Just Wrought

Recovering playwright, once won a STRANGER Genius Award for theater. Now writing a bloated novel about… G-d help me! Theatre.

Tony Kushner Cannot Support Himself as a Playwright

Written by

jefferyr

in

,

Is this true?  Is it significant?  What does it mean to Seattle in its struggle to become a world class theatre town?

I have to admit, for all my complaining about lack of institutional support for new work, especially outside New York City, I was still shocked when I read this in Scott Waters blog, Theatre Ideas  (crucial reading as far as I’m concerned): 

“I make my living now as a screenwriter! Which I’m surprised and horrified to find myself saying, but I don’t think I can support myself as a playwright at this point. I don’t think anybody does.” — Tony Kushner, in Time Out.

My question to you: if Tony Kushner, who I would argue is the best playwright in America today, can’t support himself as a playwright, can anybody? And if not, should Kushner’s statement be seen as an earthquake that might lead to the examination of the overall theatre business model?

Over a year ago, at Seattle’s Outrageous Fortune discussion, one of our Big House Artistic Administrators stood up in defense of his theatre’s relative neglect of new work development by saying, “We are looking for excellence and we’re just not finding it.”  At the time, outraged as I was, I thought he was just talking about local playwrights.  But now I understand he really meant everywhere and everyone.  When Seattle’s Big Houses claim to want to address vital current issues, they go one of two ways: they mount one-person shows like I am Rachel Corrie and The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, or they yank a “classic” off the shelf and say, “Here, Glengary Glen Ross shows us something relevant about the recent mortgage meltdown that had its epicenter a mile and a half south of here at the WaMu Tower.”  When, of course, it does nothing of the sort.

Somehow this nation can support hundreds upon hundreds of regional theatre artistic directors, managing directors, development directors and adjunct staff—a whole class of workers that can only be described as “artistic administrators”; but even our very best writer for the stage must go to film and television for his bread and butter.

We all nod sagely and agree the system’s broken.  But if you want to fix it—do more than watch sadly as it dies the death of ragdoll—then I continue to suggest you follow the money and ask impolite questions.

Comments

49 responses to “Tony Kushner Cannot Support Himself as a Playwright”

  1. Patrick Lennon

    So what does the system look like where a playwright can make a living? For the sake of discussion, ignore for the moment where the money comes from. Playwright is never going to be a 40-hour-a-week salaried job, just as writing a book isn’t. The writer of a novel only “makes a living” if they get a large advance to cover the cost of writing the book, or if they sell a significant number of copies.
    So what does that look like for playwrights? What are you asking for? Maybe I just missed it, but I feel like I read a lot of “playwrights don’t make money” posts, without any “this is what I actually want to see” posts. Where in the process do playwrights make more money? During the writing? During performances? And who gives it to them? The theatre company? A publishing company? Some other entity? Then we can start talking about where that money actually comes from…

    Reply
  2. Wesley K. Andrews

    Patrick —
    I’d like to see a world where our venerated theatres are straight-up *employing* writers, on a salary with health benefits.
    I don’t really see why you’re equating playwrights and novelists; they work in fundamentally different industries.

    Reply
  3. Scot Augustson

    Patrick: I have no solution. Theater is a terrible business model. It can’t really take advantage of economy of scale. The essentials it provides {a)Providing an event for people to gather at, and b) telling stories } can be found elsewhere for much cheaper. But, there is something maddening about the fact that there are (a few) people making their living. Yes the admin staff. And also the folks in the tech unions. I would not begrudge anyone a job with a living wage. But when I go to a show I can do without a pretty set or nice costume, but can’t live without good writing and acting.
    Again, I can look back (with my “way back” machine ) and see how this came to be and nobody out there is evil. There is no giant pile of gold in the basements of theaters across this land…but it is still maddening.

    Reply
  4. Jim Jewell

    Wes, you really don’t see any relationship between how two writers make a living? You can find a difference between the industries, but there is also a lot of resonance.
    I’d argue that separating playwright and screenwriter is more artificial. That playwrights make their “actual” money from TV or film isn’t very surprising.
    And this is where the connection to the novelist comes in. A published novelist can expect to have earned a couple bucks per hour on his/her first couple of books. To make real money, they have to bank on previous success to get an advance, or get optioned to TV or film.
    My point is I find it unsurprising that writers of all sorts can’t make a living writing what they want to write, and have to find other ways to make their writing pay.
    But, I agree with you on what you want to see – more artists as full-time staff, including writers. And I’d like to see that paid for by cutting the salaries of senior management.
    The industry can’t survive on a model where theatres regularly pay over 5% of the annual operating budget to just the salaries of the AD and MD.

    Reply
  5. Gianni Truzzi

    Oh, give me a friggin’ break. Tony Kushner has never really tried to make a living as a playwright. Let’s face it, the guy wrote an epic pair of plays over 25 years ago, and has done practically nothing since. I count one critically well-received box office bomb (Caroline or Change) and two complete messes (Homebody/Kabul and now Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide). This level of productivity is not from someone who is seriously trying to make his living as a playwright.
    You want a good example of someone trying and succeeding to make a living as a playwright? Talk to Steven Dietz. He’s written 40 original plays and adaptations over the last 30 years, a volume which ensures a steady royalty stream. Of course, even he has to teach (I assume he has to) to live comfortably, but he’s chosen (after giving it a brief try) to not write for films or television.
    But so what if he does? That’s what actors do, pick up a commercial or a role on a soap or some film work in addition to doing some stage roles. So do designers and directors — why should playwrights be any different?
    And you think you’ve got it bad? Try journalism these days. So quit whining.

    Reply
  6. Paul Mullin

    Thank you all for the great discussion here. I always think my best posts are the ones where I sit back and let smart folks make good points.
    Jim Jewell’s suggestion of trimming senior management wages just enough to pull a playwright on staff is as common-sensible as it is deeply provocative.

    Reply
  7. Wesley K. Andrews

    My point is that adding a playwright to a theatre’s staff would be relatively easy; novelists don’t have that kind of institutional infrastructure. Also, seeing a play and reading a book are totally different and work in fundamentally different economic ecosystems (The Hearst Foundation in one, Amazon.com in the other)
    Of course there are similarities.

    Reply
  8. Brandon J. Simmons

    I am not clear on what “bread and butter” is, or what it means to “support myself.” I’m curious as to how much money Tony Kushner made from plays last year (grants, royalties, etc), or the year before. $500? $0? $25,000? The quote you included from Kushner makes an impact because of Kushner’s name, but without specific figures (I only glanced at the interview in Time Out but I don’t see a specific figure) a statement like “I can’t support myself writing plays” elicits from me the question “If you’re real commitment is writing plays and making your money that way, why are your finances not in line with that commitment?” Creative steps toward changing the way playwrights make money is a honorable and worthwhile task, but simply stating that one’s personal finances aren’t ideal doesn’t communicate anything beyond that simple fact, and certainly does not implicate anyone other than the speaker himself. I am an actor and playwright, and I have never made more than $20,000 in a year. In the past two years I’ve brought in about $12,000 per year. I live with extreme comfort; I eat well, have intelligent interesting friends, and I’m doing work that nourishes my soul. I have no children, no mortgage, etc, but I do have student loan debt from an elite private college and two credit cards. But more to the point: the fact that I have no children or mortgage or second mortgage or car or retirement plan etc…these are personal choices in line with my commitments, not symptoms of a culture who’s values are out of whack. I guess my point is I don’t mind that playwrights don’t make as much money as arts administrators. I don’t think that would necessarily be good for art, and I don’t think it would necessarily be good for culture. It would simply afford playwrights the same opportunity for personal comfort enjoyed by the middle-class. But I’m not a playwright because I want to be comfortable. And I do not want to see plays by middle-class playwrights.

    Reply
  9. Scott Walters

    If you want to see a model, read your theatre history: Shakespeare wrote multiple plays a year, was a partner in the company, and a co-owner of the theatre building. The freelance model simply doesn’t work.

    Reply
  10. Paul Mullin

    Ah, nice! It wasn’t long until we got the “quit your whining” comment.
    I do wonder though, what makes you think, Gianni, that anyone’s whining? Seems to me that Scott, Tony and I are just pointing out facts. But to take a step further, is it whining to ask for a more equitable distribution? Or is that simply off the table in a Tea Party America?
    No where did I make the claim, as Brandon would like to suggest nonetheless, that playwrights are entitled to a middle-class living from their work. And he knows this. But we still get, even from talented artists like Gianni and Brandon the “shut up and quit your whining and stop questioning the status quo” or the “why the fuck should care about the middle class anyway” lines of argument. Red herrings tossed at straw dogs. You’d think you could do better than than mouthing the existing power structure’s least creative arguments for them.
    Something more creative, perhaps? Or let them defend themselves, perhaps? There’s a whiff of the kapo in underpaid artists defending overpaid administrators, or maybe it’s just Stockholm Syndrome.

    Reply
  11. Scot Augustson

    (Paul: Off topic, but next time we have a beer, let me tell you what I really think about “Angels in America.”)

    Reply
  12. Patrick Lennon

    I too question Mr. Kushner’s comment. Does “I can’t make a living” mean “I can’t afford to have an apartment in LA and NY and fly between the two regularly”?
    But, back to my point. I can accept the idea of staff writers, and I applaud Jim for going so far as to give a decent suggestion for where the money comes from. But before I can buy in completely, I need more details.
    -What is expected of the playwright? One play a year? Two? Four? How do you account for the differing speeds at which writers work? Can you force inspiration?
    -What is expected of the company? Are they to produce every single play? One a year? Only the plays that they want to produce? Are they allowed to sit on a play for a couple of seasons, precluding the playwright from generating royalties elsewhere?
    -How many playwrights are we talking? The Rep produces 7-8 shows a years, how many of those would you like to see coming from how many staff writers?
    -Is the company allowed to dictate content, or do they just take what they get? Where is their quality control? If I paid someone $40,000 a year (let’s say) for 2 years, I’d expect something out of that. What happens if the company doesn’t want to produce any of the plays the writer offers them?
    -Who are these playwrights? Would you demand that they be local? Or can the company bring in anyone they’d like to work with?
    -Are you envisioning playwrights working for the same company for their entire careers? 2 years, 5 years? Do they have to leave town to get a job at another company when their current one has had enough?
    If these questions sound like they are trying to destroy the idea, it’s only because I care. I am genuinely curious. I am so sick of people complaining without offering a solution. I’m not singling you out, Paul, this is a universal problem, and one of my biggest pet peeves. So I’m happy to see concrete ideas, but I can’t support them fully without answers to questions like these.

    Reply
  13. Brandon J. Simmons

    I’ve made a promise to myself to do the laundry. If I can complete this task within the next 45 minutes I will respond ENERGETICALLY to Paul’s comments!

    Reply
  14. Paul Mullin

    Patrick,
    While your questions are good ones, there’s something disingenuous, surely, in enumerating 23 of them in one comment, and then saying effectively “I cannot fully support change until I get these answered.”
    These are absolutely details that should be worked out. But we cannot even get the theaters big enough to implement them to come to the table.
    So come on, who’s zooming who with 23 questions? You remind me of the kid in Uncle Buck.

    Reply
  15. Gianni Truzzi

    Of course you’re whining, Paul, don’t pretend you’re not. But my pointing it out doesn’t mean that I’m defending the status quo. And I know better than to expect you to shut up. 🙂
    The “Infinite Jest” report was certainly eye-opening to me about how poor the situation for playwrights is. For example, Kushner’s quote doesn’t even touch upon the issue of how theaters demand a huge piece of a playwright’s royalties, a matter of real concern and fairness. Those are real issues.
    But your characterization of “underpaid artists defending overpaid administrators” is ridiculous. Everyone in the arts, including administrators, are underpaid relative to the money their skills and experience could fetch in another field. That criticism has become a caricature that doesn’t reflect reality. Regional theaters are not the dark satanic mills where capital profits at the expense of exploited workers. I’m quite impressed that, compared with most other fields (Hollywood, Wall Street or the technology industry), theater is surprisingly equitable — it’s mostly equally unfair to everybody. That’s less praise for theater than it is condemnation of everywhere else, of course.
    But what these oft-floated criticisms overlook (in my view) is that film, television, commercials, advertising, etc. are part of the economic ecosystem in which artists work. And being an economically successful artist means learning how to include them in your career plan.
    You can’t just look at theater, you have to look at the whole set of opportunities available to you as an artist. Sure, if you try to make your living entirely from theater as an artist — be it actor, playwright, designer — then you’ll fail because its not supposed to work that way. I wish it could, but it doesn’t, and pounding your head against that wall doesn’t make you a purer artist, it only makes you a schmuck.
    Or a whiner.

    Reply
  16. Patrick Lennon

    I believe I said, and I quote, “without answers to questions like these.” I don’t need an answer to all 23 questions. I don’t even, necessarily, need an answer to any one of them. A hypothetical answer to a similar question would suffice.
    Obviously many of these questions are details to be worked out later, but you won’t get the people with the money to come to the table at all unless you start answering some of them, at least hypothetically. Hell, I don’t have money, and I won’t take the proposal that seriously if you’re going to dismiss my questions out of hand.
    I think Scot has the most astute comment of this entire conversation – theatre is an inherently shitty business model, and every single theatre artist is deluding themselves if they think they deserve to make a decent living at it (unless of course your definition of “decent living” fits in with Brandon’s comments, which I wholeheartedly agree with).

    Reply
  17. Paul Mullin

    Point taken, Gianni. I’m a schmuck. Or a whiner. Or, come on, you can go the extra step: a schmuck AND a whiner. Yours, as you know, is a position held by much more powerful people in Seattle theatre than the two of us.
    But holding that position doesn’t necessarily excuse them, or you, if you’ve decided to join the conversation, from dealing with the issues.
    Otherwise, why respond so assiduously here? Surely someone somewhere along the line taught you that it doesn’t pay to engage a troll. If that’s all I am, so be it. But what do YOU want to see happen. Or is it all good? You just want to make sure that the nasty troll doesn’t convince anyone otherwise, do you?
    Claim your territory, Gianni. I’m claiming mine and, look, I’ve done so without name-calling!

    Reply
  18. Paul Mullin

    Okay, for Patrick’s sake and Brandon, and of course, gentle Gianni’s, I would just refer everyone to my actual post, instead of the red herring that keeps getting raised here, namely that Tony Kushner deserves a living as a playwright.
    Let me nutshell it for you to save you the trouble reading: I did NOT say Tony or any other playwright DESERVES a living writing plays. I said that it is noteworthy that he cannot manage one nor can any playwright I know, but that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of arts administrators that make perfectly comfortable livings.
    I think this is evidence that something is out of whack in our art form. If you think otherwise then simply say so. No need to counter an argument that was not offered. It’s beneath you.

    Reply
  19. Wesley K. Andrews

    Patrick–
    The questions you asked are the sort of questions that make sense for contract negotiations, and they are all perfectly answerable in a way that fits each relationship. You’re raising logistical, not philosophical, issues.
    Also, we essentially already have this sort of staff relationship in regional theatres with directors, in that the AD is generally expected to direct a few plays a year. Why can’t that kind of relationship also exist with a writer?

    Reply
  20. Gianni Truzzi

    Forgive me, Paul, my use of the terms were not directed at you specifically, but more abstractly to an attitude. But I can see that a personal attack was the obvious reading, despite my lack of intention. This is why I seldom engage in comments. Also because assiduously is the only way I seem to know how write anything without a lengthy edit.
    Anything involving Tony Kushner will get me going, it seems. If you want, I can join Scott and you for that beer-filled discussion on “Angels” — sounds like he and I can both give you a dramaturgical earful. 🙂
    I come from a circus family, where I learned that life is hard and the trick is to find a good hustle. Theater is a lousy hustle, kid. You’ve gotta find the one that works for ya.

    Reply
  21. Wesley K. Andrews

    And should I be posting my resume in this comments thread? p.s. Your donors will love me.

    Reply
  22. Brandon J. Simmons

    We have created a scenario in which there is US and there is THEM; there are those who DESERVE something, and those in power who WITHHOLD something. But I choose not to exist in this very definitive context, and that is my choice. Yes there are structures in place. But I choose not to endow those structures with any power whatever. You might say is it not a matter of my personal choice: they have power whether I believe it or not. I simply disagree with this. I do not believe in power except the power of my presence and my word. And I do not think that more money makes people more peaceful, healthy or whole. Every human on earth has access to peace, health or integrity right NOW, regardless of economics. And anyone anywhere can create art, regardless of who is getting paid. That’s the beginning and end of it for me.

    Reply
  23. Brandon J. Simmons

    Well, pooh. I just noticed Paul’s comment about deserving. Well, I have to go so I can’t address that now. But thanks for the enlivening conversation!

    Reply
  24. Patrick Lennon

    It boggles my mind that no one will even attempt to answer even one of the questions I posed. Why all the excuses? You can’t just say “Here’s an idea, it’s sound, we’ll figure out the details later.” Nope, sorry, not happening. It’s not sound until you prove that it’s sound.
    Philosophically, I love the idea of a staff playwright. But logistically, I don’t think it’s workable. I won’t dismiss the idea outright though. Because I like it. So I would love for someone to prove me wrong.
    But instead all I get are excuses. I’m willing to bet it’s because you’re all just as afraid as I am that the idea is unworkable. So you hide behind these excuses, and think you’ve done your duty.
    If you think the system is broken, it’s not someone else’s responsibility to fix it.

    Reply
  25. Wesley K. Andrews

    Oh, for Pete’s sake….
    Q: What is expected of the playwright? One play a year? Two? Four? A: Two.
    Q: What is expected of the company? A: Workshop both plays, produce one, hold production rights for a maximum of three years.
    Q: How many playwrights are we talking? A: 1 – 4, depending on the venue.
    Q: Is the company allowed to dictate content, or do they just take what they get? A: The AD is creative consultant and editor.
    Q: Where is their quality control? If I paid someone $40,000 a year (let’s say) for 2 years, I’d expect something out of that. What happens if the company doesn’t want to produce any of the plays the writer offers them? A: You take a risk, and if not satisfied, don’t re-hire.
    Q: Who are these playwrights? Would you demand that they be local? Or can the company bring in anyone they’d like to work with? A: Either a home-grown writer, or they require the writer to move to the community.
    Q: Are you envisioning playwrights working for the same company for their entire careers? 2 years, 5 years? Do they have to leave town to get a job at another company when their current one has had enough? A: Depends on the length of the contract.
    Or, you know, different details depending on the contract.

    Reply
  26. Patrick Lennon

    Thank you. Was that so hard? Now, I don’t think there’s a big theatre in town that would go for those terms. But at least we know what we’re talking about, not just some abstract, pie-in-the-sky idea.

    Reply
  27. Jeremy M. Barker

    -What is expected of the playwright? One play a year? Two? Four? How do you account for the differing speeds at which writers work? Can you force inspiration?
    This actually relates to two other substantial issues that are themselves related: play development and royalties. Because the process of getting a play on stage with a full, paying production is so long, you can certainly argue that it discourages writing more plays. The process can take years. Similarly, because this process is a rigmarole (and look at the history of Intelligent Homosexual for a case in point) that even well-known playwrights have to go through, this ensures that a not insubstantial portion of their earnings will be eaten up by others by the time it gets to audiences. NPD is hell as has consequences.
    -What is expected of the company? Are they to produce every single play? One a year? Only the plays that they want to produce? Are they allowed to sit on a play for a couple of seasons, precluding the playwright from generating royalties elsewhere?
    I’ve lost track of how this is even relevant or otherwise separate from point 1 above.
    -How many playwrights are we talking? The Rep produces 7-8 shows a years, how many of those would you like to see coming from how many staff writers?
    A disingenuous question. This is a discussion about values. Paul is suggesting the not entirely controversial point that bringing a writer onstaff for say a one- to two-year contract is a good way to support his or her writing without subjecting it to the same sort of NPD show-by-show process we normally go through. Again, in Seattle all of these companies are non-profits–this isn’t meddling with business or anything, it’s asking legitimate questions about how we support artists and whether there are other methods. Specifically, I’d add, Paul is referencing a program that launched last year at the Arena Theater. So it is being done.
    -Is the company allowed to dictate content, or do they just take what they get? Where is their quality control? If I paid someone $40,000 a year (let’s say) for 2 years, I’d expect something out of that. What happens if the company doesn’t want to produce any of the plays the writer offers them?
    This is a ridiculous comment. Paying someone to produce an original work necessarily entails risk. Ostensibly the reason they’ve hired a playwright (whether commissioned or on staff) is that they (a) cannot do the job themselves with any other employee, and (b) expect the person they’ve hired is reasonably capable of performing the task they’ve been hired to do. Let’s pull our heads out of artsy asses for a minute and acknowledge that this isn’t so different from any other job. Why doesn’t the theater have the right to change the script? Ostensibly they do–though that would likely be the director’s choice, not the theater’s staff. There is this magical concept of “director’s theater” that’s widely ignored in the US, and I can’t tell you how many times I wished more directors would just solve minor problems with a script–even if just through staging against the playwright’s wishes, short of re-writes. But whatever the case, this also has to do with contracts. If the theater wants to own 100% of the finished product, it should have to pay more. Or the playwright who gives it up for the same amount of money made a bad career move. Open and shut. Basic job shit. Give it up.
    -Who are these playwrights? Would you demand that they be local? Or can the company bring in anyone they’d like to work with?
    This is again a question of values. Paul is right that our regional theaters often get played to subsidize LA and NYC. And I live in NYC. I meet people who benefit from this. Paul would like people to recognize that the health of an artform in a given community–and ostensibly the health of the audiences for it–are related; using limited funds to subsidize a workshop production of Light in the Piazza for Broadway, turning Seattle into what the Catskills used to be, in other words, has little long-term benefit to the community. But besides that value question, it’s undeniable that theaters anywhere offering money to playwrights improves the situation.
    -Are you envisioning playwrights working for the same company for their entire careers? 2 years, 5 years? Do they have to leave town to get a job at another company when their current one has had enough?
    How is this actually different from what actors or designers have to do? The point entirely is that the project time investment to payment ratio for a playwright is very low. Actors spend two to three months on a play, typically, including rehearsals and production. The playwright can spend years. If you want better plays, or even to just better support the artists, maybe we have to figure out a different model for supporting them. Again, Paul is referencing some real, already existing things.

    Reply
  28. Lyam White

    I think that Brandon is entirely correct; I also think he avoids the question somewhat. I have asserted before, probably on this very blog, that what I call “theatricians” are, or should be, deliberately allying themselves with thieves, vagabonds, and whores. At the risk of quoting a dramatist whose recent political shift has led to much rhetorical chicanery and an at-least-partially-deserved fall from favor, I always refer to David Mamet’s apocryphal assertion that actors were once, upon death, buried at crossroads with a stake through the heart, and that to inspire such fear for the souls of the masses represents a fine aspirational model. The incubus and the vampire do not ask for subsidy; they feed where they smell blood and opportunity.
    That said, unlike the vampire or the incubus, some of us have (just) enough of a level head to sustain a marriage; some of you, dog help us all, even have progeny; others, I imagine, may own property. We are necessarily bourgeois, in some sense of the word, and oughtn’t to be ashamed. The question then becomes: How do we sustain these obligations while remaining true to the desire to create? Is simply “living on less” an option when other livelihoods are at stake? Can the patchwork of day jobs, freelance second careers, and intermittently lucrative artistic endeavors be sustained until “retirement” age (or later, given the unlikelihood of our ever being able to retire)?
    I would like to point out that most of the administrators in any given arts organization do NOT make a full living from what they are paid, that the average receptionist or development worker actually has at LEAST a second job, often in addition to artistic pursuit of his or her own. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t unwieldy bureaucratic structures that could use some trimming, or that such workers’ wages aren’t nominally more steady than that of the average artist. It just means that the gulf is not so wide as imagined, and that, given the number of people who are both artists and administrators, the administrative structure might actually exist to solve whatever very similar problem preceded the current model.
    I think Patrick’s questions are astute, but need to be distilled before they can be treated as a prerequisite for negotiation. At root is the question of what a resident playwright DOES. Writers for television make a living because they are required to produce constantly; what they produced is then revised, processed, rolled in with the work of other writers. They are part of a staff, and get none of the luxuries of the playwright, who, while subject to the whims of actors and directors and administrators, usually gets to make revisions on his or her own terms and in his or her own voice. In other words, it’s a JOB. Well and good, but would we want to see playwrighting become . . . that?

    Reply
  29. Lyam White

    Oh, and the notion of you gentlemen (Paul and Scot; no offense intended in the term “gentlemen”) discussing real feelings about “Angels in America” makes me wish I habitually drank with either or both of you.

    Reply
  30. Scott Walters

    No, no, no. How many plays of Shakespeare did the King’s Men produce? ALL OF THEM. How many was he expected to write? AS MANY AS THE COMPANY NEEDED TO KEEP THE AUDIENCE HAPPY. Is the company allowed to dictate content? SHAKESPEARE WAS A CO-OWNER OF THE COMPANY. THIS ISN’T A CONTRACTUAL THING, THIS IS PARTNERSHIP. YOUR LIVING DEPENDS ON TICKET SALES, AND TICKET SALES DEPEND ON WHETHER THE AUDIENCE LIKES YOUR WORK. SO GET CRACKING! Are the playwrights local? ABSOLUTELY. NO ABSENTEE OWNERS. ALL ON SITE. How long do they work for the cpmpany? THEY OWN IT — THE WORK AS LONG AS THEY OWN A SHARE. IF THEY WANT OUT, OR OTHERS WANT THEM OUT, THEY NEED TO BUY THEIR SHARE.

    Reply
  31. Scott Walters

    And Kushner is the best American playwright, bar none.

    Reply
  32. Scot Augustson

    Brandon: I am currently drinking of the middle class well. And you know what? I am scheming of ways to get back to Bohemia.

    Reply
  33. Matthew Smucker

    Isn’t D.C.’s Arena theatre doing this very “put the playwrights on salary and give ’em benefits” thing? That’s real, not theoretical, and a bit more recent than the reign of QE1. Anyone know if and how that model’s working out one year in?

    Reply
  34. Wesley K. Andrews

    Jeremy — although Paul is a friend, I must insist that you not give him credit for my comment, which, as others have alluded to, is not an original idea. If there’s one thing Paul’s not short on, it’s attributable comments.
    Frankly I’m thrilled that I managed to derail a whole conversation. It’s a blog reader’s dream come true!
    I don’t buy that no Seattle theatre would ever put a writer on staff. Big difference between “it hasn’t happened” and “never”.

    Reply
  35. Alisoncroggon

    The German playwright Marius von Mayenburg makes his living working as a dramaturg in the Schaubühne am Lehniner Platz in Berlin (there’s an interview on TN with him where he talks briefly about what he does – http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com/2008/02/interview-marius-von-mayenburg.html). So while he isn’t quite being paid to write plays, he’s paid by a theatre – as are a lot of other European playwrights – to use his playwriting skills in the development of theatre. There’s one model for you.
    On a tangent, I’m a little staggered by this: “Every human on earth has access to peace, health or integrity right NOW, regardless of economics.” Which planet is that? Surely not this one?

    Reply
  36. Catherine Porter

    This is a fascinating discussion. I would just like to point out that if you look your theater administrators across the country, you will see another way, other than film/tv, that artists are trying to make this broken model work for themselves. Not only is the AD a director, but the development director is an actor, and the box office manager is also a playwright and the marketing associate is a writer, etc., etc. They may ply their artistic trade at that theater that employs them, but often not; they probably work freelance and do work at smaller organizations. But, there is no Us vs. Them. We are all Us…

    Reply
  37. Emily Maher

    Paul, your essential point here (that we need to reevaluate the distribution of “wealth” to our artists) isn’t a bad one, but it stems from a bad example. Tony Kushner most certainly CAN make a living as a playwright. In 2008, he received a grant for $200,000. Now I don’t know about you, but if I chose, I could make $200,000 stretch for at least 3 years. And then there’s the money he’s made since 2008 through productions at the Guthrie and Signature and whatever other commissions I imagine he’s working on.
    Now, can Tony Kushner make more money writing for commercial projects? Probably. So could those underling “artistic administrators” you mention (as one, by the way, I can tell you that our livings aren’t quite so comfortable either). Of course he deserves to live as well as he can – as do all of us – so take the well-paying, often artistically vapid gigs. But the argument that Tony Kushner couldn’t do more than scrape by on his theater earnings alone is unrealistic. I’ll bet plenty of us would be happy to make what he does on a yearly basis sans commercial projects.

    Reply
  38. LalaTellsAStory

    Look at the Arena model y’all. A lot of bold (yet strikingly obvious) answers in that.
    http://www.arenastage.org/new-play-institute/playwright-residencies/Arena-Stage-Project-Residencies-Fact-Sheet.pdf
    The only criteria for “hiring” is that the theater TRUSTS the playwrights. That’s all. That’s why they will produce at least one of their plays. Because plays aren’t their full selves until production.
    Playwrights are paid because is IS a 40+ hour work week. It’s a constant work week actually. Playwrights can be working on numerous projects (often at once) all of which they deserve that $40k. Kids shows, ensemble shows, musicals, straight plays, small comedies, large dramas, docu-dramas, translations. And some of us really like to teach – so throw that on the pile too.
    $40k means that they don’t have to work at a starbucks or bar or temp job which distracts, exhausts, demeans their true talent.
    And if major theaters are finding it so hard to get “excellent” plays? Maybe they should pay their playwrights more so they have time and mind to – y’know – write excellent plays.

    Reply
  39. Paul Botts

    As someone who’s worked in professional theater on both sides of the stage, and for whom professional theater artists are at the treasured core of my personal life, and whose favorite thing in the whole world is successful introducing people to America’s amazing contemporary theater sector which is I believe to be this society’s greatest unrecognized cultural achievement….for me Gianni T. nailed it. “Quit whining” isn’t simply a knee-jerk reaction, it’s a specific and fact-based prescription for useful change. Wish that weren’t the case but from my lifetime of experience I have to admit that it is.
    I also shared Brandon S.’s reaction to Kushner’s throwaway line that became the headline of this post: my vacuum-of-fact-and-logic alarm is clanging loudly. The scent of straw men is indeed strong here, no argument there at all.

    Reply
  40. Paul Mullin

    Thank you Emily, Lauren and Paul for your recent additions to this comment stream.
    Since it has become so long, I’d like to remind everyone that I began my post with these two questions:
    “Is this true? Is it significant?”
    It seems Emily is saying no to question 1 and Paul is adding an even more emphatic NO! to question 2, while reiterating a “quit bitching” for good measure.
    Frankly, though, I think Lauren’s comment is most helpful since it offers a real, tangible and TESTABLE alternative. I think we will all eagerly watch Arena’s program and hope for it’s success.

    Reply
  41. Steven Gomez

    Arena Stage intrigues me in their ability to finish fiscal years in the black in this “big theatre is dying” age. This despite building a beautiful new $125 million performance center. Sure, corporate and power donors allow this, but it makes me wonder how Arena’s able to make it work over time while Seattle LORTs are apparently scratching and clawing to survive year over year.

    Reply
  42. Christine Bernardi

    This is a question for Paul. I think a lot of us are reading your statement about arts administators to mean that your opinion is arts administrator salaries are taking away money that could otherwise go to playwrights. Is this what you meant?
    I ask because I’m an arts administrator and my salary has always come from money my staff and I have raised through fundraising for the purpose of supporting a theatre infrastructure. Donors are supporting us because their priority is keeping the theatre in business. The consumer is choosing what to support.
    Whereas the money we pay to playwrights in the form of a royalty comes from box office income. Box office income is usually not enough to cover all the production costs so there’s no money left over in that scenario to give more money to the playwright; such money would have to come from cutting what we pay everyone else involved in the production, or from separate fundraising.
    If we make cuts in other areas of production, what should we cut? Are you suggesting that we increase the royalty playwrights receive, or that we create full-time staff positions for playwrights and raise money to fund those positions?
    Again, I can’t take any money that I use to pay my administrative staff and give it to playwrights, because all that money has been donated for the restricted purpose of running the company.

    Reply
  43. Paul Mullin

    Thanks, Christine.
    Do you mind if I answer your questions with some links?
    Michael van Baker, Editor and Publisher of Seattle’s The SunBreak just posted a piece wherein in he hints at some overlooked efficiencies that might be achieved. http://thesunbreak.com/2011/06/01/arts-marketing-for-dummies/
    I also suggest you read some of my core essays, like “Theatre Takes Place: Why Locally Grown Plays Matter” (you’ll find here: https://jw.uncoder.co/2010/01/locally-grown-draft.html) because the hub-and-spoke, NY and London centric model of play-making is both a disservice to playwrights and audiences that crave theatre that has more to say about the times and places of their actual lives.
    Shakespeare wrote for London, after all. And he wasn’t paid in royalties, he was an owner, a stakeholder. There’s a false divide in the mechanics of American theatre that I think a lot of us are looking to bridge.

    Reply
  44. David Dower

    Hey, y’all– it’s late on a Friday after a long week with the resident playwrights and stuff. But I’ll make a commitment to answer more fully over on the New Play Blog this weekend (http://newplay.arenastage.org/)and will tweet the link to anyone still paying attention to the question by then. Meanwhile, if you’re curious you can read there now about residencies in a bunch of different places and how they are working. It’s not just Arena by any means.
    Short answer on our program: results are all over the place after the first 18 months with five writers on staff. There are answers to some of the questions, in the writers’ own voices, found in the monograph published last winter. All this and more hiding in plain sight on http://www.arenastage.org/new-play-institute/
    Re: Outrageous Fortune one year later? Lots of things, big and small, have changed for the better. Todd London will be speaking about this very subject at the Dramatist Guild conference next weekend. It’ll be livestreamed over #Newplay TV and archived there if you can’t watch live. http://www.livestream.com/newplay
    Keep up the interest, and take your curiosity out for a spin in the #newplay conversation– you may find answers and allies there…
    David Dower
    Associate Artistic Director
    Arena Stage
    Find me on Twitter: @ddower
    Get on the New Play Map: http://www.newplaymap.org
    Read more on Howlround: http://www.howlround.com
    Explore the #Newplay Sector: http://www.arenastage.org/new-play-institute/

    Reply
  45. Aaron Andersen

    I may regret this, but I’ll out myself as an arts administrator and speak against this whole overused “the model is broken” complaint. I’m sure some will say I’m defending the status quo. I’m not defending it, but I am learning to respect it.
    The reason that actors and playwrights don’t make enough money and don’t have steady employment is that there are just too many scrapping and fighting for the work, and willing to be paid nothing or almost nothing to do it. Theater artists just starting out actually will pay to work, in the form of buying their own costumes or supplies, or financing a production on their credit cards. How do you compete with that? Not by demanding an upper-middle-class wage unless you’ve proven that your plays are really, really good, and popular.
    What I do is financial and budget analysis for a large symphony orchestra. I get paid well enough. But it’s true that I would get paid perhaps 25-30% more for the same work in the corporate world. Why should I get paid more than some playwright who is actually creating some new product that keeps the arts industry vital (or a composer, in the classical music world)? Basically, it’s just supply and demand. There aren’t 5,000 of me beating down the door for every paying finance job in the arts.
    Some people look at this and say “the model is broken.” But the talent pool in the arts is not a model that was designed by some brilliant engineer, that can be simply redesigned by a better engineer. Model is the wrong word. Ecosystem is a far more apt word. And ecosystems don’t pursue some optimal result for a mission or vision. They pursue equilibrium among a set of cooperating and competing forces and inputs and players. In equilibrium as we know it, you have to pay people more to take arts administration jobs (which are often tedious, and staffed by former or failed artists) than you have to pay them to write a play or direct one or act in one.
    You can certainly try to tweak ecosystems. There are a lot of different ecosystems with different points of equilibrium, and there is no reason to believe yours can’t change. But you have to realize that to tweak it, you are going to throw it out of equilibrium, and you will only be successful if a new equilibrium is found that works with your tweaks. There is no guarantee that will happen. You might very well just throw the whole system out of whack with loads of unintended consequences for a few years until it returns back to what it was before.
    I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t try, but you have to understand what you’re tangling with.

    Reply
  46. David Dower

    OK, here you go– posted over at the New Play Blog:
    Say What? On Playwright Residencies and Making a Living in the #Newplay Sector http://bit.ly/luMzti

    Reply
  47. Paul Botts

    What Aaron Andersen posted above is the single best description of actual reality on these subjects that I’ve seen in years. That’s dead on the money, pun intended, across the board. Bravo!

    Reply
  48. DW Gregory

    See Arena Stage. Playwrights in residence for 3 years, paid $40,000 per year … nice gig if you can get it.
    Speaking as a playwright with a full-time job (in publishing), I’d say you can ask a lot more of the playwright than one play a year if you hire them and pay them a living wage — they can provide dramaturgy services, lead post-show discussions, partner with the Lit office — and impress your donors at fundraising events. If you have nothing else to do BUT write, you can crank out a lot. Working full time with a long commute, I’m good for about one new full-length per year … at least that’s my aim.
    At some theaters, the Lit mgr is a playwright, so that’s not new — but that’s not the same as having a playwright in residence on staff, and saying “this is the person writing for our company. We are committing to him/her for the next two/three/five years.” Not manageable for a lot of small theaters but it is for some of the bigger LORT houses, for sure.

    Reply
  49. jane

    great discussion. thank you

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *