Quiz Kid Donnie Smith ([info]dampha) wrote,
  • Mood: cynical
  • Music: Jimmie Dale Gilmore

The Audrey Play Rant

Joel called me last night at around 10:30 to play Broom Street's first bit of negative reaction to Audrey Seiler, Where Are You? A gentleman left a message on Joel's machine to the gist of "I am an enthusiastic supporter of local theater, and I just wanted to let you know that I think your upcoming production is crass, tasteless and ill-conceived, and I think that it's going to put you out of business." I find it surprising that it's taken this long to get such a reaction. I myself have always been less than thrilled about the general concept of an Audrey Seiler play so soon after her public humiliation, and I've expressed my doubts as to whether the playwright in question is the best man to write it--but still, this message unlodged some defensive feelings and behalf of the theater...and on behalf of what we all aspire to as performance artists.

Anybody involved in the arts knows the uphill climb that it is publicizing your work, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that local, regional, and national media are all so stingy in regards to coverage of the arts. And what does get reported tends to involve contention of some sort, whether it be in the form of a contest such as the Oscars, the latest movie power couple break-up, or the latest "controversal" blockbuster (whose real political issues can usually be dismissed in the time it takes tea to steep). And it's contention that gets people's attention in this town, too: just look what happened with Corpus Christi earlier this season. I hasten to mention that Stage Q's production of that play was exceptional, but the play itself is a mediocre treatment of inflamatory material. And no matter how good the stagework was, does anybody honestly believe that CC's sold-out houses were a result of that good work? No, people bought tickets by the bushel before the show even opened. Some of them might have done it to feel righteous in defense of freedom of expression (such as our Mayor), and some might have been slowing down to look at the evangelical car wreck they had heard about. But in any case, as soon as Stage Q began getting letters condemning the producers and cast to hell, they must have known they had a hit on their hands.

Well, it seems that Broom Street has a hit on its hands, too; Audrey Seiler, Where Area You has seen mention in a great variety of regional press and broadcast. And Broom Street can always use a hit. But it will be a bitter accomplishment in light of the pathetic audiences that Untitled Farce and Morality Play saw recently, because it will have nothing to do with whether the show is any good or not. I have no idea whether it's any good because I haven't seen it. And the thing is, neither have you. And neither has the guy who called and predicted that it would be our financial undoing. And meanwhile, most of us won't see--or perhaps even hear about--some of the best work that's going on in this town.

Must art be about controversy? And if so, who's to blame? The "public?" The "media?" George Bush? All the culprits that come to mind sound like especially lame scapegoats, even "we as artists."

So what am I saying? Do I think you should go see Audrey Seiler, Where Are You? I don't care if you do or not. But for god's sake go see and support something, and don't choose it on the basis of what somebody else thinks you ought to see or ought not to see. Choose it because you suspect it's going to leave you in awe. The good work is out there; now find it.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 30 comments

[info]bookbear

July 23 2004, 21:33:42 UTC 7 years ago

Well, I'll have to see it. Like, 18 times plus rehearsals, since i'm working tech. (and, how sadistic am I, that I encouraged a just-graduated student of mine to audition, and he got a part in it!)

Cheers to your comments.

[info]dampha

July 23 2004, 21:48:08 UTC 7 years ago

Yes--I'd forgotten that you were doing tech for this. I hope for your sake that it's good enough to see 20+ times...

[info]fountainal

July 23 2004, 21:35:32 UTC 7 years ago

I have made no bones about the fact that I agree with the caller (except for the part about it putting the theater out of business), and I will definitely NOT go to see it. Want to parody the situation? Fine. But to use the girl's actual name and to do it right here in the town where it happened immediately after it happened is everything the caller said it is - crass, tasteless, and ill-conceived, not to mention cruel, mean-spirited, and shamelessly opportunistic. No, I haven't seen it, but the idea of this show is offensive, even without knowing the content. It is a cheap stunt to fill seats at the expense of a troubled girl. Everyone was quick to criticize and poke fun at Audrey, and to draw their own conclusions about the case, but the fact is that none of us really know the facts or her pscyhological or emotional state, then or now. Bringing attention to the theater is one thing, bringing more attention to the one that is trying to put this behind her, and who has to live with this for the rest of her life is shameful. And you are right of course, this is not the right kind of attention for the theater. This kind of press just perpetuates the notion that Broom Street is the kind of place that does everything but the kinds of quality shows that have enjoyed such positive feedback lately from the precious few people who saw them. I am embarrassed to even admit it when I get asked (and I have been asked) "Hey, isn't that theater doing the Audrey Seiler play the same place where you did your last show?" Everything about this disgusts me.

[info]dampha

July 23 2004, 22:05:21 UTC 7 years ago

I suspect that I will agree with you in the end, but I still cling to the notion that anything is potentially fodder for good art, no matter how offensive or ill-conceived it may seem in the abstract. I would never in a million years dramatize this incident in Madison in 2004 (nor do I think John really should), but I think someone theoretically could.

The "opportunistic" part much of what I was trying to get at in my entry, but from the opposite direction. If opportunism is the only strategy that gets notice, what's wrong with employing it? When I first heard about this play, I worried that the theater might get sued, and I'm still concerned about the feelings of Ms. Seiler and her family. But if people buy tickets for it, which I think they will, does that not justify its existence somewhat?

That's not to say that the lack of butts in seats makes something like Untitled Farce or Tracers unworthy of production, because there are many other factors to consider...but part of public theater always has been giving the people what they want. It's sad and pathetic, of course, if schoolyard taunting in the guise of social criticism is what the public wants. But if it is, nobody should be surprised when somebody else tried to capitalize on it.

Our challenge for the next decade is to try to get media to talk about art in a positive way and to get Joe Sixpack to care about that coverage. Ready? Go!

[info]fountainal

July 23 2004, 22:19:33 UTC 7 years ago

...anything is potentially fodder for good art, no matter how offensive or ill-conceived it may seem in the abstract.

Agreed, but if it's really about art, the very same situation could be dramatized in exaclty the same way, but with a different title that wouldn't attract vultures.

If opportunism is the only strategy that gets notice, what's wrong with employing it?

I don't disagree necessarily, but I don't think it's an excuse to throw moral responsibility out the window. Opportunism often pays off. Many of us have ample opportunity to commit crimes for which we wouldn't get caught. We refrain not simply because we fear being arrested, but because we know it's wrong, regardless of the potential reward. I don't think this particular playwright has that particular scruple.

When I first heard about this play, I worried that the theater might get sued...
Me too. I can only assume that it hasn't happened in part because the family doesn't want to invite the additional attention to themselves that would come from litigation, or maybe they just don't want to dignify the show by acknowledging it in any way, especially since it would only serve to bring even more attention to the show - not unlike all the protestors who transformed The Last Temptation of Christ from an obscure little movie into a big hit.

But if people buy tickets for it, which I think they will, does that not justify its existence somewhat?

It depends on your definition of justification, I suppose. It certainly justifies it in the sense that it proves that this is an effective marketing technique, but to me it still doesn't justify it in a sense of making it OK or consistent with appropriate standards of conduct.

It's sad and pathetic, of course, if schoolyard taunting in the guise of social criticism is what the public wants. But if it is, nobody should be surprised when somebody else tried to capitalize on it.

Agreed, and I am not the least bit surprised - just disappointed and disgusted.

Our challenge for the next decade is to try to get media to talk about art in a positive way and to get Joe Sixpack to care about that coverage. Ready? Go!

I'll see what I can do.

[info]dampha

July 25 2004, 15:09:05 UTC 7 years ago

Agreed, but if it's really about art, the very same situation could be dramatized in exaclty the same way, but with a different title that wouldn't attract vultures

Yeah, but the other half of it is that you have to sell tickets, and nothing sells tickets quite like a provocative title. But on the other hand, as you know from our discussion IRL, I'm getting weary of defending this particular case.

[info]bookbear

July 26 2004, 05:19:54 UTC 7 years ago

I'll post more on my journal about the plot and stuff, but after seeing it in rehearsal, I thought a more interestign and smart thing to do would be to keep the title and the "issues" John so feebly tries to discuss, but have a more completely removed story from Audrey's. Make the title the same so we can use the allusion, but have the story be about something completely different.

[info]ex_costumina527

July 23 2004, 22:20:41 UTC 7 years ago

I don't really want to get into the "is it right or wrong" debate here. I agree with [info]fountainal for the most part. That aside, I want to address your very last statement in the above comment: Joe Sixpack doesn't care about art, or local theatre, and neither does the media unless it's a Corpus Christi controversy situation or some big name theatre with a lot of money and sponsors. I hate to be cynical but I don't think any local theatre in this town is EVER going to get a large majority of the public to truly care about their work. We don't know what they want, and we don't know what to give them except sex and perceived blasphemy and violence, just like they can see on TV every night. It really is a sad state of affairs.

[info]dampha

July 23 2004, 22:40:40 UTC 7 years ago

Sad state of affairs, sure. But it has not always been thus. Joe Sixpack has cared about art in other times and in other places. And he will care again...although the particular show in question is unlikely to help.

I've been reading a bunch of Augusto Boal lately and how he took proletarian and interactive theater forms to peasants who had never seen a play before and got some very macho and earthy people to participate. His was a particular project to serve specific political needs and wouldn't work in Madison, Wisconsin. But it's still an example for us that demonstrates that the artist is not powerless in shaping how the public consumes and appreciates art. I'm convinced that the forms we need are out there waiting to be discovered.

[info]wisconsinwriter

July 24 2004, 13:09:46 UTC 7 years ago

I, WhiteTrash

Thanks, [info]dampha. As I was born and raised in the midst of a long line of white trash Joe Six Packs, I can attest these people can be made to think, and even attend theatre. One Broom Street show I was in, "Martian Time Slip," got my parents engaged in a lively discussion of the treatment of mental illness. They actually enjoyed the show, challenging as it was. Dad was a high school graduate (with some prodding) and Mom had a one-year post high school nursing degree. Ok, Dad was the line of six packs, but he will listen to reason on occassion. Thus his hatred for Dubya. Let's hope that feeling spreads, huh?

[info]ex_costumina527

July 24 2004, 18:31:23 UTC 7 years ago

Re: I, WhiteTrash

The problem is not getting isolated Joe Sixpacks to "occasionally" think, or "occasionally" attend local theatre. It is getting a sizable proportion of the general public to attend local theatre on a regular basis. This is not happening. I am not saying to give up. I am not saying it's an impossible task. I'm just stating that numbers show what sells, and sex and controversy is what sells. Go-Go Girl sold. Corpus Christi sold. No, I'm not happy about this. But it does seem to be the norm.

The sad fact is that going to see local theatre, even for pure entertainment value, is not even a medium-level priority in the public's mind. To give a minor example: If you look on the Isthmus "Daily Page" Forum online, there is a category for Theatre & Dance, and it is probably the least discussed and contributed-to thread on there.The only time it heated up was during Corpus Christi, or whenever someone wants to go on and on about the APT season. I find it sad and confusing that in such an intellectual and culturally aware city as Madison -- and one that prides itself on its small businesses and wants to keep Wal-Mart out of Stoughton and generally espouses a fairly liberal mentality -- that the non-profit performing arts groups get such short shrift.

I have since stopped wondering WHY no cares about local theatre and instead have started wondering what the hell we can do to MAKE them more interested. As usual, publicity is everything, but you have to have something to offer that they want to see. Besides the sex, violence and controversy, I really want to find out what the hell that is.

[info]dampha

7 years ago

[info]antlers2

July 24 2004, 03:40:45 UTC 7 years ago

If marketed wisely and well, there will be an opportunity when Overture opens. That white elephant is going to drive the casual customer away with sticker shock. Places that offer quality entertainment at a reasonable price could benefit from Overture Syndrome.

I thought Callen Harty's opening remarks for Morality Play hit on that perfectly - he talked about deliberately trying to keep prices down.

[info]dampha

July 25 2004, 15:13:09 UTC 7 years ago

That assumes that people want to attend the theater, which I don't believe they do. Generally, Americans see live theater as just another alternative to television and the cineplex. Oh, there are antidotes to that disease (see my previous comments about Boal and proletarian, interactive theater), but unfortunately the Overture ain't one.

[info]antlers2

7 years ago

[info]bookbear

July 26 2004, 05:24:51 UTC 7 years ago

There's a "joke" in Audrey Seilor, Where Are You? about nobody going to The Overture Center, so maybe she could hide out there.

[info]antlers2

7 years ago

[info]riney

July 23 2004, 23:02:11 UTC 7 years ago

But if people buy tickets for it, which I think they will, does that not justify its existence somewhat?

you do realize people used to gather to watch hangings. and bought/sent postcards with pictures of hangings, treating them as a form of entertainment. does that justify its existence?

obviously this isn't a parody of a person's death, but a parody of something just as serious. if audrey had acted merely for humor and as a joke, that would be one thing, but it's obvious that she has psychological problems that shouldn't be ridiculed. no matter how many butts it puts in the Broom Street Theater seats. i actually have a lot less respect for the theater now.

[info]dampha

July 25 2004, 14:49:39 UTC 7 years ago

people used to gather to watch hangings. and bought/sent postcards with pictures of hangings, treating them as a form of entertainment. does that justify its existence

In a moral sense, of course not, and I never meant to suggest that number of tickets sold would ever justify the crossing of moral boundaries. I just meant to suggest that practical commercialism is less than crass, and offering the theater-going public what they want should give us pause about our moral assumptions. Make no mistake--if this show does wind up mocking Audrey Seiler, I will be morally outraged and say so out loud. In fact, I've heard a rumor since I posted on Friday that has already begun to sway my neutral position...more about that later.

But back a few months ago when everybody was screaming for Audrey's head, I pointed out that Audrey's actions had significantly less to do with the gazillions of dollars that other folks decided to spend searching for her than people were inclined to give her credit for. The phonomenon of the search was activated by forces larger than Audrey herself. Now, here is a situation in which larger forces--and not the content of the play in question--has given rise to an assumption that the play will be a personal attack. The major difference is that John Sable was completely aware of the public outcry that was likely to come from his actions, but the content of the controversy--and again, this will change once the play opens to the public and we get to judge its content--has everything to do with the play's critics and little to do with the play itself. It's like when everybody was arguing over whether The Passion of the Christ was anti-Semitic before anybody had seen the film.

[info]riney

July 25 2004, 14:53:24 UTC 7 years ago

alright. well then (for now) i'll just say that i'm offended by the Title of the play.

[info]dampha

7 years ago

[info]fountainal

July 23 2004, 23:40:37 UTC 7 years ago

One more thing...

As it turns out, she plead out her case quickly and was sentenced relatively promptly, which is unusual. Based on how things usually wend their way through the court system, it was very likely at the time the rehearsal process started that the legal case against Audrey would be pending until well into the run of the show or longer, which is yet one more reason why it was irresponsible to do this show in this place at this time.

[info]dampha

July 25 2004, 15:13:53 UTC 7 years ago

Re: One more thing...

I had completely overlooked that angle--thanks for pointing it out.

[info]wisconsinwriter

July 25 2004, 16:47:12 UTC 7 years ago

Re: One more thing...

This all sounds like a reason to go see The Producers as a group when it hits the silver screen...

[info]littleevening

July 25 2004, 20:45:25 UTC 7 years ago

My biggest problem with the play is the fact that I know the playwrite. And I think I know his intentions. And by no means was this play done for the art or the message. It's one thing to be opportunistic, if you still have a point and a message about those current events. But, it's my opinion (note, I say MY opinion) that this play is solely about being opportunistic. I think it is just as shallow as the playwrite has proven himself to me. (Again, just MY opinion).

Just like it's my opinion that other plays by this playwrite, say, one about a socially active porn star, wasn't about the message. It was about the opportunity to meet a porn star and see topless actresses pole dance on stage.

[info]ex_costumina527

July 25 2004, 21:10:54 UTC 7 years ago

Just like it's my opinion that other plays by this playwrite, say, one about a socially active porn star, wasn't about the message. It was about the opportunity to meet a porn star and see topless actresses pole dance on stage.

Which, I might add, was a vile play. I am not in the least offended by onstage nudity or shock value or anything of that ilk. But the play you mention was just unspeakably sordid. Everything was gratuitous, the acting was abysmal, and I had to spend much of the play's running time trying to restrain a certain other BST playwright from climbing over the back wall of the seat bank to escape. I should have just joined him in doing so.

Anonymous

July 26 2004, 04:43:59 UTC 7 years ago

No idea who you could be talking about.

rob.

[info]ex_costumina527

July 26 2004, 20:51:02 UTC 7 years ago

You know it's bad when you're watching a play about strippers featuring full-frontal nudity with a straight man, and instead of being even remotely interested, he's casting around frantically for the exit.

Anonymous

July 27 2004, 13:22:58 UTC 7 years ago

My first reaction was: Uh...who's Audrey Seiler again?

My second reaction was: Dude, you should be in marketing! :^)

Kite
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…