Would You Do It?

"I wasn't planning a suicide, but a wise man should always be prepared." | Joseph Lavy is Dr. Glas | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

“I wasn’t planning a suicide, but a wise man should always be prepared.” | Joseph Lavy is Dr. Glas | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

Is it ever justifiable to take the life of another human being? Under what circumstances?

The Glas Nocturne asks this and other challenging questions without leading us to any easy answers.

In preparation for their attendance at APL’s latest world-premiere, we asked our audience to share their thoughts about these questions. From now through the end of the run, we will share their responses with you.

Join the conversation at #WouldYouDoIt? on Facebook or Twitter — or follow Would You Do It? on Storify.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject, too!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrPinterestGoogle GmailDeliciousDiggRedditStumbleUponFlipboardShare

Meet our Sponsor: Old Ballard Liquor Co.

Old Ballard Logo
We are thrilled to announce that Old Ballard Liquor Co. — Ballard’s inimitable artisan nano-distillery — is sponsoring our production of The Glas Nocturne and has designed a tasty cocktail just for our show!

Old Ballard Liquor Co. pays homage to the area’s history as a Scandinavian fishing and blue collar neighborhood by focusing on forgotten and neglected traditional old-fashioned liquors and liqueurs. Their  products rotate and change with the seasons, so there’s always something new to try in our tasting room. If the door is open, you’re always welcome! And they offer discounts for maritime workers and Scandinavian language speakers.

Currently on the shelf are multiple flavors of Aquavit (a caraway- or dill-spiced spirit produced in Scandinavia since the 15th century) and Bounce (an aged sour fruit liqueur based on 200-year-old heritage recipes), as well as many other options. Co-Artistic Director Joseph Lavy was overheard declaring that the distillery’s classic, Norwegian-styled Riktig Caraway Aquavit is his new favorite drink and tastes like rye bread in a glass.

“The Norwegian Blonde” — designed especially for The Glas Nocturne — features the  Riktig Caraway Aquavit, accompanied by a sweet lemon syrup and dill. Everyone who donates $30 or more to see The Glas Nocturne will get to enjoy a post-show drink on us!

Don’t forget to like Old Ballard Liquor Co. on Facebook, or stop by the Ballard distillery in person, and thank them for supporting live theatre!

And word on the street is that at this very moment they are harvesting spruce tips for this year’s Spruce Top Aquavit… which sounds like something to keep an eye out for!

Pomegranate & Ash Makes a Strong Debut

Yesterday we premiered Pomegranate & Ash: An Experiment in Theatre of Polyphony in On the Boards’ Open Studio #6 — and today OTB has confirmed that we are the first group to fully pack the house!

The Sad Days that are Surely to Come

"This is the time of tension between dying and birth -- the place of solitude where three dreams cross." | Henry James Walker, Trevor Young Marston, and Zhenya Lavy | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

Dance of Separation

Dance of Separation | Front: Sara Kaus and Annie Paladino. Back: Linnea Ingalls, Margaretta Campagna, Zhenya Lavy. | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

Dance of Seduction

Dance of Seduction "Oh, ho, I will have it. I will bow and bend to get it." | Trevor Young Marston and Sara Kaus | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

The Abduction of Persephone

The Abduction of Persephone | Annie Paladino with Zhenya Lavy, Catherine Lavy, Margaretta Campagna, Linnea Ingalls, Emily Jo Testa. | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

Clairvoyant Action

Clairvoyant Action | Emily Jo Testa with Henry James Walker, Joseph Lavy, Sara Kaus | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

An Angel Hath Troubled the Water

An Angel Hath Troubled the Water | Trevor Young Marston with Catherine Lavy, Annie Paladino, Margaretta Campagna, Emily Jo Testa | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

An Angel Hath Troubled the Water

An Angel Hath Troubled the Water "These waters will heal you, they will set you free." | Linnea Ingalls & Trevor Young Marston | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

Low, Low

"And the sword I will wield, and the sword I will wield... for this is my work while here below." | (L-R) Back: Joseph Lavy, Trevor Young Marston, Henry James Walker. 3rd Row: Annie Paladino, Emily Jo Testa, Sara Kaus. 2nd row: Margaretta Campagna, Linnea Ingalls. Front: Zhenya Lavy, Catherine Lavy. | Photo: Joe Patrick Kane

 

Here’s a sampling of audience responses:

  • “The ensemble was so tight. Precise and tuned into each other.”
  • “The music was amazing!”
  • “Their dance [Dance of Seduction by Sara Kaus and Trevor Young Marston] was really powerful!”
  • “The girl’s [Catherine Lavy] song made me cry!”
  • “It’s hard to believe you’ve only been working together as an ensemble for three months!”
  • “Very moving. Even though there was no story, the imagery and the way you layered everything together was striking.”
  • “It was refreshing to see a performance that was truly interdisciplinary!”

Were you there? We’d love to get your feedback, too! Please email us or comment below.

Thank you to On the Boards for organizing this event.

Pomegranate & Ash continues to evolve. Look for additional showing announcements through this Spring and Summer.

Dozens Turn Out for Reading of New Play by Stacy Flood

(L-R) Playwright Stacy Flood takes notes on the discussion about his new play, The Pleasure & Sorrow of Your Company, as fellow playwrights Olivia Pi-Sunyer and Ina Chang listen. | Photo: Zhenya Lavy

(L-R) Stacy Flood and fellow playwrights Olivia Pi-Sunyer and Ina Chang. | Photo: Zhenya Lavy

What an outstanding Salon last night!

Special thanks not only to playwright Stacy Flood for providing a work so ripe for discussion but also to Erin Pike for pinch-hitting as a reader.

Twenty five people joined us to participate in our second-annual New Year New Play developmental reading and discussion of The Pleasure & Sorrow of Your Company, including university theatre faculty, local critics, artists, and other playwrights. By night’s end, Stacy had not only heard his words spoken by working actors but also written many pages of notes for use in further development.

In his message to Akropolis this morning, Stacy wrote:

“The actors read beautifully, and the occasion was impeccably organized and hosted! I cannot thank Akropolis, as well as those in attendance, enough for the obvious care and attention paid to the script, the discussion, and the event on the whole. Every note collected will be cherished, and the entire experience was an absolute honor, one for which I will be eternally grateful.”

We will post a call for submissions for our third-annual New Year New Play reading in September.

Cast Set for Pleasure & Sorrow of Your Company

Omer Fast, 5000 Feet Is the Best, 2011, digital film stills © Omer Fast

Omer Fast, 5000 Feet Is the Best, 2011, digital film stills © Omer Fast

The cast for January 25th’s New Year New Play reading of Stacy D. Flood’s The Pleasure & Sorrow of Your Company has been finalized.

We are excited to announce that APL Company Members and apprentices will be joined by local talents Natural Israel, Samara Lerman, and Paul Budraitis in giving voice to Flood’s examination of warfare in the drone age.

The event is wrapped in lively conversation; generous and careful discussion of the play; great food; and  ample opportunities to network with artists, intellectuals, and enthusiasts.

Learn more about the play, view the complete casting, and RSVP on the Salon page.

APL’s Uncle Vanya Earns 2 Gypsy Rose Lee Award Nominations

Marina (Zhenya Lavy) and Astrov (Carter Rodriquez) | Photo: Annie Paladino

Marina (Zhenya Lavy) and Astrov (Carter Rodriquez) | Photo: Annie Paladino

The Seattle Theatre Writers critics circle slow-released its nominations this week for the 2014 Gypsy Rose Lee Awards.

Akropolis Performance Lab is very proud to announce that two members of the Uncle Vanya ensemble garnered nominations:

  • Zhenya Lavy, for best local composer (in a category that pit her against theatres of all sizes and budgets) for her deeply evocative musical composition.
  • Carter Rodriquez, for best supporting actor (small theatre category) for his remarkable work as Dr. Astrov.

See the complete slate of the 2014 Gypsy Rose Lee Award Nominations.

Pomegranate & Ash to Premiere in OTB’s Open Studio

Pomegranate & Ash | On the Boards Open Studio | Feb. 8, 3:30 PM.

Pomegranate & Ash | On the Boards Open Studio | Feb. 8, 3:30 PM.

The fullest manifestation to date of APL’s Theatre of Polyphony, Pomegranate & Ash premieres at On the Boards in the Open Studio on Sunday, February 8, at 3:30pm.

Pomegranate and Ash takes TS Eliot’s Ash Wednesday, Monteverdi madrigals, the Hymn of Demeter, music from the Shaker tradition, and each performer’s personal biography as source material for an original performance rooted in themes of separation, loss, and reunification.

The entire ensemble performs in this piece, including all our new Artistic Associates and Apprentices.

Admission to Open Studio is by donation only: $5 suggested.

Learn more about Pomegranate & Ash and APL’s Theatre of Polyphony.

Announcing the 2015 Sunday Salon Playwrights

2015 Salon Playwrights: Stacy D. Flood, Pattie Miles Van Beuzekom, and John Longenbaugh

2015 Salon Playwrights: Stacy D. Flood, Pattie Miles Van Beuzekom, and John Longenbaugh

In 2015, Akropolis Performance Lab’s Sunday Salons will be a celebration of the work of local playwrights!

  • January | Stacy D. Flood
    The Pleasure and Sorrow of Your Company
    This piece was selected through a competitive submission process for this year’s New Year New Play Development Program.
  • April | Pattie Miles Van Beuzekom
    Blood Orange Bakersfield
    This Salon is guest curated by Jose Amador.
  • July | John Longenbaugh
    The Sound in the Next Room
    Hell with Drinks Afterwards
    Thank You
    That’s right: 3 by John in an evening promising intrigue and surprise!

Learn more about about each of these wonderful plays and playwrights via the links above.

Each Salon is a unique, dynamic assembly of artists, intellectuals, provocateurs, friends, and family. We read, drink, eat, and — with minimal moderation — let discussion go where it will. As always, there is no charge to attend. But the event is potluck, so bring food or drink to share as you are able. RSVP requested.

We hope you will join us and contribute to the discussion at a Salon this year!

When They Take and You Give Reviewer Tickets

Prompted by a question about reviewers that was posted in the Facebook group, Seattle Theater Writers, I drafted a substantial enough response to merit sharing here, as well… especially given a related conversation I took part in with Ohio friends earlier this week.

ORIGINAL QUESTION:

Out of curiosity and some frustration I am inquiring about the following. It has always been my understanding that there is an informal contract signed between the inviting organization and the reviewer that there will be a review written of the show that the reviewer attended. After a production in which we have had three reviewers come to review it, none of whom wrote an actual review, I am just curious if my understanding of this contract was based in an actual understanding or rather some naiveté. Or if instead it is representative of the seattle freeze of rather than saying people didn’t like something, they just don’t say anything at all. Thoughts?

 

MY RESPONSE:
As a former managing editor of a newspaper and editor of a feature magazine; a sometimes reviewer of theatre, dance, music, art; a doctoral candidate in theatre history & criticism; and a maker and producer of theatre, I have a lot of thoughts on this matter.

Short version:

There is NO circumstance (except, perhaps, death or act of God) to justify any person or organization taking a review comp and then NOT publishing a review (or not publishing the review in a timely manner). NONE.

Additional comments for those with stamina:

  • If you didn’t like the show — and you believe that means there is nothing to be said or that you are doing the artists or the audience some kind of service by being silent — then you do not understand the work, should not be representing yourself as a reviewer, and should NEVER accept a review comp. To be clear: YOU ARE NOT A REVIEWER, no matter how many times you have published your thoughts about pieces you have seen.
  • If an editor pulls the plug on a review due to publication constraints (actual column-inch print issues due to other breaking news or the editor’s own planning incompetence, not problems regarding whether the writer could make deadline), then letters need to be sent to that editor and publisher requesting payment for the cost of the reviewer’s ticket. And if that editor’s behavior continues, and your org pays for advertising, you need to talk to your account manager about pulling your business. (And if that kind of problem is encountered regularly with a publication with which any cooperative advertising is in place, then the advertising cooperative needs to decide as a group how it will handle the publication’s failure to produce to expectation.)
  • Any writer not affiliated with a publication that vets contributors through a hiring/contract and editorial process who is not willing or able to operate with the same standards of professionalism and quality as expected of said publications, should NEVER accept review comps.
  • Whether a writer is publishing on a personal blog or a publication that instructs readers about what to see has NO BEARING on whether they should be exempted from writing a review if they accepted a comp ticket. You took a free review ticket? It’s now your job to produce a review — and to do so in a timely manner.
  • Any reviewer (independent or otherwise) or publication unwilling or unable to PUBLISH a review within days of having seen the production — generally less than a week… as in, by the Thursday before the next weekend… in time to have an impact on the next weekend’s ticket sales — needs to let the producing organization know what the expected publication schedule will be PRIOR to accepting any review comps. No oopsies. The arts sections of publications aren’t generally ruled by the same breaking news variables as the rest of the papers. I always knew a full month in advance, at least, what my arts sections were going to look like. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is full of shit. And independent publishers/bloggers have even more control over their publication schedule so… even more full of shit and, moreover, NOT a legitimate reviewer.
  • Any person who represents him- or herself as a reviewer, accepts one (or more) comps, and does not publish a review is stealing from the arts org — except under my aforementioned death or act of god exceptions. If they don’t produce a review at all, INVOICE THEM for the ticket. They aren’t a charity, but your org probably is. At least if you invoice them you have documentation for writing it off as bad debt.
  • If you are a producing organization, you have a responsibility to know who the reviewers are and whether the “named” online publications function professionally or more “loosely.” Do not give legitimacy to incompetent reviewers or erratic publications by giving them comp tickets. If they’re not capable of approaching your work with critical acumen or intellectual contextualization — going beyond the vapid “I liked it” / “I didn’t like it” garbage we so often see that’s supported by nothing more than plot synopses and a general run-down of the actors (maybe sprinkling in references to other things they’ve been in) — then they are NOT reviewers, they are NOT doing anything more than your well-written press release already does, and they do NOT deserve your free ticket unless you really, truly think it’s worth limiting your potential revenue for that.
  • If you are a producing organization and are about to give a person or publication rep a review comp: (1) You have every right and responsibility to ASK first what date they expect the review to be published. If they don’t know, don’t give them a ticket until they do. If the intended publication date is not going to be early enough to have any impact on your bottom line, tell them, ask them if there’s any way it can be moved up, and if it’s still going to be too late then don’t give them a ticket. (2) With anyone not reviewing for a known, regularly published media outlet, you need to make it utterly clear that you are giving them a ticket only with the understanding and condition that they are going to produce a review – and do so in a timely manner — and that if they don’t, they will be invoiced and responsible for payment of the ticket after the fact.
  • If you are a producing organization and are asked for comp tickets by someone you’ve never heard of who is claiming to be a reviewer, ask for credentials. Do some research. Find out if they’re legit. If they work more independently, actually assess their work (what have they reviewed that you or someone you know also saw?). THEN decide if you want to reduce your revenue by the cost of their ticket.
  • If you are a producing organization, you should never feel OBLIGATED to give more than one ticket to any reviewer. A reviewer can ask nicely — and you can decide whether you have sufficient business reason or ability to give away an extra seat to THAT particular person/publication for THAT particular show — but they should not expect more than a single comp ticket for themselves because it’s all that’s required for them to do the job they are there to do. Their primary purpose for being there is to work — to do a JOB — not to fund their personal date night. And funding their personal date night certainly isn’t YOUR responsibility. I don’t take my spouse to my workplace, and unless you and your spouse work together you don’t, either. Remember: their spouse or date or person reeled in off FB at the last minute is NOT going to write a review and is not going to feel responsible for talking up your show or convincing anyone else to buy a ticket. If you have extra free tickets to give away, give them to the cast, whose friends and family are far more likely to have an impact on your bottom line by spreading the word.
  • Producing organizations need to communicate with each other about people who take a review comp but don’t produce a review — or don’t produce a review in a professionally timely fashion — and EVERYONE should stop inviting those people to their shows. Name names. Those people are not reviewers, they are arts enthusiasts. Let them buy tickets like the rest of us. We should not subsidize their personal entertainment.

For those who may not remember: Joe Boling, who attended more performances in some years than there are days and who, if memory serves me, even sacrificed a relationship to feed his theatre passion — who wrote copious numbers of reviews (all of which called it like he saw it, no squishy “feelings” bullshit pulling of punches) and compiled end-of-year “top” lists that were actually representative of the broad range of local activity and WORTH paying attention to and celebrating — purchased the tickets to every show he attended. Whether he reviewed or not. And he refused to accept a comp even if you begged him to take one from you out of mere appreciation for his project and desire to help support him in continuing the effort. The man bought every ticket.

Let there be no doubt or confusion: We have more ability to shape the critical climate around our work than we tend to think. We need to stop diminishing our work by legitimizing incompetent reviewers and a sub-par critical environment. We need to celebrate and support those reviewers who actually write with critical acumen, who craft quality observations and prose WORTHY of the time and effort we pour into creating our work — and we all know that means supporting them whether their review is glowing or less favorable than we might have hoped.

Last thought for the moment: The two people I consider our region’s top reviewers do this for free. Every now and then you should kick them something via “Tip the Web” or whatever mechanism possible. Not to buy their opinion, but to fuel their capacity and enthusiasm to go on in a difficult and often thankless role.

Strategies for Working with the Media

A friend in Ohio asked a question on Facebook that generated a flurry of discussion, including a lengthy response from me. The critic in question is one I knew well, as I had rejected (for all the reasons JT Buck sites in his inquiry below) his appeals that I employ him as a reviewer both when I was at the newspaper for which he now writes and when I was at the magazine. Given the volume of commentary and general feedback about my remarks, I thought they merited sharing here, as well.

ORIGINAL POST BY JT BUCK:

Statement and Question: I just read a review of a local theatre piece in a weekly paper, written by a well-established critic with advanced academic credentials. While the review was positive in its appraisal of the show overall, the production team and audience were still done a disservice. Said review was so full of poor writing (theme misidentified with plot, logical fallacies, factual errors, confusing structure) I actually felt embarrassed for both the author and paper. In a sophomore communications class this would be C work at best. Worse still is that this seems to be a common occurrence not only from that particular outlet, but from several in the region.

We have an amazing arts scene here which requires and begs for intelligent and skilled coverage (both critical and feature) in our local media. Yet such coverage (with some notable exceptions) is too often not available.

So, Question: how should we in the arts community best respond to incompetent critics? Remember that the institution in question does a fine job of relating to the media on the marketing and editorial side. This is specifically a case of a critic who simply isn’t doing the job well, and doing harm to those he’s covering in the process.

 

MY RESPONSE:

As someone who’s worked the media side, the performer/producer side, and the arts advocate side in both Ohio and in Seattle, I offer these thoughts as starting points for actual discussion in your community around the question JT asked:

  1. The media outlets are under no obligation to cover theatre at all, so first it’s important to be grateful that there’s still anyone at a paying publication writing about theatre at all. Send thank you notes after you’ve been reviewed — to both the reviewer and the editor — no matter the substance of the review. Goodwill gestures are not futile.
  2. The media outlets are businesses, and they don’t cover theatre out of any sense of altruism or “greater good of art.” They cover it to the extent that they can make money: that they can secure advertisers willing to pay to support it. This means the arts orgs — large and small alike — should feel an obligation to advertise if they want coverage of the art form at all. (NOTE: Buying an ad doesn’t define the kind of coverage or review they’ll get, and no org should expect it to. You’d be amazed the number of conversations I had with theatre org administrators irate that their production did not receive glowing reviews even through they advertised.)
  3. The large houses need to budget adequately for stand-alone advertising. The small houses need to develop a cooperative advertising model that allows them to pool resources and possibly negotiate better rates.
  4. The PR kit you provide will go a long way to assisting in the quality of the work written about you. Draw out the major themes, structural elements, etc., that you are working with. Point critics in the direction of the historical and critical context you’d most like to see them tap into. Provide resources for further reading. Without descending to empty, unsupported hype and/or hyperbole, help them see your work as part of the larger (state, national, global) picture — not relegate it to the local/not-Broadway/inferior zone. They’re still going to write what they want, but you have done what you can to shape initial perceptions.
  5. I can’t stress enough the importance of cooperative efforts such as mentioned in #3 above.
  6. Develop a professional relationship with the reviewers and arts editors. Appropriate opportunities for a phone call or other communication — with realistic expectations for timing/frequency/significance/etc.
    Ex: If you’re launching a season announcement, it’s not a bad idea to help them understand important community tie-ins, special interest stories, etc, to help them decide if there is justification for a feature in advance of one of the shows’ openings… or which 1 piece of the season (assuming they’ll do advance features on no more than 1, at best, for a smaller house) you think might merit extra attention.
  7. Provide them with plenty of lead time to plan coverage. Unless they tell you otherwise, 4 weeks’ notice isn’t enough. For calendar entries, at least 6 weeks’ lead (gives the media time to process it, and gives you the best shot of having it hit at least 3 weeks in a row before your show opens so it can solidify as a real thing in people’s minds… in general, people need to see things 3x at least before they take action). The media outlets need time to process your info through their operations, decide what/how to cover it, etc. And you want to give them every opportunity of getting any advance coverage they might do published far enough in advance for their readers to have time to fit it into their social calendars if they want to.
  8. Never miss a deadline or ask for special favors (ex: calendar entries, advertising).
  9. Provide quality images to accompany your advance kit and your reviewer kit. A less-than-stellar production with great images is going to have a better chance of good coverage than a great piece with crappy (or no) photography — or images conveying no action or other interest.
  10. Develop a solid, non-media network for effective and coordinated postering, postcard distribution, etc. — as well as communities of visibility and conversation (in person and via social media) around your work. The onus is on you to get people interested in supporting your work, not on the media outlets. But if you successfully generate the right kind of buzz, the media outlets will notice and will want to be part of it.
  11. Don’t expect review coverage for runs of 2 weeks or less. Especially for the weekly publications, it makes little sense for the publication to invest in review coverage of something unless their readers will have adequate opportunity to take action on their review… i.e. still be able to go see the piece.
  12. Be prepared for the possibility that their response to your request for better coverage of your work is something along the lines of “Then do better work.” What does this mean? Always take a professional approach. Work together. Demonstrate that the theatre community is a force, not disjointed happenstance. Exude quality in every element of your administration and interactions with them — including providing the highest quality content and materials you can. Be so good and professional — and helpful in providing them with content/materials that make their work easier — that they really, truly want to help you and to see you succeed.
  13. Be honest with yourself and them about the work you do. Give them reason to trust what you say about the work you are doing. It’s not all good. It’s definitely not all great. Indiscriminate use of words like “brilliant,” “innovative,” “unique,” reads as sophomoric and untrustworthy … and it’s certainly not your place to tell them whether something is going to be the “theatre event of the year.”
  14. Expanding upon #13: Don’t conflate YOUR production with “the Tony-Award winning” production [insert whatever NOT your production accolade you like]. If the thing wasn’t said about YOUR show [ex: “…a laugh-a-minute rollercoaster of fun” ~NY Times], don’t put it on your poster (or in your pr materials unless you attribute it clearly as having been said about someone else’s production). You’ll dupe some unsuspecting community member who doesn’t understand it’s not about YOUR show… who shows up at your venue expecting something of a quality that’s toured from NY and is neither impressed nor amused… and who then relays the disappointment to their friends. You may have gotten a few more people in to see your show, but you’ve done a larger disservice to the rest of local theatre community because you’ve likely driven that person to only take a chance on the big theatre institutions in the future.

Read the original post and full comment thread here:
https://www.facebook.com/jtbuck1978/posts/10152390203211496