"Is She too Fat to Play Nancy?"

Some people are annoyed about picking the lead of a Broadway (or West End) show via reality TV.

In my ideal universe, this would never happen. But my ideal Broadway season would feature Sam Shepard, Joe Penhall, Sarah Kane, Suzan-Lori Parks, Martin McDonagh, and John Belluso... and everything would be directed by Alex Timbers, or Katie Mitchell. And star Billy Crudup, Elaine Stritch, Anthony Mackie, and Alfre Woodard. (To prove that Drowning Crow was a cosmic anomaly, of course.) My ideal Broadway season: not bloody likely.

Personally, I don't mind it so much. I mean, are you acquainted with Connie, the winner of the Sound of Music competition? Um, she is brilliant. Seriously, what's worse - picking a populist Broadway star on TV, or warming-over a tired show with Drew Lachey?

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is this - a summary of some very upsetting reactions to Jodie, the recent winner of "I'd Do Anything", who will be playing Nancy in Oliver! come January. "Is she too fat to play Nancy?" Too fat to play Nancy? Good grief. This sort of snarking just shouldn't happen in the theatre community.

Shuffle Culture

My ex-boyfriend is a visual artist (he's very good). Hanging out with him for like 6 years made me realize how totally different the visual art and theater communities are. When it comes to innovation, visual artists outclass theatre artists like it's their job.

Why is this? Well, after years of being lead around to galleries, openings, and gallery-openings, it finally dawned on me that visual art, unlike theater, is free to look at. Anybody can waltz into the Gagosian and check out a Cy Twombly (priced up to like $4.5 million), but free theater is for the most part nonexistant. I think this leads to some other important distinctions, like if I wanted to see something new by 100+ theater artists, it would probably take me six months (a year?), and several thousands of dollars. On the other hand, if I wanted to see something new by 100+ visual artists, all I would have to do is walk around Williamsburg on the second Friday of the month (or Chelsea, or whatever).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the art scene (there's a reason he's my ex-boyfriend). But oh, do I envy their access. And I'm not advocating a night where 100+ theatre artists open up their rehearsal processes (well... maybe). But in the spirit of communication, I would like to draw your attention to these productions, all recent or ongoing, that are doing some remarkable things:

Contains Violence, currently getting terrible reviews in the UK, which is disappointing, because it sounds awesome. Theatre audience as Hitchcockian voyeur, happening in real time and space.

Democracy in America, Annie Dorsen's open-source deconsctruction/reconsctruction of deTocqueville with the Foundry Theatre.

Conversation Storm, recently at the Frigid Festival, described by Aaron Riccio as a marriage of Phillip Glass and Chuck Mee

Of All the People in All The World, by Stan's Cafe. A play without a plot.

Small Metal Objects by Back to Back Theatre, which I've written about before. Site-specific, tech-forward, and live as anything can possibly be.

The Hour We Knew Nothing of Each Other, a play without words; "people-watching raised to the level of art"

Along these lines, I'd also like to point out this post from the Guardian Theatre Blog, which calls for an "iPod-like relationship between careful planning and chance" in theatre (Merce Cunningham is already all over this). I love this idea, and I think the performances listed above are making real strides in this direction. The live performing arts have got to fit into the landscape of open-source, of shuffle culture, and of personal control over information. I mean, we should own this one. We're live.

On Bringing up the Rear

Do the words "America's Giving Challenge" ring a bell? Yes? No? The recent experiment/competition exploring how Web2.0 tools (blogs, social media, etc.) can be used for fundraising? That's detailed nicely in this New York Times Article?

Well, the winners were recently announced, and I noticed two really interesting trends in the results:
1. The winners are all tiny, grassroots organizations
2. No arts organizations!

Sean Stannard-Stockton of the Tactical Philanthropy blog goes over the America's Giving Challenge winners in this post, suggesting that small nonprofits are way ahead of larger companies in terms of adopting these new tools. Well, he's right - for example, the United Way used a Superbowl commercial to announce a campaign using text messaging as a tool for rescue workers. Good for the United Way! But excuse me, where are the arts?

Bringing up the rear, as usual.

I'll admit, it's hard to warm up to some of these Web2.0 resources... like Twitter, which seems like possibly the most annoying thing anyone ever thought of. But then again, I thought YouTube seemed pretty annoying until someone pointed me in the direction of some deeply weird old public access clips. Even Twitter shows some promise when applied to common problems in our community. Maybe Twitter might be helpful in sharing leads for jobs, internships, auditions, or calls for submissions? Or actors trying to sublet their apartments while they go out of town? Or sharing micro-reviews of performances and readings?

These resources are free, and the people who use them are young, smart, and savvy - exactly the demographic every arts manager is desperately trying to recruit. There's more to this problem than creating a Facebook page, or starting a blog (although those are good steps in the right direction). Wouldn't you want to be the person who cracked this one open?

In the meantime, here are some theatre-type Web2.0 resources:

Slideshare is by far the nerdiest Web2.0 application, which makes it by default my favorite. It's like YouTube for Powerpoint-type slideshows... but I promise, it is fascinating and amazing. I recommend this presentation on how the Web is transforming arts organizations.

TCG challenges theatres to make a 3-minute video about their companies