-Fringers are confuzzled about all of the attention RADAR LA is getting... "Where is our love?" Red Fringer-
RADAR L.A. and the Hollywood Fringe Festival are now memories. From a quick look at the social media landscape surrounding the fallout and banter caused by three (mostly yawn) 'panels' that attempted to speak to Los Angeles' place in the grand scheme of the theater world, the memories are mostly bittersweet. Or to be all Bitter(Lemons) about it, 100% Bittersweet.
Yep, I even hired a hacker to crack the backend of BitterLemons to steal their algorithm, and that is the results I came up with (chime in here if I'm wrong, Colin, I know you will anyway.)
So, for the moment, let us set aside the panels, and allow me to offer up some frank personal thoughts about the relevance of both RADAR LA and the Fringe. So don’t anyone get your panties in a knot, or take any of this personally.
THE FRINGE. WHAT DOES IT OFFER PARTICIPANTS, AND WHOM IS IT FOR?
A couple of years ago, I seriously considered throwing up a show at the inaugural Hollywood Fringe. The entry fee seemed somewhat reasonable, $200. I jumped on to the HFF site and started doing research...
What would I get for my $200? Advertising muscle? Production assistance? PR assistance in pulling in reviewers? A free venue? NO.
So, what exactly WOULD I get for my $200?
Listing in a bloated Fringe guide, and a presence on a bloated website. Smells like pay to play.
I self produce my own shows. I know how to hustle to find great, site specific locations that I can get for free or cheap. I know how to generate excitement and bring an audience to my show. I knew that my show would get completely lost in the shuffle of the fringe website and fringe program. The difference between self producing outside of the Fringe and inside of it? I have two hundred more dollars to throw in to my production, and do not have to produce within the 'limits' of what they deem to be Hollywood. Thanks for the offer and opportunity, but I'll pass.
So what is the Fringe doing? What is it creating, and whom is it for... it is definitely not for me. Don't get me wrong. I truly believe that the entire Fringe crew has their hearts in the right place. But what they are doing is creating a festival for... themselves. It is a big celebration of small theater for other small theater people. The Fringe seems to think that it can draw in audiences from outside the community with "Outdoor events for visibility to community/ tourists." Um... no. They cannot- well, not yet. In their literature, the Fringe states that, "For participants, the Fringe is an opportunity for exposure, experience, and income." Fine, but how is this ANY different than an independent production any other time of the year, which is... an opportunity for exposure, experience, and income.
Obviously, what sets the Fringe apart is the instant community it easily affords participants and audience. For a week and a half, you can spend time with a great mass of people who share a love of live performance. If you are lucky, or get honest opinions, you can even witness some finished productions that may inspire your own work, or better yet, enhance or alter your beliefs.
Check out this map of the cluster of Fringe venues... Now remember, nearly all of these venues are in near constant operation hosting productions year round. The Fringe may bring a group of people together, but Los Angeles already has this cluster of venues in place.
<br /><small>View Fringe Venues in a larger map</small>
FRINGE vs RADAR
(note to Fringe, you admit you have no money or production values)
Let’s be honest. RADAR festivals are in no way comparable to the Fringe. RADAR is curated. It is about exposing an audience to interesting pieces of contemporary theater that explore new techniques. And The Fringe is not. Anyone with a wad of bills and the gumption to perform live is welcome. RADAR has marketing money and muscle to publicize, and even paper the city. My Sunday newspapers had inserts with the RADAR schedule. No such inserts for the Fringe. Even if the Fringers see that kind of relevance, presence outside of their core group of participants, and overall quality as a goal, they are nowhere near achieving it. They should not be surprised that they do not enjoy the same influence and stature.
It would be helpful if the Fringe team understood and got past this fact. Instead, some in the 99 and under crowd and Fringe crew seem taken aback that the 'establishment' just doesn't get it. In a July 2, 2011 New York Times article about RADAR L.A.'s success and plans to continue RADAR festivals outside of New York, Ben Hill, the Fringe Festival Director, was quoted as saying, “…we’d love to see more engagement with L.A.’s existing theater scene, including the thousands of artists participating in our 99-seat theater community, less reliance on conferencegoers to fill seats and more outreach to existing Los Angeles patrons.”
Perhaps this quote is out of context, but it comes of as a bit, well, bitter and snarky. And when you break down the three issues Hill raises, they fall apart.
The Los Angeles bid for the TCG conference was endorsed by a coalition of large, midsize, and 99 and under theaters (as stated in the KPCC panel.) The effort to bring RADAR L.A. together was a huge ordeal. It took the cooporation of local government and many many players in the local theater scene. Olga Garay (Executive director of Los Angeles’ Department of Cultural Affairs) and Diane Rodriguez (of Center Theatre Group, CTG) struggled for nearly four years to bring a Radar-like festival here. It just was not working. CTG’s mission did not match the needs of this type of festival, which is nearly impossible to do under AEA jurisdiction. REDCAT’s did. They are not a union house. They are a presenting organization.
When the TCG bid was accepted, things began to roll... New York UNDER THE RADAR producer Mark Russell worked with Mark Murphy of REDCAT and Diane Rodriquez of CTG, two companies very much a part of the existing Los Angeles theater scene (you even sat on the KPCC panel with them, Ben.) RADAR is billed as an "international" festival, yet more than half of the program- seven of the fifteen shows- were productions by Los Angeles artists. If that is not engagement with our existing scene, I am at a loss to define what would be.
Latino Theater Company's (LTC) coziness with the city and Poor Dog Group’s affiliation with CalArts may push them out of the world of 99 and under here in LA, but Moving Arts' rental is a 28 seat black box in Silverlake. And they performed in the inaugural Fringe in 2010. That should be a success for the Fringers to celebrate and publicize.
Regardless if you are still bitter with how LTC came to run LATC, they hosted five of the shows in their venues, three of them with 99 or less seats. TCG kicked in $40,000 to RADAR L.A. They saw an opportunity to bring contemporary theatrical entertainment within walking distance of their festival. Tickets were available to the public, and the festival sold "25 percent more [tickets] than… originally expected." That figure is proof of the outreach to Los Angeles patrons. RADAR L.A. actually penetrated the consciousness of the community. The Fringe barely scratched in to it.
THE STATE OF REVIEW: POPULISM, TRUTH, PAY TO PLAY
The traditional review system is broken. Reviews used to tell a wide audience of readers (back when everyone read the paper) what shows were good, bad, indifferent, and wild. Each paper and reviewer had their own style that you could identify with, allowing for your own understanding of what biases and predilections each of the reviewers used as a prism to witness the shows through.
With the LA Times refusal to cover the actual local theater scene in earnest, and the move towards shorter 'capsule' reviews at many of the other publications (online and in print,) how is an Angelino, let alone a tourist, to figure out what to see? I read five or six times as many reviews of New York productions than Los Angeles ones (I am a daily print subscriber to the New York Times.)
Even the 'review scene' is marred by this agenda of patting the performers on the back. As Trevor Thomas wrote in a great article, LEMONOLOGY 101 on Bitter Lemons last month, "…Los Angeles critics have given big thumbs up to an overwhelming majority of theatrical productions presented so far this year." Certain reviewers work on a 'pay to play' system that sings praises of shows as long as they advertise in the publication. 'Legitimate' reviews will only be assigned to performances with traditional runs of six weeks, leaving out some of the most innovative work being produced.
The Fringe gets around this lack of reviewers to cover the festival by championing a populist review system. Anyone who sees a show can review it on the Fringe website. The Fringe is organized as an inside job. If you are active in the Fringe community, you can get a slew of patron/ reviewers to laud the quality of your show. If you are not actively involved in the 'community' of artists, you don't get people to 'review' your show on the site (in the kindest way possible, of course.)
Nearly every show that received 'populist' reviews on the Fringe site had average scores of 4/5 or 5/5. Maybe four or five shows had a 3/5 star review, and one had an average of 2/5 (non scientific review of the Bitter Lemons FringeMeter.)
This is utter bullshit. If someone unfamiliar with the inside baseball of this review system actually chose shows to see from it, they could easily be utterly disappointed. But who, outside of the core group of participating artists, utilizes the Fringe site? I do not have access to the analytics, but I would assume that the penetration of users outside of the Fringe participants is rather low. This is an assumption, and I really hope I'm wrong. But the way I see it, the Fringe is overly consumed with creating this mini biosphere of like minded artists. A veritable Mobius Strip of positive feedback and semi-coerced support and praise, where the Fringe is the center of the known universe, and if you don't drink the kool-aid, you just don't get it.
Do we need a cheerleading outlet that rah rahs any and everything, especially unfinished works and showcases barely disguising their true nature as solo performance? No. What we need is more ways to highlight the awesome and ENTERTAINING bits of Los Angeles theater that are inventive, original, novel, and inspiring.
MY HORSE
Well, it seems it is time to admit that I, Howard Seth Cohen, have a horse in this race. For the last year and a half, I have reviewed shows for my website, Thomas Hampton Reviews. I attempt to be honest and thoughtful, and have even been attacked for some of my less than favorable scribblings (and then some.) To be fair, the main goal of THR is not to be a review outlet, but to offer the performance community at large additional tools to spread the word about their show in the wild world of the interwebz.
Am I guilty of the same urge to be 'all sweet' on the shows that I see? I preface the review section of THR with, "My Macro Reviews provide you with the ideas and themes behind a performance. I think once you understand the big picture- the feeling, tenor, and tone of a show, you can make a more objective decision on whether or not to go. If my Macro Review raises questions and thoughts that spark your interest, that is a good indication that you should give that show a try." Is it a cop out? I don't think so. But I do put it out to the world that I am attempting to produce some thoughts on a production that are not an old school review. Why don't I take critical look at my own work?
I do know that I react to a bare bones show in a black box differently than I would if it was produced in a more finished way. Take the three Fringe shows I reviewed: FIVE UNEASY PIECES, VOICES OF CHORNOBYL JR., and I DO CARD TRICKS AND I'M FUNNY. They each had their unique reason for being.
Jon Armstrong's close up magic act felt like a close up show at the Magic Castle, without the need for a member's escort or the privilege of paying for overpriced, poorly mixed drinks. There was really no point in running down a set list of his performance, so I breezily summarized the feel of the show, hoping that the reader could discern whether or not this performance was worthy of their time. I have reviewed magic before, and invite you to see what is (I believe) more indicative of the writing style I want to present in a piece on Rob Zabrecky's group show.
As for Cindy Marie Jenken's VOICES… she presented what is probably better described as a workshop of a touring production for schools. Did I mention that? No. Was I too forgiving of the production? I'm not sure. I chose to focus not on the production itself, but on the conversation it will start, and educational aspect of the show. I ignored the shortcomings of the Fringe necessities; a non existent set, poor lighting plot, and press preview jitters.
When it came to Todd Waring's FIVE UNEASY PIECES, the most polished production of the three, the underwhelming taste the show left me with was unavoidably showcase-y. I shared the underlying themes and quality of the work, but hopefully made it clear that this was a friends, family, and casting director show only, in contrast to Michael Bonnabel's THE GOOD BOY, which I reviewed during its run at Bootleg Theater.
In contrast to all three of these shows, the selections from RADAR L.A. that I saw for review were much more engaging. They dealt with themes and issues in sophisticated ways. They allowed for contemplation without simplifying the meat of the show. They used classic and new medium in inventive ways, perhaps in some cases pushing far beyond what a patron recognizes as theater. In fact, I have been so overtaken by this embroilio and my thoughts I have put aside the reviews to pen this reaction.
CAN THIS BE A LEARNING EXPERIENCE?
Is it possible for all of our community to pivot from the us vs. them of the last month, including the 'riot inciting' Culture Monster panel, the more inclusive panel from KPCC, and Fringe/ Bitter Lemons critics’ panels that followed? Can we understand that we are an us AND us community? Can we use our airing of grievances as a learning experience for everyone who cares about the present and future of theater in Los Angeles? Will discussions resulting from this prove to be a turning point in the way that we work together to support all of the theater in this town?
I don’t think that anyone would say that the Fringe is doing harm, or misguided. In contrast, I think most observers are quite impressed by the organizational muster of the group. But there is no doubt that the Fringers are very new to Los Angeles. They don’t seem to appreciate that there are other theater professionals, even entire organizations, with very similar goals... that could possibly be of great assistance to them. I can only shudder to think how Ben must have felt at the KPCC panel as he realized whom he was really on the panel with. Not ‘big theater’ boogymen, but caring arts professionals who have devoted their careers to forwarding the life of Los Angeles theater beyond the fledgling institution that it is.
Terence, you were wonderful on that panel. I hope you were able to inspire the community to further embrace the Alliance, understanding the goals you see for its future.
Here is the bottom line. Everyone enjoys being able to feel that they are being heard, and that their views, values, and issues are important. However, it seems that we are constantly cycling through the SAME ISSUES. And what comes of it?
Has your theater engaged its hyper-local audience in earnest?Has your theater engaged in real partnerships with other theaters to create work or exchange productions to find an audience in a new neighborhood?Have you really enacted real world and on line pr? Have you put as much effort off the stage as you put on it?Has your theater asked the LA Stage Alliance what it can do to help?
No, not likely. So maybe we should quietly begin to foster the future Los Angeles theater audience. This seems to be the goal of Le Infant Terrible's FUN FAMILY FESTIVAL OF TRAGEDY at Bootleg Theater. And if they were really smart- which I am fairly certain of, Justin Zsebe and Angela Berliner will be translating those tragedies in to Espanol pronto.