Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Avant-garde?

This past weekend, I sat in the audience of Othello at Marin Theatre Company, and a couple behind me (matching the description of most of the audience members there:  These Fine Folks were a heterosexual upper middle class white couple in their seventies) were discussing cancelling their subscription to Berkeley Repertory Theatre.  Apparently Berkeley Rep has become “too avant-garde.”  They then discussed the possibility of going to Aurora Theatre Company instead, but the wife quickly discounted that idea, saying that Aurora is even more avant-garde than Berkeley Rep.

Now, I know I’m one of these damn young kids that sits in front of a screen all day...but Berkeley Rep?  Aurora?  Avant-garde?  I mean, they keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.  



By “avant-garde” what do they mean?  
Too many solo shows?  (Palomino, Rita Moreno, Let Me Down Easy)  
Too many people of color on stage?  (Arabian Nights, Ruined, Trouble in Mind)  
Too much puppetry?  (Compulsion, The Composer is Dead, The Soldier’s Tale
Too much multi-disciplinarianism?  (Soldier’s Tale, The Wild Bride)
Too much activism?  (The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, Let Me Down Easy)  
Too many gay characters?  (Ghost Light, Body Awareness
...What?

Of course These Fine Folks are entitled to their opinion, and should subscribe to whatever theatre floats their boat!  But what does this mean, if the shows that Berkeley Rep and Aurora are programming for their seasons is too...whatever...for couples like These Fine Folks, who make up a good portion of the subscription population that these companies are trying to please? And what does it mean when some of the members of these audiences might find a lot of the "avant-garde" shows offered by professional theatres in town not at all avant-garde, but firmly within their boundaries?  Those same audiences that find all of those elements listed above not only aesthetically exciting, but sometimes even normal in their theatre going experience: those same audiences may actually WANT to see people of color, multidisciplinary art, masks and puppets, gay characters, and activists, and to see them as a matter of fact, and not as something "other".  



In fact, these "avant-garde"-loving audience members might find it stretches their comfort level to watch what These Fine Folks behind me at Othello would call normal. Stuff that Berkeley Rep and Aurora still program with as much frequency as the rest of it: shows about what These Fine Folks seem to want to see, shows that feature people that look like they do and grew up in similar circumstances and whose sexual orientation is neutral or closeted or straight, just like their own. Shows like A Delicate Balance, Red, Metamorphosis, Eccentricities of a Nightingale, How To Write a Book for the Bible, Anatol, A Doctor in Spite of Himself...well, frankly, more than half of each theatre's season.

Surely there’s a middle ground here.  In fact, I think the middle ground IS the ground.

6 comments:

  1. I think this issue might address an alternative reason theaters seem to be offering more flexible subscription options (for example, any 2 plays out of a 5-play season)-- which probably attracts a more diverse crowd of people who enjoy the benefits of subscriptions (reserved seats, lower single-ticket prices) but don't want to commit to attending every performance of the season.

    My totally unsubstantiated guess would be that the overall subscriber base is getting more diverse with people who have a variety of reasons for desiring flexibility, but that the subscriber audiences for each show may be more homogenous to the members who share programming preferences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think theatres offering a more flexible subscription plan are definitely seeing a more diverse crowd, and probably in fact banking on it...those young kids that won't commit slash can't afford a whole season at a time. I wonder, if in the future, it became also about getting the "regular" subscribers to start buying those flex-plans, too. What would programming look like, do you think, if ALL subcribers only had to commit to watching three out of five shows per year?

      Delete
  2. Isn't the point of theatre to invoke emotion and hold the mirror up to ourselves, so to speak? How are we, as a society, to learn, grow, stretch our imaginations and curiosities if we only want to invest in, and see the naive in life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are questions being asked all over the place! For a lot of people, the point of theatre is for relaxation, social bonding (validating what and who they already know). (For a lot of people that's totally NOT the point, but that's another blah).

      The problem with holding up a mirror to the "typical audience" is, the audience is changing and it's just as jarring for one side as to the other. But to call people on stage and aesthetics that I see and enjoy daily "avant-garde" is funny to me. It's like super right wing conservatives calling Obama a socialist.

      Delete
  3. I also think the language used by theatre artists to communicate to audiences (and vise versa) needs to change or be redefined. The phrase, "Avant-garde", conjures up images I associate with performance art-like watching a burlesque dancer singing an aria while seductively dropping handfuls of spaghetti into her mouth, not a lesbian couple and their autistic son hashing out their relationship in the Vermont home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree! In this case I feel like "avant-garde" was this particular couple's shorthand for "weird."

      Also, I'd say after seeing some pretty crazy stuff (dare I say avant-garde after all this?) at burlesque shows - like a man hanging heavy weights off of his freshly-pierced tenders, and a woman eating and regurgitating tiny snakes...your image of avant-garde sounds well-nigh relaxing.

      But I digress...

      Delete