Producing "Controversial" Material
Printed From: Community Theater Green Room
Category: Theater Administration
Forum Name: Running Your Theater
Forum Discription: General questions about how to make it work
URL: http://www.communitytheater.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3729
Printed Date: 11/23/24 at 3:32am Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Producing "Controversial" Material
Posted By: Nikki Adams
Subject: Producing "Controversial" Material
Date Posted: 1/10/09 at 10:15pm
Bear with me here, I'll get to the ultimate point, but the background is germaine.
So, here I am, president of a community theatre where I've been a member for more than 25 years. First few months go fine, no huge issues. The previous president was much more conciliatory than I, I suppose I should mention that; during his entire 2 year term, every vote was unanimous. On the surface, lots of harmony. Below the surface, well, not so much.
In any case, a few months ago I learn that there is a new VDay Campaign chapter in our area, and they are looking to produce The Vagina Monologues and A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant & A Prayer at a local community theatre. Yay, I think, what a coup that would be - we'd draw people to the company that would likely not come to see us otherwise, we'd likely draw new actor blood, and best of all, we'd be hosting two productions that will benefit 2 incredibly worthy causes: domestic violence and genital mutiliation (by way of The Women of the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Wow - a can't lose, right? Again, not so much.
I'm not completely blind, mind you, I've known the "old guard" on my board for more than 25 years, I know that they can be sort of stuck in the mud, know that change comes harder for some than others, but, hey, I was flyin' high on these same old guard members telling me what a GREAT job I was doing as president. So, instead of the doing the politically wise thing, and having another member of the board advance the notion of supporting the production of these two plays, I brought it to the board myself. First meeting had a couple of reservations raised by 3 members of the board; of the three, two felt we needed to be careful of offering our space for free to anyone else, since we charge for building rentals for "everyone else", and one felt very very strongly that it would be horribly embarrassing that the word Vagina would be on our marquee. You can imagine it, and I'm sure some here agree with her. "What if a child sees it", "What if the clergy saw it" ... you get the idea.
So, anyway, I get a majority vote at that first meeting to pursue the idea, with two different approaches: 1 to offer them free space to hold auditions and rehearsals, and a separate one to allow them to use the stage for basically an abbreviated tech week and 4 performance days/nights. I speak to the VDay folks, and come up with a plan. Because of time constraints due needing to get the audition dates set in a very short time, we had to hold the vote in the 45 minutes prior to a general membership meeting, so I was sure to solicit pros and cons from our full board membership via email, which I then put into one document, listing the cons first. Only 2 (seemingly) had content issues with the play, one of whom sent around sentiments from the Clare Booth Luce page from a Catholic website that I found offensive in the extreme - certainly more offensive the use of the words we call a female body part. 3 or 4 members related their reservations to allowing another non-profit to use our space free. My opinion on that was that we aren't the government, we can pick and choose who we give our space to, and, the biggest thing to me, this particular non-profit was developed out of a theatrical production. I did let people know my opinion, but went no further than that.
The final vote meeting comes, and I asked for motions to consider the options separately, figuring if a motion to allow the use of the stage failed for no fee, I could entertain a motion to allow the use of the stage with a fee. And, the motion carries for audition & rehearsal at no charge with 15 yes, 4 no and no abstentions. The motion to allow the productions to use our theatre space at no charge carried at 12 for, 3 against and no abstentions. Good majority, right? Right.
Wrong.
The next day, a board member resigns by sending an incredibly insulting email to the entire board (not the way the bylaws say someone is supposed to resign). I'm accused of influencing votes, and various other "heinous" acts. Then I get a call from the Clare Booth Luce supporter literally crying because people will be saying the C-word on our beloved stage ... and there are 2 board members not speaking to me at all, not even to answer board-business related questions relevant to their jobs on the board. Majority vote, right? Apparently not in the minds of these 4 people. It should be noted that those that abstained have no problem with me at all, just these 4 no's.
Now, all of that background given, here's my questions ...
1) Have any other community theatres done or hosted these productions, and if so, have they had this kind of stuff happen?
2) For those of you who are officers on a board, what would you have done differently than what I did?
3) I'd be interested in opinions about whether you think it's appropriate to move forward based on a wide-margin majority vote, even with the sort of fallout I experienced?
4) And, finally, overall, how does your theatre company handle the more controversial plays out there? Not just TVM, but controversial material in general. (I should mention, also, that we are not typically a vanilla material theatre company - we've done plays with drug abuse, incest, pregnancy resulting from incest, "foul" language, use of the N word, homosexuality, etc.)
Hopefully, I didn't lose the majority of the community members with the long exposition - I'd really like to hear from people about this!
Thanks!
|
Replies:
Posted By: pdavis69
Date Posted: 1/12/09 at 9:23am
1) We have done shows of questionable appeal and taste. Not everyone likes, agrees with or even supports these shows. I personally do not like these controversial shows so I am not involved in them. I vote no when the board vote comes along then if I am on the losing end of the vote I step back and stay out of the way. I might say "I told you so when we don't break even but that's about it.
2 and 3) You have a majority vote from the board and so you have every right to go forward. A board can not be held hostage by some individuals who are in the minority (even if it's me).
4) Our theatre does 5 regular shows as part of the patron season. These are usually shows we feel will please our regular parton base. We have space in our year to do up to three other shows which are separate from the patron season. These shows can be edgy/controversial or also could be used as a chance of trying out a new director. These second stage shows are typically done with a smaller budget.
On a personal note, not everyone who does not support these types of shows being done in a community theatre is a close minded stick in the mud. I regularly vote against this type of programming at our theatre because our audience has again and again voted against these shows by not attending. It was always my opinion we should provide shows the audience wants to see and also at the very least break even on a budget.
------------- Patrick L. Davis
Fort Findlay Playhouse
|
Posted By: Nikki Adams
Date Posted: 1/12/09 at 12:46pm
I sure didn't mean to imply that everyone who doesn't agree with the more controversial shows are sticks in the mud, just that the few who had content issues have historically been that way.
I likely would never support this exact set of productions as a part of our season or even as a Footlighters production. This specific scenario is one of hosting only. The VDay group is doing all of the work, and they are keeping all of the proceeds. We're in the same boat as most small community theatres, in that our membership is down and our budget is suffering. We had enough money in our budget 2 years ago to finally move forward with a second stage in our building, and then our boiler blew and we spent every reserve cent we had. So, now we're back to producing the "butts-in-the-seats" shows and trying to rebuild our reserve. Very depressing!
Thank you for your feedback!
Originally posted by pdavis69
1) We have done shows of questionable appeal and taste. Not everyone likes, agrees with or even supports these shows. I personally do not like these controversial shows so I am not involved in them. I vote no when the board vote comes along then if I am on the losing end of the vote I step back and stay out of the way. I might say "I told you so when we don't break even but that's about it.
2 and 3) You have a majority vote from the board and so you have every right to go forward. A board can not be held hostage by some individuals who are in the minority (even if it's me).
4) Our theatre does 5 regular shows as part of the patron season. These are usually shows we feel will please our regular parton base. We have space in our year to do up to three other shows which are separate from the patron season. These shows can be edgy/controversial or also could be used as a chance of trying out a new director. These second stage shows are typically done with a smaller budget.
On a personal note, not everyone who does not support these types of shows being done in a community theatre is a close minded stick in the mud. I regularly vote against this type of programming at our theatre because our audience has again and again voted against these shows by not attending. It was always my opinion we should provide shows the audience wants to see and also at the very least break even on a budget. |
|
Posted By: pdavis69
Date Posted: 1/12/09 at 1:33pm
Butts in the seats has been our motto the last two seasons. I hope "our boiler blew" meant it died and not actually blew up. Our Theatre was devestated by a flood a year and a half ago. We lost almost everything but our auditorium and tool room (They were on the upper floor and everything else was in the basement). The rebuild took us from a cash rich theatre to having to pinch every penny. Good luck on your shows.
------------- Patrick L. Davis
Fort Findlay Playhouse
|
Posted By: SpenceKenzer
Date Posted: 2/23/09 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by Nikki Adams
Bear with me here, ... [snip] 1) Have any other community theatres done or hosted these productions, and if so, have they had this kind of stuff happen? 2) For those of you who are officers on a board, what would you have done differently than what I did? 3) I'd be interested in opinions about whether you think it's appropriate to move forward based on a wide-margin majority vote, even with the sort of fallout I experienced? 4) And, finally, overall, how does your theatre company handle the more controversial plays out there? Not just TVM, but controversial material in general. (I should mention, also, that we are not typically a vanilla material theatre company - we've done plays with drug abuse, incest, pregnancy resulting from incest, "foul" language, use of the N word, homosexuality, etc.) [snip] |
Hello, Nikki
I feel your pain! I have just completed 13 years on the volunteer board of directors for my CT, 7 of those years as president. I'm happy to respond to your posting.
(1) No, our CT has not done those plays nor hosted productions of them. Our CT tends to do the “vanilla material” and has avoided Controversial Material as part of our main stage season, except on rare occasions. We've had plays with strong language, we've had plays with mature situations & subject matter, heck we've even had a play brief mild nudity (TV grade "NYPD Blue" level nudity). Our audiences have given us feedback when they dislike the controversial elements, and for the most part we've listened.
(2) If I handle a big/serious issue (like Controversial Material) with my CT board, I try to (A) make sure I give them all of the information they need for the discussion well in advance, so they can read it and consider it before the meeting, (B) if possible, outline clear options and alternatives to decide between, again as far in advance as possible, and (3) state explicitly my expectation that I am seeking a "not the usual everybody-votes-yes" discussion on the issue.
Why?
I have often been reminded explicitly by my fellow CT board members that: people who volunteer their time and effort to be a volunteer member of a CT's board of directors are doing so (1) in their spare time, (2) as a hobby, for fun. It follows that everyone wants to “play nice”, get along, and do what the group wants; after all, no one wants to get all serious about it because that could make it “not fun”, and people are unlikely to volunteer to be board members if the process is “not fun” (after all, who wants to do something “not fun” for fun?).
Given this, when the CT's board meets and a motion is proposed it is nearly always unanimously passed or defeated. [Every once in a very long while we have an abstention or two. Even less often (WAY less) we have someone vote opposite to everyone else, but that is very rare.]
For a big/serious issue (such as Controversial Material), if you provide enough advance notice you can discuss the Hell out of the issue at your meeting, then table the motion until the next meeting. That gives everyone a chance to further consider the discussion, ask further questions, respond to the discussion, etc., so that by the next meeting they are better prepared to complete the discussion and vote on the motion. (3) Once the board of directors passes a motion (properly, according to the organization’s constitution, bylaws, rules of order, policies & procedures, etc.), then it is up to ALL board members to support the actions of any board member (executive or otherwise) toward fulfilling that motion. Those who voted “yes” will probably provide active support; those who abstained from voting or who voted “no” can be forgiven for providing only passive support. At the very least, no board member should hinder or undermine the actions of other board members toward fulfilling the motion. The challenge with Controversial Material is that it stirs passionate emotions, the kind that might lead voters in the minority of the vote to react strongly (such as you described, with the insulting email, the not-speaking-to-you, etc.).
If I vote “no” against something, and it nonetheless is passed by the majority, IMHO it is immature and rude of me to openly undermine it, or to lash out at others who supported it by voting “yes”. If I choose to be governed by my strong and passionate feelings on the matter, perhaps I will resign from the board; that is my right and my choice to make at all times.
(4) When our CT produces plays containing Controversial Material, we try to "soften the blow" by providing appropriate warnings in the program and (if appropriate) on ads & posters; if the director of the play can gently explain or justify the Controversial Material in the Director's Notes in the program, that can also be helpful. It is important for the audience to know what the CT's reasons are and the Director's reasons are for choosing to present this particular Controversial Material. Once you've done that, then it's up to the audience to accept your presentation of the Controversial Material ... or not, as is their choice.
That's my 2-cents' worth.
------------- --------------------<*>
Saludos, my dahlinks, and you know who you are ... !
|
Posted By: aaribis
Date Posted: 2/23/09 at 8:51pm
I myself am an artisitc director for a community theatre in a very conservative area. The community theatre groups does not produce TVM, but a small group of us that sit on our board and are active in the community theatre. The best thing I could recommend is get copies of TVM and give it to your board. The play is very powerful and although "vagina" seems to be the key word for getting upset, many theatre lovers forgive much once they see what the play is truly about. it is trying to break the stigma of "vaginas" being bad and dirty and something we shouldn't talk about. ha. we still get a lot of flack from the community, our theatre board has come around and now - even though it is not on the community theatre's season- evrey person on the board is involved in some way. It took some three years before they would even see it, but now there is no going back.
|
Posted By: pdavis69
Date Posted: 2/24/09 at 1:26pm
It sounds like things are the same all over. "I don't mind it happening, as long as it doesn't happen here."
------------- Patrick L. Davis
Fort Findlay Playhouse
|
Posted By: aesaund
Date Posted: 2/26/09 at 4:08pm
We build our season on controversial shows because none of the other theater companies in our area tackle them.
It serves us well, the shows always break even or sell out and it allows the typical non-theater goer to take a chance on theater. Often times we'll see some of these "self-proclaimed" non-theater people at the other theater company shows once they've been "inducted" on their terms.
Our season of 5 musicals always includes 2-3 controversial shows, 1 classic, and 1 standard.
Alan Saunders
Center Stage Players
http://www.centerstageplayers.com - www.centerstageplayers.com
------------- Alan Saunders
Producer In Charge
www.centerstageplayers.com
|
Posted By: pdavis69
Date Posted: 2/26/09 at 4:37pm
I think a group that did only those type of shows would do very well in Columbus. My big problem is that your Assassins runs the same dates as my Urinetown. I love Assassins and we are just up the road in Findlay.
------------- Patrick L. Davis
Fort Findlay Playhouse
|
Posted By: aesaund
Date Posted: 2/26/09 at 5:06pm
Isn't that always how it goes? The show I want to see is always during one of our productions.
It took us a few years before we decided to break out of the norm. In the beginning we lost a few audience members, but what we lost we more than made up for with a younger audience.
You are dead correct that it would be good for your company to do those shows.
------------- Alan Saunders
Producer In Charge
www.centerstageplayers.com
|
Posted By: bellagio
Date Posted: 2/26/09 at 8:01pm
It is great to see that your company has had success off the beaten track, Alan. Most of the companies I have been involved with are dead set against what they see as the risk of alienating their regulars. At the same time, they fret about seeing that base eroded by age, etc.
The need to draw a new (and younger) audience is critical, yet in the past two years I've seen two groups close their doors without reaching the point of being willint to simply try something new.
|
Posted By: Fractal514
Date Posted: 4/18/09 at 10:05pm
I am currently president of the board of directors at our theater. I have found that bringing items to the table myself has been met with more resistance than if something is brought by another board member. I hope you don't take this as me judging your ability as president, but... At our theater we are instructed by the by-laws to follow Robert's Rules of Order. In Rob's Rules, it states pretty explicitly that the role of any president or presiding officer is not to weigh in, but rather to mediate and organize conversations. By appearing bias, members get the sense of too much power in one person, at least they have at my theater when I expressed a strong opinion that someone did not agree with. Maybe this doesn't apply at your theater, but again, perhaps it's food for thought.
In any event, I don't evny your positions, and if I were you I'd stick to my guns at this point or put the issue to a membership vote.
|
Posted By: John Luzaich
Date Posted: 4/24/09 at 11:08am
Wow, many great comments on this post. It seems like the majority of community theatres are on the more conservative side of things. Many comments about not wanting to alienate customers, or losing the good old base of older folks. A director in Arizona told me he does almost no programming for older folks because if that's mostly what you do, that's mostly what you get and you'll never get new people, younger kids, middle age and the rest. We also tend to be more conservative than not. Someone else said to me "we'll we're a theatre, we're not church. If they want church that's a different building down the street." I really think most people are pretty open minded and I think it's healthy to give them different experiences that they might not normally see in life. We produced Death of a Salesman and there is some strong language and a lot of arguing or yelling. We had a couple of people walk out and one of them told me "I just can't watch it, it's too uncomfortable, I didn't grow up with that in my household. But they're doing a good job with the show, it's just not for me". But the show sold several hundred tickets better than expected and I think we need to make people uncomfortable sometimes, get them to move off their mark, think and see things differently. I think people respected us for the good piece of theatre it was. With some other shows we've done, we might have lost a couple/few people but we've gained more than we lost. We're still probably fairly conservative in the choice of plays and as you know, it's hard to find the right balance. But we try not to "always pick safe" plays. We'll never please everyone all of the time and our challenges are great.
------------- John
cfct@cfu.net
http://www.osterregent.org
http://www.facebook.com/osterregent
|
Posted By: MartyW
Date Posted: 4/24/09 at 2:08pm
I think if examined closely... You might find that the "conservative" theaters are such as they are because of a conservative community (relatively speaking) Those who get to ride the edge, most likely, are those from larger, more cosmopolitin areas, (Or have a heck of an endowment in the bank)... IMHO
------------- Marty W
"Till next we trod the boards.."
|
|