatre markets in America? Terry Teachout does this in the Wall Street Journal by regularly writing about regional productions. This raises consciousness of other alternatives. The birth of the regional theatre movement came from a desire to break away from NYC, but over the years it has simply become another version of the old pre-Broadway tour, with actors cast out of New York and brought in for a show or a season at most. This prevents regional theatres from developing a clear identity rooted in their own audience. That's really sad. Read Margo Jones or Zelda Fichlander when they were young -- that was some inspiring stuff. I think we need to stop valorizing NYC as the "center" of the theatre. The fact is that there are more weeks of employment available outside of NYC than in.

[Laura]

Hey Joshua,

That's why I don't live in Indiana either. ;)

[isaac]

Scott,

I'm not one of your students. And neither are my readers (most of them anyway) so addressing me/us as that isn't appropriate. Remembering who you're talking to is important, the social context of the words you write or speak.

Thus treating my desires/actions by the same lens by which you read your students is a faulty way to analyze the issue, and talking to me like I'm one of them is going to be nothing but condescending. The job is both the listener's to remember who is talking to them and the speaker in remembering whom they're talking to.

As to your questions...I think they're all valid ones, and I ask myself those questions all the time. I've tried to answer them. I also regularly try to talk about how important regional theater is. I even wrote a post in which I invited marketing directors to use my website as a way to market their regional shows by writing to tell me about them.

Right now, I think that we treat NYC as the majors and the regional theaters as the farm teams. That's not a particularly healthy way to look at it, and I think the resentment that fosters is completely understandable., as much as I don't like it when it's directed at me.

Anyway... let me ask you guys a question or two... do you like the theater that goes on in Ashland, Scott? What do you like or dislike about it? What do you think Ashland needs, in the way of theater?

[Malachy Walsh]

I'm a writer, not a director, so my perspective is also a little different on the question of NY versus somewhere else.

I didn't come to NY to become famous. I came to learn by being around a lot of other people all trying to do the same thing: theatre. Some are/were here to be famous, some not. I really didn't (and don't) distinguish between the motives. It doesn't matter. If you have something I want, I'm going to try to get close to learn it.

Anyway, fame in theatre, for almost anybody working as something other than an actor, well, it's a strange thought. And, as a career goal, well, isn't it just a means to an end - ie, more work? I got no problem with that.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter where you are, you're going to have to be committed to be successful. The Steppenwolf isn't just known for an actor or two and a handful of good productions, it's a home. That's permanent. It requires commitment.

You should live where you want to work. And thereby, choose the obstacles you're going to have to overcome.

But there's plenty of Indie scenes elsewhere, and it's larger than I understand Isaac suspects. In SF, which I'm most familiar with, there are a lot of small companies doing exciting work: foolsFURY, Playground, a vibrant Fringe Fest (which predates the NY Fringe by many years), Theatre Conspiracy, Black Box, Word for Word, the Mime Troupe, to name but a few.

As to the amount of theatre in NY versus regions, well, yes, NY, by itself, has a quantity of productions that, on a one to one comparison, dwarfs any one town in the US (except maybe Chicago), but my point is that, overall, there's more theatre outside of NY than in it. And there's a lot that's started in the regions that comes to NY, both on and off Broadway - especially when you're talking about new work.

But NY is a tough place for new work. Most stuff gets treated very harshly by critics and audiences here. Plus, the quantities of work created actually make it difficult to get noticed or make an impression - and sometimes even get the right people in the room to get started. The groups that do make it (Clubbed Thumb, for instance) have been in business for a while.

Ultimately, as a writer, I saw no real benefit to hanging around in NY. I didn't grow up here, so I had no attachment to it that way either. And I really didn't want to have to spend so much time in the subway or asking relatives for thousands of dollars to put up a play that might never be seen by a full house.

Generally, too, I think whether you're in NY or not, you've got to work a second job. For me, doing that while producing theatre was easier outside NY than inside, for some of the reasons already noted. (Though I'm currently looking for work outside of NY and only seem to find it back here in NY - talk about irony!)

Anyway, NY is always gonna be NY. In all things. And yet, because of that, there are lots of chances elsewhere to make a mark and find an audience.

[Malachy Walsh]

As for Ashland... I don't know what Scott's take is on it, but here's what I said about it on my blog only a few days ago.

http://litdept.blogspot.com/2006/09/observations-about-ashland-shows.html