THE MUSICAL THEATRE COMMUNITY CONTRACT

By participating in musical theatre, you signed it.  But have you read it recently?
By RSO

Lately I've been thinking about how catty musical theatre people can be.

You know what I'm talking about... whether it's at Chelsea Grill or on a message board, during the show or at intermission, MT folks can be just so mean, throwing their opinions around like they're scripture, reducing a 130 minute work to a word like "boring" or an actor down to "terrible," stating they "can't sing," when of course they can, and perhaps maybe the director wanted a stronger actress for the role but the haughty MT person seems to know best.

It's frustrating listening to people be so negative about their coworkers, future employees and future employers.  I'm not immune, I know that I do it, too... but it got me thinking about the unwritten contract we all signed upon entering into this field. 

We're aware of the agreement being broken when other people break it regarding our own work, but hardly recall it when we seek to judge the work of others.  So perhaps, once and for all, let's sit down and re-read it together, and better remember it as we go forward, in the hopes of limiting the fuckery and faggotry we bring down on those poor community members who suffer for our bad behavior.

THE CONTRACT

This agreement made this _________ day of ___________, 20____, by and between __________________________ (myself) and The Musical Theatre Community at Large, witnesseth: That in consideration of my involvement in the business of show, I do agree to the following:

1. I agree to be a useful, supportive member of the New York musical theatre community, because I wish to encourage the creation and nourishment of good and potentially good work by actors, authors, composers, directors, choreographers, designers, and other creatives.

2. I understand that musical theatre is a business, whether it is for or not for profit, and on some unfortunate occasions artistry may be compromised in an attempt to do good business.  I don't encourage this but I understand it is a reality of the business and understand that is why it is called a business.

2a. I noticed that in the above paragraph the word business was used four times (five now) and appreciate the attempt to really clarify the point.

3. I agree to give every creative the benefit of the doubt, to give my best attempt at respecting each decision, and to believe their goal was not to waste my time, to offend me, or hurt my feelings.

4. I understand that this includes Frank Wildhorn, who is just doing his best you guys.

5. I understand that actors never mean to be off pitch, to spit when they speak, be miscast, to replace the actor who did it better, or to not quite hit Eva's high notes.

6. I understand that choreography can sometimes not fit into what I had in mind, and that we can't recreate the timeless impact of West Side Story every year, because Jerome Robbins is dead.

7. Rodgers and Hammerstein, Michael Bennett, George Abbott, Cole Porter, and  Jerry Herman are also dead and will not be saving musical theatre anytime soon.

8. Sorry, Jerry Herman isn't dead.  Initial that you understand: ____.

9. I understand that writing musicals is like, really hard.

10. Readings, workshops and other developmental opportunities are not a producer's way of tricking me into spending time on something that isn't quite ready and the authors are really sorry that I wasn't entertained at the value of $140.  It makes me feel better to know they will do penance for six months of revising the work just to make me happy, like a small dog that is real sorry he piddled on the floor but will do better next time master, honest.

11. Similarly, at a first preview, for which I may spend up to $140, I realize I am watching something that isn't ready to open, because if it were, it would probably be, well, open.

12. I have eyes that see and hands that move when I will them, and I do realize when I am paying money for a preview.

14. I will not behave like a twat during a production no matter how awful I perceive it to be.  I will not clutch the hand or knee of the person next to me, will not whisper jokes into their ear, will not "barely contain my laughter," will not leave at intermission because I know that in my empty seat I leave behind a steaming pile of shit that asks the actors onstage, "How does it taste?" and whispers, "By the way your show sucks."

15. Furthermore if the audience collectively decides that standing in ovation is the only way to respond to the work onstage, yet I hated it, I will not remain seated while everyone else stands, because that's just fucked up.

16. I understand that the Tony Awards aren't real and are a figment of my imagination and that of those around me.  They hold absolutely no value.

17. I realize that #16 will be eliminated from this contract should I win one.

18. But most importantly, I will never contribute to a message board.  This includes  writing on, reading (however glancingly), and especially not relinking to a forum where musical theatre is discussed nearly entirely by civilians (i.e. people who do not consider musical theatre their profession).  I know that musical theatre message boards are the creation of and are maintained by approximately eleven high school students who each wield an estimated 4482 screen names, I know their identities and I know the colleges they currently attend.

19. Ooh, and I am sorry if I have ever offended Ben Brantley.  And I hope he will like me in my play.

Signed ______________________________
Dated _____________________________

RYAN SCOTT OLIVER wrote the music and lyrics for Darling, Mrs. Sharp, 35mm, Jasper in Deadland and is currently at work on Freaky Friday for Disney Theatricals. www.ryanscottoliver.com
EMAIL HIM |  FACEBOOK | TWITTER | YOUTUBE | FANSITE | OTHER POSTS BY THIS AUTHOR

Comments

[Matt]

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for a thought-provoking blog. By and large, I agree with what you're saying - theatre communities should definitely be more supportive and less catty and cut-throat. After all, hopefully we all got into the business because we share a love of creating theatre.

However! I would not be able to sign your contract because of my objections to clauses #14 and #15, which I hope you'll indulge me as I explain.

#14. While I agree that snickering like smart-alec schoolkids at a performance you don't like isn't terribly mature, it is the right of an audience to show their displeasure for a show if they're not enjoying it. Likewise, if they REALLY hate the show, they're allowed to spare themselves and everyone else any further torture by leaving at interval (which is a more mature response than staying behind to snicker derisively some more). As a theatre creative, I may not always like or agree with an audience's response to my show, but I need to hear their honest and uncensored reactions to gauge how successfully my show is reaching its audience. As an audience member, I always go into a show with an open mind and take absolutely no pleasure in walking out at interval, but I reserve my right to do so if I'm not having a good time, because otherwise who is benefitting? Not me, not the audience members around me who ARE enjoying the show, and not anyone connected with the show.

#15. Likewise, to take part in a standing ovation simply because everyone else is doing it is not being polite, it's bowing to peer pressure. If I felt the show was good but not amazing, then I reserve the right to express my honest reaction to the show by simply applauding. Again, if I lie about how good the show is, who is benefitting? Certainly not the creative team who are trying to improve the show.

tl;dr version: Yes, we should be mature and considered in the way we express our opinions, but that doesn't mean not expressing them at all. Like it or not, the minute you put your work in front of an audience, you give them the right to hate it. You also give yourself the right to ignore or dismiss their criticisms as you see fit. It's all part of the crazy ride that is working in musical theatre.

[RSO]

Matt:
I respect your perspective and of course you have every right to express disgust at bad art on stage (Why not throw tomatoes? Certainly there's a precedent! Or like Caesar, when the gladiator performed disappointingly, sentence them to death? Again, this is rooted in tradition),

And furthermore, I REALLY understand standing your ground -- er, sitting your ground when it comes to not bowing to peer pressure...

Yes, you have the right to be that person. And the community around you, despite acknowledging your Patti Lupone-given right to stop a show when you're displeased with what's happening in the theatre...

But if you're in bed with someone, and they are simply bad at sex, don't you, as a member of humanity who is not an asshole, try to help them, or guide them kindly and with compassion towards the right behavior? You don't frown, or fart, or get out of bed and just leave because they're bad. And you don't go: "Man, you are BAD in bed!"

Or if in the corporate world your coworker does their job wrong, do you laugh in their face and say: "You're pretty stupid. You didn't go to college, huh?" Or worse, write about it on the office bulletin board?

The point of my post is that we are a community, and we have many rights, but we withhold some of those rights out of compassion and in solidarity with those onstage, just as we hope they will do for us when the roles will be reversed (and if you're truly a professional, the roles will more often be reversed than not). And in the same way you have the right to cut someone off on the road, you have the right to say that gay people are possessed by Satan, you have the right to tell your girlfriend or boyfriend that you wouldn't be breaking up with her/him but she's just gotten so fat and doesn't give you oral sex enough-- and she/he's kinda ugly...

You are still right that you have rights, but I contend that these rights are just wrong.

RSO

[Michael]

May I add Amendment 1: Grow the fuck up.

You're allowed to dislike things. You're allowed to express your opinions on the subject. I don't condone disruptive behavior during a performance, but leaving at intermission is perfectly acceptable behavior, as is not standing or not applauding if you don't feel it was deserved. Broadway is not the Apollo's Stars of Tomorrow. They're mostly adults, and they're all professionals. No one should be forced to coddle them.

There's giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and then there's Love Never Dies. You think about that.

[Lauren]

It's just interesting to me that some of the people tweeting/sharing this are some of the most two-faced and gossipy people I've worked with.

[Courtney]

As someone who isn't a theatre professional (just someone who regularly pays those $140 preview prices and beyond!), I may be out of place commenting, but I will say this: YES, in my corporate job, I expect people to tell me when I'm doing wrong. It's important to stay aware of what's working and what's not.

Sometimes, these reality checks come in the form of critiques and sometimes in the form of a friendly talking-to. Once or twice, it's been blistering. But that's part of the growing process in any profession. You learn what NOT to do, and the lesson sticks a whole lot better if you learn it the hard way.

Of course, there's a difference between someone saying something that they genuinely have a concern or gripe with, and someone just being an ass. But the fact of the matter is this: there are people who like to make asses out of themselves in every profession. The theatre set just tends to be - well, more dramatic about it.

[DF]

As a theatre director, producer and professor I must say how insulting this "contract" is to me, as an artist. You cheapen what we do by suggesting in any form that we (artists, collaborators, audience) ought to make any sort of concession for or apologize for our reaction to bad work. There is an abundance of BAD work out there and yes, I include most of Frank Wildhorn's work in there, unapologetically. The likes of Wildhorn, Lloyd Webber, and many others tend to introduce the sort of schlock to our craft that allow for concessions to be made across the board by audiences. That's obviously my opinion, but let me tell you that your contract, even in jest, cheapens what we do.

To suggest that we "forgive" actors who are off pitch, who are miscast, who are just bad makes those of us who are good look bad. Imagine if you applied the same standards you suggest above to other professions. Perhaps there should be a contract for bad surgeons or doctors? "I agree that although he left a clamp in me and sealed me up, he tried really hard anyway and should be forgiven."

Now acting isn't brain surgery, obviously. But to those of us who stake our reputations and livelihoods on what we put on stage, it feels just as important.

Yeah, it sucks when someone leaves at intermission, or doesn't stand up for you. Maybe they're handicapped. Maybe they have bad diarrhea and had to leave. Or, maybe you and your show are terrible. Regardless, it sounds to me like your ego is getting in the way of your ability to demand quality work from yourself and others. Perhaps you ought to focus less on who's NOT loving you, and more on loving your work and your craft the way many of the rest of us do ourselves and our work.

Fondly,

D.F.

[Carolann Herrick]

good work by actors, authors, composers, directors, choreographers, designers, and other creatives.

[RSO]

Courtney: I appreciate your response and your alternative perspective. There's no argument that people should be corrected and given critique for improvement, but to use your analogy, should this come from an underling in your mail room? No; they aren't qualified to do what you do. What about the person in the cubicle over, aka, an equal? No, you'd tell them to mind their own beeswax, right? It's appropriate coming from only the person who is paid to oversee and critique you, your boss, and in the MT community those people are directors and producers, and above them, the critics.

This post is directed at members of the community who are, analogously, mail room boys and folks in the next cubicle over.

Does that do anything for you?

[RSO]

Michael:

Continuing our conversation from last week when you were serving me at the restaurant you work at, I realize you're still getting over your own disappointment in not making it. Rest assured you are ineligible from signing the contract and are encouraged to leave your shit in the seats of as many B'way houses as you can afford to visit on your salary.

Related: I am disappointed you used the least original of your 4482 screen names to reply.

[RSO]

DF:

I appreciate your serious response and I appreciate how seriously you took my very serious blog post about a very serious topic. Also as a serious professional, know that my intention was not to seriously cheapen the high quality of your very serious work, but rather to encourage serious positivity in the workplace, as I have found (and this is serious) a growing negativity that goes beyond the acknowledgement of sub-par work into becoming just plain mean.

I am also appreciative and seriously grateful that you took a moment to acknowledge the groups of people who should not be forced to stand during a standing ovation: crippled people and people with diarrhea. I find this problem growing, and a matter we all must take gravely.

[RSO]

But seriously DF:

(No really, I'm being serious here), you say:

>>To suggest that we "forgive" actors who are off pitch, who are miscast, who are just bad makes those of us who are good look bad. (DF)

Why should we blame the actors for being miscast? They didn't cast the show, right? More than likely they're just auditioning for everything they can, attempting to get the rent paid this month.

And as to actors who are "just bad," would you like to name a few here? That is your point, isn't it, to name names and point fingers? Or is that not something you wish to do publicly?

And why are you hiding behind your initials? You proudly state your credentials, so fill in the blank for us. Or is your intention to simply state that you can be an asshole if you wish, yet not face the consequences of passing such judgments by hiding behind a screen name?

I invite you to put a face to the asshole.

[Charolette Lavigne]

And why are you hiding behind your initials?

[Matt Hinkley]

A few things...

Lauren, I find your assessment interesting, as many of the people I've seen reposting this are some of the most inspiring, hard-working, successful folks I know. We're not all married to our hypocrisies.

Michael, I would also contend that there is, "I am displeased," and then there is, "I am displeased and must make every effort to demonstrate to all those around me just how displeased (and therefore erudite) I am." No one argues anyone else's right to an opinion, and if you can't handle criticism, you are in the wrong business. However, if you carry all that over into making a point of simply being mean, eventually it just makes you that mean asshole that's in every group. More often than not, people try to avoid becoming that guy.

D.F., anonymity often turns even the biggest cowards into the bravest of men.

Finally, I would put forth that, like in every aspect of our lives, some things are appropriate to be made public, and some things are still better off reserved for private conversation. There is honest feeling, and there is attention-getting.

[Steve]

I think it's great that you're trying to promote some positivity in one (of the many) negative industry. However, I think it's naive to suggest that people not have a visceral reaction to art. Isn't that the point of art in the first place? To create some sort of reaction, or to make people think? Sometimes, perhaps producers get too involved with making money that the art gets skewed. So yes, sometimes people are "doing their best" but ultimately, it's at the hand of people with money, who don't always know what art is. So it's up to us as artists and creators to say no, or sell out. Granted, sometimes there is a perfect marriage of art and success, but it's so rare anymore to hear a producer say, "I want people to know this show" over saying, "I want this show to make as much money as possible." There is a fine line. I think we could all stand to be more positive, but also stand to find an outlet for a purer form of art, without taking away someone's voice.

[RSO]

Steve:
I do completely agree with you. I suppose I felt that that point (better art, less concern for money) was one that had been made, and was attempting to hit on a topic less spoken of. But of course you're right... original, risky projects aren't being given a chance to make way for the latest movie musical "sure-fire" win.

And I think some of have been misled into thinking I'm saying: "Don't dislike something," and "never speak of it." Quite the contrary... I'm encouraging people to be more thoughtful with their response, to use whatever education/experience they have to better the field, not to simply cut down the pieces they deem unsuitable. There are, what 100-200 people working on any given show at any given time, and I think to write off an entire show, and the work of all those people, as bad, is unfair and should come with consequences.

But I stand with you, agreeing that art, intelligence, and integrity should stand paramount, while acknowledging the unfortunate realities of the business.

[Michael]

RSO,

Wow. I knew you were insecure from reading your blog, but srsly?

I am a well trained theatrical professional. I am not now, nor have I ever been a waiter.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about successes and failures in the business, your illogical and childish responses to people's comments on your asinine blog are enough to tell me that it is in fact YOU who needs to get over their own disappointment in not making it.

Again, I would like to defer you to Amendment 1 - Grow the fuck up.

[John Richard Petersen]

Jerry Herman is NOT dead. He may be old, but he sure as hell ain't dead!

[RSO]

Michael:

And hold the mayo!

[Courtney]

Thanks for the response! Your point is well taken. However...while I may initially be offended if someone were to try to correct me who seems less than qualified to, I suppose it might still come down to a question of whether or not, in my own opinion, they're right.

Granted, it's more cut-and-dry what's working and what's not in my business - and that's definitely where theatre folk have it much harder - but while that move may be too bold for many's tastes, is it inherently wrong even if they're right?

It is something that I'd have to mull over, though, because it's certainly easier to say how I'd like to think I'd respond than to be sure that I wouldn't just tell them off in no uncertain terms ;)

[RSO]

Courtney:

I think your core point (that is, that it's vital to continue to grow through criticism) is spot on. Whether it's from a co-worker, your boss, or that beautiful mail room kid, the key is how you deliver it. You would hate to hear it second hand, written online about you, or worse, behind your back, and would appreciate it (from whomever) directly to your face, in a responsible, thoughtful and cogent manner. That's he spirit of collaboration. Much like our conversation right now! Thank you!

[Michael]

Ryan:

Maybe the reason your work isn't being performed (you know, outside of your friends singing your songs at the Duplex) isn't because the songs are bad or people don't like them, maybe it's because you're a smarmy asshole.

Instead of honestly responding to anything anyone has said, you've taken every opportunity to try and prove how clever you are with your put-downs, and all you've proven is that it must suck to work with you.

You're behaving no differently that the judgmental theatre fags you claim to hate.

This industry is all about who you know. You have no idea who these people are commenting on your blog. You have no idea who's reading it. But you're sure you need to make fun of them and show them that you're just an angry, jaded person.

I'll tell you this; you're lucky I'm just an actor and not a producer. But anyone could read what you've said at any time. You might want to clean up your act.

[RSO]

Michael:

One responds thoughtfully and with compassion to those (and thankfully there have been many) who respond in kind, and one responds like an asshole to an asshole.

But we must discuss this in person. Do you deliver?