by David Dower
I was struck by this post at Off-Stage Right, another interesting contribution to the spreading discussion about "putting the regional in regional theater" that I was noting earlier.
Jodi takes issue with the use of the term "regional" at all, feeling it diminshes the theaters so labeled. It implies, she reasons, that there is a "center" and then there are "regions". There are several long quotes from Guthrie Artistic Director Joe Dowling in the post in which he expresses a similar sentiment.
Having lived and worked my entire career in regional theater, I don't think I have really understood the term this way. I've definitely experienced the "outsider" sense in my dealings with the New York marketplace, even with the New York regionals. But I hadn't thought the term itself was denigrating. I just thought it was rooted in the New-York-Centricity of that famous New Yorker cover. In which it is clear there are actually no regions. Just New York sandwiched between two oceans.
For me the term doesn't so much assume or require there to be a center. If we were talking about satellite theaters, I'd be more convinced there's an implied center of greater importance than its off-shoots. Think of regions more like segments of the brain, "regions" of the brain, and you're closer to the way I have always felt about the term. It takes all of these regions, healthy, communicating well, firing on all cylinders to reach the full capacity of the human body.
I think what people are reacting to, fundamentally, in this call to re-regionalize the regional theater, is a sense that many regional theaters, those which established the movement and those which followed to sustain and build on it, have somehow become more satellites than regions. That they are, as Jodi implies and many others assert directly, now orbiting the New York marketplace like moons, reflecting its heat but generating none of their own. I hear from artists, ensembles, and small producers all over the country (including that micro-region: Manhattan) that they feel we're in a period where, to paraphrase one of the responders at the Humana Convening, "we're shipping the same ten plays around the country and every theater's season looks more alike than distinct." This sentiment is particularly acute among new play practitioners, whether playwrights, play labs, ensembles, or new play producers.
Of course this is overly general. And in the earlier post I started to try to spotlight examples where different models and artistic priorities hold sway. But there's no denying it's a widely held and frequently expressed frustration.
Jodi also points out that, as a society, less and less of us grow up, live, and die in one region. We are more mobile than previous generations. This has long been true of theater-makers. But to my mind there's a difference between having to move to New York in order to get a career in gear, and moving to a community that is more aligned with your own priorities and proclivities and building a life in the art there. Scott Walters' concern seems to be the former-- the annual march on New York that fans out from the graduation ceremony of nearly every theater training program in the country. But that was not my experience. And I am far from unique.
My wife and I love the outdoors, left-of-center politics, sky, diverse cultures, and great food. We wanted our son to grow up with those things so we moved to the Bay Area from NYC. I didn't move "West of 9th Avenue" to work in a lower-stakes or lesser-impact 'region'. I moved for my family. I built a life in the theater there. I daily balanced the "national impact' and "local focus" goals that Dowling was expressing for The Guthrie at the opening of the building. I worked on plays that ran locally, toured nationally, and internationally even. I worked on initiatives that involved collaborations with many different regions, including New York. I worked with many of the local regional theaters and with hundreds of artists resident to the community. When I left, twenty years later to the day, I left for another region, one where there was the potential to continue to pursue my passion: building the infrastructure, circumstances, and environment for new American plays to thrive nationally.
So, I guess if there's a point to this post, it's that the sense of "regional" being a dis is, perhaps, a self-inflicted one. If you feel less-than because you are not in the imagined 'center' of the theater galaxy, it is probably in your power to correct that for yourself and in so-doing improve the conditions and quality of the theater in your region. If not, it is in your power to move to the 'center' and work from there. But to me, that's still a region. And the effectiveness and priorities of the community of your residence will determine the impact your region has on the national culture, whether it is 'less than' or 'leading'. And if we build this infrastructure of effective regions, interdependent and in full alignment (like a neural network), we will approach the full potential of the field as a whole to fulfill its purpose in the daily lives of all communities.
So, Jodi-- though we don't know each other, I say this with love: what happens when you embrace your inner regionalness? We're all regionalites on this bus. Even those for whom the bus is the A Train.
Recent Comments