[ssba]

Paul Birchall’s Got It Covered:

Bye Bye Banshee & Stage Raw ‘Visualizes the Invisible’

By Paul Birchall

BANSHEE OUT OF BURBANK

Theatre Banshee: another L.A. cultural treasure lost to gentrification (photo courtesy of the company)

Here’s a bit of unwelcome news for your Thanksgiving leftovers.  We’ve just had a note from Sean Branney, artistic director of Theater Banshee, the incredibly imaginative and innovative theater company, that the group has made the decision to leave their headquarters on Magnolia in Burbank. 

In an e-mail headlined “The End of an Era,” Branney writes, “It is with heavy hearts that we let you know that as of December 1, Theatre Banshee will be forced to move out of its artistic home at The Banshee. This fall we were hit with a sudden and massive increase in our rent. We have explored all available options and none proved a feasible solution to our dilemma. After twenty years of producing in the space, our time is up.”

Although the note goes on to assure us that the people who make up Theatre Banshee will continue to create, it is not as clear where this will happen.  I also can’t say this is the first time that a well respected theater company has been forced to move because a neighborhood is becoming gentrified due, in great part, to the existence of the very theater company that now can’t afford the rent. 

Really, I can’t even list the number of theaters this has happened to over the years, from the old Burbage on Sawtelle to the Celebration on Santa Monica.  On the other hand, it is sometimes not a bad thing for a company to move:  You can’t get bigger by staying in the same place, after all, and perhaps we will see Banshee take steps toward expanding to a mid-sized company.

Banshee has had a tremendous run; awards literally rained down upon such past productions as The Crucible and The Walworth Farce.  It is sad to see them being forced out of their theater home, but the truth is that a company as good as theirs is not down by a long shot just because they have to find a new venue. 

STAGE RAW THIRD SYMPOSIUM

Steven Leigh Morris, left, and the “Visualizing the Invisible” panel at 24^th Street Theatre (photo by Paul Birchall)

The intellectual sparks were a-flying on Monday night at the third of Stage Raw’s symposia “Visualizing the Invisible,” about the crises affecting arts coverage in Los Angeles.  The topic of this third panel was diversity, which is a theme that has been echoing throughout the region and country of late, as evidenced in the minutes of such local think tanks as the L.A. Theater Network, and on the pages of the national theater sounding board Howlround.  Their controversial proposal, Jubilee, calls for theater companies to pledge to a season of presenting only works by writers of color or other minorities or women.

Although the topic of diversity in arts coverage might have been the intention, the actual conversation (ably moderated by LA Times critic and Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle President Margaret Gray) gradually turned into an exploration of diversity in the theater world in general. 

Panelist Jose Luis Valenzuela, UCLA Distinguished Professor of Theater and artistic director at the Los Angeles Theater Center, suggested that a critic or theater journalist needs to come from a place of contextual awareness.  “I think a critic can write about anyone, as long as the intellectual research has been done and you know what you’re talking about.  As long as you are a theater person and know the contemporary history and the context.”

Bob Verini, former theater critic for Variety and now a critic for Stage Raw, agreed.  “Critics have a responsibility to educate themselves on everything.”  He also joked, “What a lot of folks may not realize is that there are fewer professions easier to enter than theater criticism.  I can create a blog and get a comp.  When you review something, you are a critic.”   

More seriously he added, “Readers demand context:  Even when a show is not a critic’s cup of tea, the reader should expect the critic to be able to dip his feet into the cup of tea to see how it rates amongst plays of its type.” 

The curious issue of a lack of diversity amongst theater journalists themselves was raised by LA Weekly and Stage Raw critic Lovell Estell III who, as Verini noted, was one of the very few theater critics of color writing in the US.  “I’ve been doing this for 20 years,” noted Estell.  “I have yet to see another black critic.”  Estell described how he was dragged to the theater as a child by his mother — and he hated it at the time.  “Every time I go into a theater now, I hear my mother laughing.” 

The conversation gradually shifted to the need to establish a benchmark for diversity in theater generally.  Valenzuela noted that this is a conversation that has been going on for decades —since back in the 1980s and 90s, when the concept of “color-blind casting” gained traction. 

Estell explained that he was not a fan of color-blind casting.  “It’s nice to get a balance – but to say that we want to cast you because you are black or Asian — that’s condescending.” 

Added actress Rose Portillo, “Just doing color-blind casting for the sake of doing color-blind casting is not a good goal.  However, if you’re a certain artist and Chekhov speaks to you (you should have the chance to do it).”

Actor Richard Azurdia insisted that minorities want to go to the theater and see their own experience reflected.  “Every time we see a show with an artist of color or a disability – we come out to support them.”  He went on to coin a new term as an alternative to color-blind casting: “color-conscious casting.”  “We need to be race conscious.  We all see color, that’s fine:  We have to be conscious of it so we can work together.” 

Added Valenzuela, “Our color does not change.  People of color go to the theater if they think it’s relevant.” 

The discussion gradually shifted to thoughts on how the current theatrical economy has actually worked against promoting diversity on stage.  Valenzuela recalled how the country’s regional theaters used to be far more experimental and daring, serving their communities far better than they do today.  “Now the regionals are just a stop on a tour: They’re considered successful only if they sell tickets or get a good review,” sighed Valenzuela. 

In an interesting twist, a consensus emerged that the real problem is socio-economic. “Commerce diminishes the art form,” opined Valenzuela.  “The theater that sells the most tickets becomes the status quo.”

Jay McAdams, artistic director of the 24^th Street Theater, noted that the real issue will always be money.  “We want people who can spend up to $75 a ticket.”  He went on to say that the real obstacle to diversity is that poor people cannot afford that.

Michael John Garces, artistic director of the acclaimed Cornerstone Theatre Company, agreed. “Marketing is getting butts on seats.  That’s commendable!  We do it.  But that’s not engaging the audience, that’s manipulating the audience.  The people who can engage aesthetically with the audience are those who will be relevant.” 

During the post-symposium questions, a discussion erupted over Howlround’s Jubilee. The general consensus was dismissive. 

Garces suggested that the proposal itself was merely meant to provoke rather than provide a template for execution.  “Howlround is great,” he noted.  “But they have no power.  They can just instigate, and people can get riled up, and there will be a conversation on the topic.  However, no one is telling you what to do.”

Valenzuela put the “Jubilee” concept into perspective by noting that many portions of the performance community have been excluded for a long time.  “We are talking about a whole history of exclusion,” he explained. “Not everyone has learned how to deal with that issue.  Some people do want to make that conversation on their own.” 

As Valenzuela concluded, “This is a city of the 21^st century because of its diversity.  The society we have in this city is the global culture.”