Re: RAT Hey Brad!

[Ezra Buzzington <jonoh1@juno.com>]

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:44:30 -0500 "Allison Narver" <anarver@chesnutt.com>
writes:
>Sure, I'd love to hear about NYC fringe...
>Tell all.
>Love,
>Allison


Hi Allison,
  Thanks for asking. I was contacted by Aaron Beall at NADA about taking
a meeting for a NYC Fringe Festival. We met with John Clancy of the
Present Company. We brainstormed and thought, basically, why the hell
not? The largest problem facing us, we thought at the time, was the
generally accepted fact the NYC is, in and of itself, a 24-hour a day,
7-day a week "fringe festival" of a sort already.  I was then, and am
now, of the opinion that, first and foremost, what any Festival should
do, fringe or otherwise, is reflect its' local demographic. Else, why do
it? So, with that in mind, why would a NYC audience travel down to the
lower-east side of Manhattan to see a collection of productions that they
could just as easily see elsewhere - possibly even closer to their home? 
Why have a festival at all?  It was my suggestion (met with ringing and
immediate acceptance) that the NYC fringe festival would need to be
adjudicated. NYC audiences are, simply by the fact that it is a 'round
the clock "fringe festival" of a kind, more discriminating when it comes
to the theatre than other major metropolitan areas. Not smarter, please
note, not by any stretch of the imagination better, also note.  Simply
more discerning. And, certainly, less forgiving. Rather gratuitously, in
fact. A New Yorker travels down to the NYFringe fest, sees an amatuerish
production, they don't return. In other cities, they are more forgiving,
perhaps even finding it "cute" or "quaint". Cool. Whatever. Row the boat
you are in. It was then immediately pointed out  that, should we decide
to take the bumpy adjudicated road, we would also be taking a great deal
of heat. Possibly for the rest of our careers. Bring it on, it was
decided.
  I should like to take a moment here to explain how, in the States,
there remains no <clear> definition of "fringe theatre". In Canada, for
the most part, the festivals came first. And the small, intimate theatres
found life and grew out of those.  So their definition is, and identities
are intimately tied with the festivals.
Here in the States it's just the opposite. Using Seattle as an example,
as that was the first city to have a fringe festival in the US, the
theatres came first, the usage of fringe (and eventually the festivals)
came second. When I founded the League of Fringe Theatres in Seattle over
ten years ago (now, happily, defunct as it served its' purpose - that
being to bring attention to the "fringe" theatre boom in Seattle at the
time), out of which was eventually birthed the much belabored Seattle
Fringe Festival,  it defined "fringe" as any theatre company with a
yearly budget of $100K or less. A financial definition. It is still how I
define it, personally. But others prefer a definition that includes
anything from art to politics to location to whatever. The point being,
there is still no true definition in the States. In spite of what anybody
may say to the contrary. They are all right. They are equally wrong.
  In deciding to adjudicate the NYC fringe fest, I felt that it could go
to help define what fringe was in the states by emphasizing what it was
also not. Simply because fringe theatre is on the cheap, does not mean it
is, by necessity,  tacky, unprofessional, poorly written, poorly
executed, poorly acted, poorly thought out, amatuerish,  etc. In Seattle,
as an example, the experience of the festival is far more about the
experience of the festival than it is (or would have been) in NYC. People
in NYC see a lot of bad theatre all the time. Why should they go to a
festival of untested stuff? NYC audiences only <think> they're hip. They
actually risk very little. They depend on reviews, word of mouth,
friends' opinions, proven text, proven talent, just as much as, no,
actually more, I think, than Seattle and other cities' audiences.
  So, a tough decision (based on local audience demographics and demands,
with an eye toward the eventual definition of "fringe" for the states)
was made and solidified. Or so I thought. This was the philosophy I stood
behind. This is the philosophy I still stand behind. This was not, as it
turned out, what went down.
  Our goal had originally been 100 shows in ten days. Not huge. But still
the biggest in the States. And larger, frankly, than a staff of about a
dozen or so, could probably handle efficiently. We had a process where
each artistic director would look at the material submitted, fill out an
appropriate form, vote yay, nay, or something in the middle  and
eventually have a big old hairy-scary free for all and see who, by
numerical configuration, would make it into the First Annual NYFringe
Festival. There were three of us making those artistic decisions.  Though
a few deadlines were missed, we ended up (by utilizing the decision
making process on which we had based the entire concept of the festival)
with, as fate would ironically have it,  exactly 100 shows with which I,
personally, was very proud to be associated. Hunky. And dorey. And then,
a wind change. One of the members of the voting board decided that it
wasn't reflective enough of NYC talent.  And, if the festival was not
made to fit a more reflective model, he would walk. A political decison,
clearly. One made in spite of the fact that the final participant
percentage matched almost exactly what we had originally hoped. Roughly:
60% local, 25 or 30% National, 15 or 10% International. (The Dramaturg of
the first annual would have to answer to the numbers for you.) It was
then decided, again by majority vote, to override our entire original
concept and allow in a larger number of participants to both address some
financial concerns of the festival and let in more "New York City players
of the downtown scene". In spite of the fact that their applications
either incomplete (in some cases) or, frankly, less than theatrically
stellar. My complaints were many and loud and in the minority. The first
Annual was huge. It almost doubled in size immediately and I remained
attached to the festival in name only - as founding artistic director.
Which I was. And will always be. Lucky, lucky me.  I have no idea how the
2nd went or the 3rd will go. Assuming the worst of mankind, I assume they
will be smash hits.
  My mother once told me that "simply because you <can> do something,
doesn't mean you <should>". This is thinking I now take to heart. I will
advise anyone who wants advice on a festival in any city at any time. And
my knowledge is, frankly, vast. I will not, however, be responsible yet
again for the creation of another bureaucratic "artistic" organization
that serves the few by pretending to serve the many. Two are more than
plenty.
  Sincerely,
  Jonathan Harris
  

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]