Oops. My mistake. Just jumped over to the Chicago Dramatists’ page.

Looks like a great theatre.

It seems like the trick might be in “writing to” a small enough community that it means something to them, but a large enough community that they can make a significant contribution to your box office.

Either way, I think there are plenty of examples of wildly popular “local” art that hasn’t dumbed it down or pandered to some perceived lowest common denominator.

I like to think that good artists can do interesting work even under extremely strict parameters (ever seen Soviet-era Russian films?). Many artists even thrive under such parameters. So the idea of thinking about your audience during the creative process seems to me like no compromise at all.

I would have liked to have seen Don’s Steady Rain piece.

I’ve experienced great support from ‘my community’ (ya know, the Aboriginal one) each and every time I’ve mounted a show. The usual work had to be put into promoting, marketing, etc., BUT, it seemed a pretty easy sell to get the community to get the community to come out and see the shows.

I never create/write/perform work that intentionally isolates some of the audience, though, I will never and have never, ‘dumbed it down’ for those not from ‘the community’.

I couldn’t agree more.

A Steady Rain was about Chicago cops and was an honest piece about their flaws and virtues (it also had fucking great actors) and a huge portion of their audience was comprised of…Chicago cops.

It requires that theater artists climb out of their own small worlds and become invested in the worlds of their potential audiences. It isn’t pandering for bucks if the interest is genuine and the stories compelling.

I’ll add that national issues are super but the homegrown, right-here-in-River-City kind of issues will resonate more with the immediate audience and place theater back in the realm of a community must-see rather than the old, crippled uncle to the DVD.

I guess I’m not thinking of a rule for all theatre, but more of a journalistic approach to making theatre: if we want more people to care about the shows we’re doing, maybe we should make shows that care about them, that investigate their lives and conditions (specifically) rather than searching for universality in the abstract.

So, for example, let’s create a new show called “Queen and Ossington – life outside the asylum” – and the theatre makers make a real attempt to interpret and represent that community back on itself.

I’m not saying this is the only way to make theatre, but if we’re wondering why our audience base seems thin, perhaps its because we’re not trying hard enough to tell stories that are about them.

Yeah Ian, The Next Stage festival was a real boon. I was worried about an indie theatre festival in January drawing an audience and it is a good sign that it was such a success. I’m pretty sure that creating pieces that you think will attract the right audience (or an audience) is a smart move. How do you tell though?

Festival theatre in January? Who knew.

It tells me that the appetite is there, we just need to tap into it.

You’re right Don. Toronto is a film town. We’ve got our big international festival. It keeps it in our blood.

But if I could suggest one way to put theatre on more people’s dance cards (aside from more innovative and plentiful marketing, which we desperately need) it would be to ask our theatre makers to start thinking more about audiences at the beginning of the creative process – rather than as afterthought.

Want more people to come to your show? How about writing a play for the community you’re trying to attract?

I don’t see this as a compromise, I see it as storytelling.

What do you guys think?

The “How/Why” is complicated, I think. It probably has a lot to do with the priorities of our municipal government and the focus in our schools on sports over arts.

Chicago, for better or worse, is a cow town founded by the Polish and the Irish; NYC is a port town founded by the Jewish and the Italians.

As for Toronto, I have absolutely no clue what makes that town click - I’ve only been there twice. From what I read, the work is strong, so I’m actually surprised to hear that the patrons aren’t dropping their dime. Maybe it’s just more a film town?

I have a couple of questions:

You write that:

“New York has a culture of theatergoers – it is a part of the population’s regular list of “Things to Do” and that can’t be said of most places west of the Apple.”

Yes I agree. Having lived there, it is probably the saving grace of the whole place despite the fact that “Broadway is a bloated, celebrity-driven whore overtaken by Disney and Sony.”

So, my questions:

1 Is theatre on Chicago’s “To Do” list? How/why?

2 It is not on the list in Toronto, yet, despite the fact that demographically it should be. Any ideas on what we ought to be doing up here?

thanks,

mike