Scott Eckern: Theatre's New Poster Boy for Hate

Last week, I wrote about the importance of telling minority stories given our current political climate in the United States.  Since then, the heat has definitely risen, and no, not just because half of California is on fire.  I'm talking about Scott Eckern (pictured right), the director of California Musical Theatre based in Sacramento, giving $1000 in support of Proposition 8, and the uproar it's caused in the theatre community.  Many of his colleagues have quickly spread word via email and facebook informing the community of his views on "hate legislation."  Another colleague called for a boycott of the entire theatre.  In the end, Eckern resigned from his position at CMT, because he clearly could not handle the heat that came along with his political leanings.  While I do not agree with Scott Eckern on Proposition 8, I must admit that I loved seeing the very liberal theatre world get shaken out of its boots.  Every group has their general beliefs, and while in the company of like-minded friends, it is easy to get comfortable and feel too safe.  This whole Eckern situation, if anything, has the theatre circle back on its toes, which is right where they should be as artists.  While assessing what Eckern did and what happened to him, I found two very interesting blogs on the topic and left comments, which I have included for you below.  The first blog I commented on is called Culture Monster, written by Mike Boehm who is a writer for the LA Times.  He gives an accurate retelling of the events that led up to Eckern's eventual demise.  The second blog I comment on is called The Clyde Fitch Report, the personal blog of Leonard Jacobs who is a freelance writer and who has a theatre online pod-cast show.  He offers opinion on the facts and agrees that Eckern should be pushed out of his job.  I disagree.  Eckern is entitled to have his own opinions and offer support to his chosen causes and whether anyone else agrees with him or not.  Somehow Eckern has become the poster boy for hate in the theatre community, and I believe his right to free speech is not being honored, which contradicts Prop. 8 protester's "equal rights for all" platform. 

Culture Monster by Mike Boehm

Comment:

I would like to thank you Mr. Boehm for writing such an informative blog on the surprising and recent commotion that is occurring at Sacramento's California Musical Theatre, due to the donation made by Scott Eckern in support of Proposition 8.  It is a very touchy situation that has cost many people in the theatre community a lot of hurt and anger and consequently driven Eckern to resign from an executive position that he clearly loved.  People often go see theatre to be informed, changed and entertained by politically driven stories, few realize that those same stories could easily be and actually are lurking behind the scenes.  Behind the scenes of your blog is supporting information, offered through links, which I think is very helpful for readers to further understand the history and facts surrounding this event.  Now, you mention a few prominent theatre names who chastised Eckern for his actions, but I wonder if there are any members of the theatre community who are supporting his right to free speech, even though they might oppose his particular point of view on the matter?  And, while I'm playing devil's advocate here, I must ask, don't you think the pushing out of Eckern is contradictory to everything that Prop. 8 protesters stand for, in regard to equal rights?  While you are in somewhat of a public position, it would have been interesting to hear your thoughts, the point of view of an outsider, on this matter.  While I do not agree with Eckern on Proposition 8, I believe he has a right to his own opinion and that his theatre colleagues may have gone too far.  It was wrong to call for a boycott against the entire theatre (which Eckern did not own), because it not only affects Eckern, but robs the existing employees of jobs and the surrounding community of their theatre.

Scott Eckern: Enemy of Freedom, Lover of Bigotry, Death and Hatred by Leonard Jacobs

Comment:

Thank you Mr. Jacobs for taking the time to offer your opinion on the hottest topic in the theatre blogosphere, which is Scott Eckern's donation in support of Proposition 8.  Many of Eckern's colleagues have taken major offense to his actions, but it is always helpful to have an outside perspective from a party who is not directly involved and your blog offers just that.  While a bit harsh, I most definitely appreciate your candor when you write, "Scott Eckern, you are an enemy of all that is good in America,"  but I wonder if he really deserves to lose his job?  While I do not agree with Mr. Eckern on Proposition 8, I must question whether or not the pushing out of Eckern contradicts everything that Prop. 8 protesters stand for (protester pictured left).  As an American, Scott Eckern has the right to his own political leanings.  Sure, he probably should have picked a different industry other than theatre as home to his career, but it is unconstitutional to push him out.  As far as him being Mormon, I appreciate you bringing that up, because as most are well aware, the donations of the Mormon Church are a large part of why Prop. 8 was able to pass.  Even though there is no fact to back it up, I am sure that the Church, directly or indirectly, asked its followers to donate to the cause.  Scott Eckern did and he got caught, but where is the Church now?  How sad that Eckern has to be the poster boy for hate and his spiritual leaders are not there to back him up.  Well, after all is said and done, Eckern is jobless now, so maybe some LDS branch will offer him a job overseeing the Christmas musical.  Wait, do they even have Christmas?  Let's hope so, because after such a violent response from the mainstream theatre world, Baby Jesus is really Eckern's only hope at this point. 

Intimate Apparel: The Telling of Different Stories

In last week's post, I discussed the ongoing issue that theaters, particularly in the United States, are facing in selling tickets to middle class patrons. The middle class is growing increasingly diverse with minorities and I believe their stories need to be told, especially if they are the target audience that theaters are aiming to sell tickets to. One theatrical institution has begun to diversify its productions, and for the first time in ten years, it produced a play that tells the story of a minority, in this case, a black woman. I would like to elaborate on the nature of this play called Intimate Apparel by Lynn Nottage (pictured left), illustrate how a theatre piece can really and truly tell the stories of all people and how producing shows like this one can up ticket sales.

When the University of Southern California School of Theatre produced Intimate Apparel, directed by Anita Dashiell-Sparks, which opened in October of 2008, it had been ten years since they put a show up that tells a black story. The audience was ready for it, too, because every show was sold out. The actors also could not wait to play a part in this event. Prema Cruz, a senior theatre major, who played the lead as Esther, said, "This is the first time, since I've been at USC that I've played a character that looks like me." Not only is it important for audiences to see black actors playing black people, but it is crucial for an artist to be able to feel comfortable in their own skin while performing. One would think that having black actors playing black people would not be an issue, but it most definitely is and it is a wonder that it has taken institutions like USC 10 years to get back into the groove of the way things should be. With a piece of rich writing like Intimate Apparel, it is obvious why they chose now to take action. Lynn Nottage's words offer freedom to share history and expression to artists and audiences alike, proving that even a minority story can connect to whoever is watching, whatever color they may be.

Intimate Apparel, set in 1905 New York, follows the story of a plain looking thirty-five year old seamstress named Esther Mills who sews intimate apparel for ladies: a prostitute named Mayme and married socialite named Mrs. Van Buren. While living at a rooming house run by Mrs. Dickson, she begins receiving letters from a black laborer in Panama named George Armstrong. Eventually, through correspondence, he asks for her hand in marriage and she accepts, even though she is very much in love with the off limits Romanian Jew and fabric salesman, Mr. Marks (the two characters are pictured below). A touching moment between Esther and Mr. Marks occurs when she touches his hand and he instantly and almost violently pulls away.  Esther says, "The color won't rub off on you."  Marks replies with, "No, no.  I'm sorry.  It's not that.  Please.  My religious belief doesn't permit me to touch a woman who isn't my wife or my relative."  The two were unable to express their affection for one another because of stark cultural differences, which in the story lead to complete misunderstanding on the part of Esther.  Nottage writes of a time in New York when different cultures, religions, social classes, sexual orientations and genders were all living on top of each other. Sound a little familiar? The American people of 1905 struggled with identity and coexistence the same way the people of today do. Nottage managed to take this huge notion of intersection and pack it into a very revealing and personal story that exhibits the struggle people go through when their own personal desires conflict with the societal expectations that are placed on them. She says, "It's an exploration of race and class in America. And desire and hope." Indeed, it is an exploration that transcends time and qualifies this play as a perfect example of what quality of story American theatre should strive toward.

I was much honored to be a part of this particular story telling process. I played Mrs. Van Buren, a white woman married to a very rich man. Van Buren's husband loses interest in maintaining their marriage, because she is unable to have children, and in that time, that was really a woman's only purpose. Van Buren begins to feel affection for Esther and kisses her, for once throwing away her social rulebook and adequately expressing herself, saying "I just wanted to show you what it felt like to be treated lovingly." Exploring this character as a reader and an actor helped me to fully appreciate the liberties I have today, like the right to bote, not having to make child bearing a first priority, having the educational and professional means to be self sufficient, and quite frankly, the right to wear whatever I want. Corsets are aesthetically pleasing, but very unnatural and unhealthy for a woman's body! I wore them for a week and I do not know how our female ancestors did it for all those years. Oppression, I tell you!

Basically, the most important point of Intimate Apparel, I believe, is that every person longs to be touched, not necessarily physically, but on an emotional and spiritual level. Every character in this play ends up alone, with what seems like no hope in sight. When strict boundaries are placed on a person, it harnesses their ability to believe that hope pays off and that getting what they need is possible. The play shows an audience that pressuring someone to live a certain way or to place rules on love and ambition is oppressive and can ruin lives. The relevance of this show is heightened especially in the political times we are living in, with the first black president elect being Barack Obama. Also, the recent controversial passing of Proposition 8 that bans gay marriage in California makes the message of this play hit closer to home with any audience. Intimate Apparel captures a glimpse into the lives of people from all different backgrounds connecting their stories to the people of today, which makes it a perfect production to appeal to the United States' massive and ever diversifying middle class audiences.

Audience Drought: Are Ticket Deals the Answer?

This week, I stumbled upon a struggle that is ever present in the theatre community, which is how to fill theatre seats and get the people to keep coming back for more.  Theatre has the power to affect a culture, to make them ask questions, and to feel, which is a rare occurrence in our increasingly technology dependent society.  But, the art of theatre cannot use its power for good if nobody is there to experience it.  How can theaters gain a larger audience?  Is a free or reduced ticket all it takes to transform the middle class into theatre regulars?  In pursuit of the answers to these questions, I commented on two blogs that offer information and some opinion on the matter at hand.  The first blog entry that I comment on is that of theatre critic and freelance writer Chloe Veltman, a nominee for "Best Columnist" at the 2006 "Pubbies" Awards.  She discusses the Free Night of Theatre, where participating theaters across the nation offer just that: a free night of theatre.  Veltman questions whether or not this ploy is actually effective in gaining, converting and maintaining and average Joe (or Josefine) into a theatre enthusiast.  While she explores a free theatre ticket program, there are other efforts being made to pack houses, like Los Angeles' own Center Theatre Group's discounted ticket program.  Diane Haithman, a staff writer at the LA Times and a graduate of the Univ. of Michigan, wrote a very informative blog about the efforts CTG (see image, below) is making to appeal to the middle class.  In my comments to both Haithman and Veltman, which I have included, I ask if the ticket prices are the sole reason for poor attendance.  The target audience that theaters are seeking is growing increasingly diverse, and I wonder if the plays being produced are reflecting this.  It could very well be just a simple supply and demand issue: supply the people with what they want-- with what they need -- and maybe selling tickets will cease to be an issue.  

"Free Night or Free Nights?" by Chloe Veltman

Comment:

Thank you Ms. Veltman for taking the time to explore what I believe is the latest and currently most trendy fix all plan to fill empty theatre seats: giving away free tickets.  Theatre is a powerful art form, capable of healing, expression and change, but none of this is possible if no one is there to see it.  You write specifically about the Free Night of Theatre, which I think is a great example and sort of "test event" to review the results and deem whether or not the program is effective.  The statistics you give for the Free Night campaign are very helpful.  Including them makes your writing more credible, giving the reader a sense that you have invested time and research into your writing.  You make a good point when questioning the extension of free tickets to more than just one night, but I think it could be a good thing.  It gives potential new theatergoers flexibility that might be just what they need to actually make their way to the playhouses.  Plus, instead of one night, theatre is on the brain for nearly an entire month.  The most effective question that you asked, which concerned the basic principle of giving away tickets, was "how does offering free tickets... affect the economic situation of the theatre companies involved?" Name a theater and they probably need money.  So, if they are giving up some of their earnings as a marketing ploy, is the investment paying off?  If it is not, what is your insight on what could be a good strategy in packing out the theatre houses of America?  Is there a way, or is theatre really a dying art that the majority would rather let die?  I wonder if the right plays are being produced, maybe people have a need to see something different.  The U.S. is becoming more and more diverse, and I have to ask: are we telling the right stories?  Today's target audience is composed of various ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, and cultures.  I believe that the body of work being produced should reflect that.  Whatever the answers to all of these questions may be, it is my great hope that more people will realize what they are missing and head to their nearest theatre to get their latest fix of what should be their new addiction.

"Center Theatre Group offers 100,000 $20 tickets for 2008-09" by Diane Haithman

Comment:

I would like to thank you Ms. Haithman for

 writing such an informative post on the implementation of the reduced price ticket program that is under way at CTG.  Theatre can be a vehicle for social change, cultural expression and human connection, but only if people are there to engage in the process.  Filling seats is the hot topic in the theatre world right now, which makes what you have to say very relevant.  It is clear that the productions at CTG are produced on a grand scale, so giving tickets away would be out of the question, because as the the CTG artistic director Michael Ritchie says, "selling tickets is the primary purpose [of the program.]"  Do you think discounted tickets are a more effective way of drawing the crowds in?  Or in these times of economic uncertainty, is a free ticket the only way to get a butt in the seat?  Could the problem be deeper that the cost of a ticket?  Your post identifies the middle class as the target for the cheap ticket campaign, but I wonder if maybe theaters are not producing the right plays.  The population is growing more divers with the opening and closing of every theatre season, especially in Los Angeles, which poses the question: whose stories are we telling and are these stories representative of the people we want to convert into regular theatre goers?  Whatever the remedy to this "audience drought" may be, I am glad that CTG is making and effort to lure the middle class into the theatre.  If you discount it, they will come.  Let us hope this is true.