Theater Mythology

It's a tough business theater is, on both sides of the stage. Whether the instinct for protection or survival holds sway over the rational thought process is anyone's guess, but the amount of misinformation in circulation - repeated so often it seems true - to an unsuspecting and believing public is alarming. That this information is confidently given out again and again by people who should know better must give anyone who cares about theater as a viable art form pause. I was able to gather a bunch of my favorites for your consideration ...

We Don't Read the Reviews - one of the most time-honored myths. All actors and members of the theater community read the reviews. If they don't see the actual write-up, they'll read it in the expression of those around them, or note it in the size of the house. One actor told me she saves them up for the end of the run, so it doesn't affect her current performance. It's true that most reviews are worthless (mine too!), but there may be a pearl tucked away that an actor or a director can use. Only a fool would fail to read them.

Critics Can't Kill a Show - this is tossed about by the selfsame individuals who have just panned your show. Theaters of course know better; you'll see them dumping tickets the next day on the deep-discount outlets. People are impressed by what they read or see, whether it's true or not and it's mostly untrue. This is an unfair, but there it is, an unbalanced fact of life.

An Actor Has to Like the Character He (or She) Plays - I feel a little like David Mamet when I hear or read this cliché: just read the x#!!@^* lines! More bad acting decisions come from close identification with a character. It's the theatrical equivalent of the Stockholm Syndrome. Don't get taken hostage by your character!

The Actor Has Been Miscast - put out by critics who don't like or don't understand a performance. Yes, there are less than inspired casting decisions, but ... An actor is never miscast (underline three times). Perhaps the actor has trouble finding his or her way into a role - not enough rehearsal time or guidance from the director; maybe the director has failed to elicit the performance needed. Possibly we as an audience lack the imagination to conceive of an actor in a particular role or in a particular way. But the actor is not miscast. Think about it: open casting is accepted virtually everywhere today; and casting-against-type success stories are proverbial. These actors are all miscast by definition. The problem is not in the stars, dear reader, it's in ourselves.

Design Is Important to a Production - also goes by the name of "high production values" - theaters put this out and audiences and Helen Hayes Judges are taken in by this as well. Design is not a necessary and sufficient condition for a good show. A script, director, and actors (in that order) are; if you're lacking in any of these, you won't have a good show, but with them you can run it in a basement or a jail (as has been done) with good results. The best design in the world won't get you squat. I've seen more money poured down the drain on this one. Good design does not have to cost much; a suggestion here, an accent there, and let the audience use its imagination to fill in the gaps.

Previews (or PWYCs) Are As Good As a Run Performance - if you a stickler for quality (I'm not), you may want to wait until the end of a run. The previews are just that; the performers and technical people are trying out their roles and shows. The actors are not going to give you everything they've got (why should they?) and the show will change before Showtime, opening night. Even then though, lack of performance time and nerves, may adversely affect a show. Actors are like hitters in baseball - they need a constant, regular number of at bats, to develop proficiency. If you just want to see a play on its feet, go early - its cheaper and less crowded; but if you want to see the best performance possible, wait until the end, when the problems have been corrected, the opening night nerves (and critics) are gone and, counter-intuitively, the actors are all but sick of saying their lines, and looking forward to their next shows. That's when the real show emerges.

The Audience was Good (or Bad) Tonight - this chestnut is given out by the acting community to justify the performance. Sort of win-win logic: if I'm good, you're good; and if I'm good, and you don't get it, you're bad. No, the actors don't get it. The audience is reacting to what they see on stage only. I've seen a house full of seniors at a matinee rolling in the aisles, while a boisterous, alcohol-fueled opening night crowd was virtually silent. The performance is all.

Critics Improve the Quality of Theater - the same self-serving folks who are slaying your productions show after show are responsible for this. They need some justification for their carping efforts, so they do it in the name of quality. Criticism may improve the quality of a show: thoughtful, insightful, and extended commentary, such as would appear in a journal or magazine article can have a salutary effect on quality, but not the stuff you read or see in the dailies. This is not criticism. To borrow and modify from Gore Vidal, this amounts to "play chat," the kind of mindless prattle about likes and dislikes, solecisms in a nutshell, that inform the reader of nothing but the reviewer in question.

Audience Behavior is Worse than Ever - this misconception has almost the stature of The Big Lie, as we are regularly reminded of potential transgressions - in thought, word, and deed - before every show. I'm taking off my critic's hat here and speaking as a customer, which I occasionally am. The theater community and the media (who know a negative story when they see one) so self-righteously bemoan our alleged poor behavior, you'd think that it was they who were paying us to come, and not the other way around. But is this true? Many of the regular theatergoers I see are seniors, hardly the rebellious type. The younger crews that frequent the in-town venues, particularly the Millennials, are, well, nice; they'd just like to text and snap photos on their cell phones, they're willing to pocket their devices for the old folks, but hey chill! Many of the venues don't serve alcohol, and those that do find patrons less willing, for a variety of reasons, to imbibe. So the drunken crowds of the bad old days don't greet today's performers. Neither do they encounter paid and spontaneous disrupters of the past, bear-baiting antics from the pits, and hissing and booing of performances. Professional entertainers are or should be capable of playing through any disruption, but we're not at church. No more sermons puh-leeze!!

The Theater Community is Open to the Public - like the world of nature - the jungle comes to mind - indifferent and intent on its survival would be a better way of characterizing the relationship. This may be the result of the unions or the highly competitive market or occasioned by the media or the Helen Hayes Awards process; whatever, information and access is restricted and dispensed on a need-to-know basis. The theater community here is a closed shop, one that's looking after its own interests first; if it coincides with the public's, so be it. But the only time you'll usually hear from theaters is when they need money. (How quickly outreach programs would disappear if grants dried up.) Reading you the riot act before every performance or lamenting the decline in standards (see above), you, the paying customer, are held in low regard, all objections to the contrary notwithstanding. It even catches me too; I forget this is the world of theater where everyone's acting. What I think we (the audience) need from the theater community is not a mission statement, not a list of dos and don'ts, nor a code of ethics, but an audience rights policy or pledge such as offered at your local supermarket. When I see this, and only then, will I truly believe that theaters care about their supporting public.