night a totally different experience. Theater just couldn’t exist without an audience. (There followed some silly jokes about the Polish theater guru Jerzy Grotowski. I won’t bore.) F: You talked about the negative effect a bad show can have on the potential “second-time theatergoer.” What about a good show? Will it make people come back? Z: Well, the positive effect is probably more gradual. If someone comes out of Bullshot Crummond, for example, saying, “That was a lot of fun; let’s do that again,” it probably means that they’re ready for more fun — more comedy. It doesn’t mean they’re lining up to see, say, Short Eyes. Developing a taste for the incredible variety of tfieater available takes time. F: So, every time out, we have more to lose than we have to gain? Z: Not exactly. The main thing is for people to begin to enjoy the idea of live theater. The rest is just a matter of time. F: Don’t developments like the Performing Arts Center, and the success of Oregon Contemporary Theater (OCT) indicate that enough people may already enjoy that idea? Z: Those are interesting developments, but we better take them one at a time. F: Any preference? Z: Flip a coin. F: (Flips) OCT. Z: OK. I do think Oregon Contemporary Theater’s success is good news for theater in the long run, but there are problems. There’s the audience development problem in that their season last year, while it was well performed, wasn’t very well chosen, and wasn’t very popular. It would be interesting to see what OCT’S renewal rate is for this summer; I suspect it won’t be easy for them to reach last year’s level. Another sticky area is that OCT doesn’t hire nearly enough local skill and talent. So a major portion of the Portland money that supports the theater leaves town every seven weeks during the summer. I mean we’re not talking about the Art Museum buying a Picasso or the symphony importing a Yo Yo Ma — these are just journeyman actors whose only distinction from Portland journeyman actors is that they’re not from Portland. F: And that they’re members of the union. Z: Oh yeah. Let’s be sure and talk about that, too — later. It’s not just actors, either. Designers, technicians, and on and on, imported. You have to think that OCT is a lot less of a community resource by its refusal to be a significant employer of local skills. Still, OCT has tremendous potential for helping the theater scene in Portland. One thing for sure, its failure sure isn’t going to help anybody, and its success might. So, go OCT. Rah! Rah! Rah! F: What about the union? Z: Later! I said later! F: Well, then, how about the upcoming Performing Arts Center? Z: / could think of better ways to spend $26 million. F: Such as? Z: Can we go off the record? F: Sure. (Z. then explained several ways to spend $26 million, and some of them were really great, but unfortunately they were all off the record, so I can’t reveal any of them. Sorry.) F: We’re back. I take it then you’re not a fan of the proposed center? Z: If I were the agent for, say, the, Taiwan Belly Dancers, I’d be delighted. But I work for Storefront Theater and there’s nothing for us, or any other local theater, to shout about. With all the renovation and building planned, you’d think someone would have given serious consideration to local performing arts groups as potential users. Instead, the whole complex seems to be dedicated to the proposition that “Portland shall not miss Kenny Rogers again!” F: Not to mention the Taiwan Belly Dancers. Z: Or the Taiwan Belly Dancers! F: I said not to mention them. Z: You really think a joke that old belongs in this interview? F: It’s right in the middle; nobody’ll notice. Z: Where were we? F: Performing Arts Center (PAC). Be specific. Z: It’s simply going to cost too much. Only the smallest of the three planned spaces is even reTheater Invites argument. You're not Just some lump, watching, being manipulated. Every audience Is a part of the performance. They're the ones I can remember when budgets were so tight that we used to straighten out nails and reuse them. Whole shows were being mounted for as little as $200. Those days are gone, and I can't say I miss them. motely within the reach of Portland theaters, and that’s projected now at a rental of $400-$500 a night. Who knows what that’ll be five years from now, when the thing is actually built. None of us can afford that. Most aren’t paying much more than that per month in our own theaters, and we’re sometimes hard pressed to make that. It’s completely unrealistic to ask Storefront, say, to move a hit show 10 blocks to the PAC, redesign the whole show, and pay what amounts to five times as much rent. What for? F: What is the nightly rental figure based on? Z: Supposedly the cost of operating the space only, which sounds like a major concession, considering there’ll be $19 million in bonds out. But the cost is still too high. I’ve proposed that PAC find more economical ways to operate the space, maybe with the help of local theaters and dance troupes. Maybe the theater, for example, can provide its own technicians for lower cost; maybe there are less deluxe but just as effective ways of equipping the place technically. If we could participate in that kind of planning now, the PAC might be within our reach when it finally is built. If not, the place will do little more than duplicate what the Civic Auditorium offers now — a stop on the tour for national companies of big (not necessarily good) musicals, the largest dance companies and pop singers. F: Not to mention ... Z: Yeah, them, too. I just hope the taxpayers don’t get burned on it. In Eugene they’re having big problems with their Performing Arts Center. Costs are too high for local rental, and not enough tours stop there. I hope Portland hasn’t overextended itself the same way. F: The arts community really got behind the PAC ballot measure. Why? Z: They got sold a bill of goods. They were led to believe that defeat of the measure would be a mortal blow for performing arts. So even those who knew they had nothing to gain were persuaded they might have something to lose. F: Is there anything we can do now? Z: Sure there is. We can get involved in the planning process to help find ways that the PAC can serve the performing community. And I’m not talking about picking fights; I’m talking about offering our help, our skills and our knowledge of the community. We’re a long way from this thing being built, and there’s still time for our input to make a difference. F: That leads me to another question. I’ve often been told by people that there are “too many” theaters; that we should “consolidate.” What would your answer be to someone who told you that? Z: That, in some ways, it’s a very good idea; but I would use the word “cooperate.” Consolidate implies that several theaters merge into one organization; we can’t do that any more than, say, a Chinese, an Italian and a French restaurant could. Each of us has an artistic “menu” with its own unique appeal. BUT — there are still lots of ways theaters could cooperate. For example, we all buy so many of the same things: lumber, muslin, printing services, etc. And each of us makes the best deal we can. If we were to get together and purchase these things as a bloc, we would all save. Better still are the possibilities in fundraising. Granting agencies like NEA and the Oregon Arts Commission are even recommending that theaters make cooperative proposals. F: What kind of proposals? Z: Well, they leave that up to us. The theaters would have to get together first and talk about it. One idea that might work is a proposal to connect with the school system. Seattle Rep had a lot of success with a program of busing high school students to free performances. The grant paid for the performances and Seattle Rep built a whole new generation of theatergoers. It seems to me that if theaters got together on a proposal like that, everyone could benefit. F: What about the union? You thought I’d forget, didn’t you? Z: I’m ready for that now. A union for actors is a good idea. But the national union based on the economic realities of New York and LA has no application in Portland. Those few actors who can work here in an Equity situation are well protected, but the rest are thrown to the wolves. F: But I’ve observed that actors need to be protected. Their desire to work always makes suckers out of them; they constantly give it away. Z: That’s just what I’m talking about. It’s that majority of Portland actors who need the protection. F: So what do they do? Z: You and I could make a list today of the 50 most-used actors in this city. If all of those actors came together and refused to work unless certain minimal standards of pay and working conditions were met, every theater in Portland would have to listen. F: What if the theaters can’t afford it? Z: If they can’t afford it, they just can’t have those actors. But the truth is that they can afford it. Theyjust have to budget differently. For example, if a theater knows that every actor has to be paid at a certain rate, it will have to program around that reality. Actors can’t go on subsidizing casts of 20 to 30. The only way these spectaculars can go on is by actors donating their labor. F: Won’t that mean less work for actors?- Z: Yes, but all of it will be paid work. Eventually those casts of 20 and 30 can reappear, but then all of them will be paid, too. F: What about other theater workers — directors, designers, stage managers, technicians. What can they do? Z: They should be a part of it, too. I think we tend to say “actors” when we really mean everybody who works in a theater. Also, the kind of people you mentioned have usually been paid — a little, at least, while actors have worked free for most of the time until the past few years. F: Do you really think something like that is possible? Z: I think it’s possible, but whether it works depends on the people involved. Once again, there’s nothing to lose by talking. 14 Clinton St. Quarterly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz