The Lazarus Arena

In early May 2012, an announcement that WNY regional production house, Shea's Performing Arts Center, was purchasing the 710 Main Street fossil called Studio Arena. A collective "yea" was raised among the community as the lifeless shell of the once proud LORT house had new life breathed into it. 

Curtain will rise again at Studio Arena: wivb.com

This prompted a positive reaction from numerous representatives from the Buffalo Theater community as all saw some sort of benefit to be had by this resurrection. Spokesperson and board-member for every conceivable Arts agency, Randall Kramer jumped at the PR opportunity and happily announced "Its an exciting day for theater, but also for arts in Western New York." 

Scott Berhand, who's company Rod Less Travelled had the distinctive honor of being last production that closed the doors on Studio, generically exclaimed "...a big win not only for the theater district but also for the entire theater community." 

How so? 

Shea's Executive Director, Anthony Conte indicated the new theater would accommodate production companies from Cleveland, Rochester and, even, New York City. "The key on our part is to assess, evaluate, if we think XYZ show can sell in Buffalo" as Conte indicated the focus is to sell tickets and not originality.

This would mean Lazarus Arena would be importing productions and exporting revenues (minus the portion of what Shea's takes out) to communities outside of Buffalo. 

Not so the case as Conte also indicated that local theaters and college companies will be included into the production scheduling. The stipulation is that a 625 seat theater will certainly require local theaters and college companies to have XYZ shows to fill atleast 200 per night to cover costs.

Again, not sure how this will benefit Buffalo Theater. 

Perhaps those local theater representatives most overjoyed about this announcement will be the only ones with an active part in bringing in their own productions. 

And why not? If you're aiming to fill 625 seats on a nightly basis to cover the production cost alone, then safe XYZ bets are sing-along, jukebox musicals or celebrity endorsed (or casted) productions. Hell, that model worked well for Studio Arena in the past why not follow the same plan again?

Right? 

There is acting method to understand a role by looking at the "sub-text" of a script. This in-between-the-lines method assists the director and actor in gaining a sense of the character and scene, thus having insight into story's bigger picture and the characters placement within it.  

What is the "sub-text" of having Lazarus Arena back among the living theater scene? 

Lost ticket revenue. All those lost-souls Studio subscribers who sought out other companies and supported them in the absences of Lazarus Arena will now funnel their money back to this establishment (providing they're still alive). 

Lost Public and Foundation money. Having the reputation through Shea's parental affiliation, this new production house adds its tin-cup to the thinning soup-line of public and foundation money and will get a greater, warmer portion than the ones in the back of the line. 

Placed in a region of shrinking populace, the emergence of another entertainment source furthers dilutes the artistic diversity this city prides itself on. If there was a sense that Buffalo was on an economic rebound and a hard-factual indicator the population was on the rise, this rising of a dead dinosaur would seem appropriate. This is not the case. There is not enough dramatic art supporters to spend money on Lazarus Studio and then find the resources to attend lesser known companies putting on diverse and unfamiliar works. 

An argument could be made that those patrons who actively look for diverse and unorthodox theater will continue to support theater who maintain this creative mission. For these companies, the existence of the new Studio will not effect their box-offices. It just means companies are left to fight among themselves for the "scraps" of these particular patrons' support. 

Finally, when it was mentioned that theater companies would rather sell 625 seats instead of 90, there is an underlying message sent to Western New York theaters. Pack the patrons in, put on safe XYZ shows with celebrities or out-of-town talent, and don't spend your money on diverse and/or  unfamiliar works (unless these have been commercially successful elsewhere). 

With all that said, alongside the giddy automated generic responses, some sort of positives takes should be taken from this Lazarus taxon. 

The job creation from the resurrection will mean several folks will find employment as box-office people, lower-teir admin positions or production crews (providing the Local #33 is brought back). 

Having the "lights back up" on 710 adds a nice touch to Main and is crucial to the rejuvenation of downtown Buffalo. This boost could mean increased profits for local businesses resulting in an increase of job opportunities for out-of-work waiters, dishwashers, bartenders and pan-handlers. 

Hotels could see an increase in stays as out-of-town performance companies need to house their imported talent for a performance's run. 

And... I'm running out of positives.

Who knows what type of impact this will have on the community? No official studies were made public, no questionnaires were submitted to the community, no polls, no input and no plans were to be seen. 

 

Just a solo 2.1 million dollar bid for a building left dark for the last four years. Faith would have us to believe that the business plan put into place to secure that much money would be more than the vague, generic responses to this public announcement. 

Still Anthony Conte is confident with some sort of plan in place to bring Lazarus Arena to the forefront of Buffalo theater, but echoes the gamble of such a venture, "We still will be taking a certain amount of risk." 

No doubt. 

A 2.1 million dollar risk in which the rewards are uncertain? Anyone for a trip to the Seneca waterfront casino. 

C'mon Lazarus, roll a lucky 7. 

Professional: An Overused Adjective?

There are over twenty theaters in the greater Buffalo region and a dozen or more outside the city limits.

For the average theater goer, every weekend they have a choice of attending a theater specializing in juke-box musicals, a theater that focuses on issues surrounding the homosexual community, a theater that presents works to young minds, or among the theatrical diversity, a pro-union theater that doesn't hire equity. 

Plenty of options with something for everyone in this city. 

Yet, with all these choices, a patron could easily become disorientated, confused and in search of some clarity to which theater they should attend. To the rescue comes forth a catchy word issued by Buffalo theater groups to help these poor, lost souls find their way to the right company. 

What is this buzz-word foghorn? 

In a recent interview with Buffalo Spree Online, a director for a local theater company had to say this about a production of Tracy Letts, "He's a very important playwright in American Theater," stating the obvious, "(our production) may be the first professional production of his work in Buffalo." 

Can anyone spot the catch-phrase? 

Try this, "A Professional Theatre at D'Youville College," or this, "A non-for-profit professional musical theatre dedicated to quality musical theatre." Not yet?  Try "Western New York's only professional regional theatre." 

Indeed, the word professional is wielded around like some great tool that separates those theater companies from the lesser-thans, and leads folks through the haze of diversity to their doorstep. By using this bold word, they loudly proclaim, "We pay our actors and therefore our productions are good", and, by golly, the people believe this to be true. 

So.

What is a professional theater? 

Although there are no clear rules outlined in a theater manual, three classifications of professional theater have been defined. The first is amateur theater in which the actor does not get paid, the second is semi-professional theater in which the actor does get paid but not to union scale, and the third is professional theater in which all involve get union pay-scale or are of Actors Equity Association (AEA) and Local Stagehand #33. 

The last Buffalo theater that hired mainly union and belonged to the League of Resident Theatres (LORT) closed its door when Studio Arena filed for bankruptcy in March 2008. 

Based on the definition above, evidence points out that Buffalo theaters are semi-professional and, regardless if they pay an actor $1,000 or $10 a show or hire one AEA member and pay the rest a lower scale, the lack of an union pay-scale (including payment for rehearsal time) places them at this classification. 

Then is this use of professional misleading? 

There is the argument that the use of professional indicates a commitment to bringing a sense of quality performances to the stage because those who are on stage have the drive and passion to be actors. The pay justifies their dedication to the craft. In turn, the production benefits from this professional commitment. 

Others use the argument that when a actor professes his or her belief in what they are doing, this defines them in the true sense of the word. In turn, this is what makes them a professional.

AEA and Local 33 says a professional is someone who gets union scale. 

The definition of professional is broken down into several explanations. Two definitions that stand out list professional as being "following an occupation as paid job: engaged in an occupation as a paid job rather than a hobby," or to be "very competent: showing a high degree of skill or competence." 

A third definition can indicate what most theaters mean by being professional, "Businesslike: conforming to the standards of skill, competence, or character normally expected of a properly qualified and experienced person in a work environment-'professional attitude'." 

Ultimately, whatever label is used really doesn't matter. What's in a name? Five years ago not one company spelled theater with an "er" and now there are at least three that do so. 

Does the spelling effect what is presented on stage? Absolutely not. 

What matters is the leading of people through this saturated haze of theater diversity by labeling the work presented on stage as professional. This label creates a way of separating one theater from another by having patrons assume that because the work is define as such, this is the type of performances audience should attend; regardless of what work is presented on stage. 

By using a misleading label to define some sort of pedigree, theaters that use the word professional deceitfully place themselves in a higher position over their peers, and create a comparison grade for audience and media members. This affects box-office sales, theater reviews and the reputation of lesser-known and community-based theater companies. 

Whether or not the quality of works presented could maintain a professional "grade" (as according to the definition), the label should be removed unless companies decide to go completely union and join LORT. 

Of course this is expensive and in this economy placing the professional theater label is a cheaper move.

Despite whatever label is used, what matters is what is presented on stage. If a theater is presenting solid works with solid acting, they can call themselves whatever they want. If an actor feels he/she is doing the best work and is wholly committed to the role and dedicated to the process, then they can call themselves whatever they want. If the tech crew is providing a solid backbone to every production, then they... okay, you get the point. 

Start paying them AEA or Local 33 scale on every production throughout the season, then everyone can claim to be working in a professional theater. 

Matthew LaChiusa is the Executive/Artistic Director for the semi-professional American Rep Theater of WNY, Inc. "Western New York's only professional regional theatre"comes from the now defunct, and Buffalo's only LORT house, Studio Arena.

430,000 Chunks of Bread

Manna from Heaven.

The blessed Israelites received this food from God's merciful grace as they trudge onwards in the great Exodus. The white flakes were supposedly honey-like in taste and gave the noble Jewish tribes a lifeline to keep moving forward in their great quest.

A lifeline.

In a recent The Buffalo News article, Greater Buffalo Cultural Alliance spokesperson, Randy Kramer, said of the recent $430,000, manna from heaven, donation to help reeling cultural groups, as a lifeline."This very good news. For some groups, this is a lifeline."

Does this mean that "some cultural groups" were on the verge of perishing?

Not perish but, as Saul Elkin of Shakespeare in Delaware Park (despite the looming budget crisis recently held auditions for the 2011 season), said in same The Buffalo News article, put the ability to have a theater season, or any other artistic event, "on hold".

So with a heavy thunk of 430,000 chunks of falling bread, the season for SDP, and 31 other selected cultural groups, was saved by a group of 12 foundations including the Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo, Magaret L. Wendt, the Baird and Oishei.

Why the generous move by these community fondations?

According to president and CEO of the Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo, Clotilde Perez-Bode Dedecker, this one-time group donation was to insure groups, who's budgets were effected by Erie County Executive Chris Collin's recent cuts to the Arts, had enough funds to "think through their immediate situation without having an immediate budget crisis."

Although Dedecker points out the groups understanding of the intrinsic value of Arts in the community, she does not list who best represents these values. Instead the Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo relied on the Greater Buffalo Cultural Agency to put together a list of those deserving of this "lifeline".

The GBCA, in turn, presented a list of 32 cultural groups targeted for this manna. The process is unclear in how this group determined who made the list. There is mention of some groups who were to receive a portion of this donation, but the article does not say how these groups got the money.

The GBCA's website make no formal announcement of this award or details the process of how they assembled a list. Shortly after the The Buffalo News article came out, I sent an email to GBCA's contact page and have not receive a reply to explain this process.

So how did GBCA determine who made the list?

Several beneficiaries listed in The Buffalo News article, including SDP, Ujima Company, Just Buffalo Literary Center, and the Locust Street Neighborhood Art, are GBCA members. Was this a determining factor in being considered?

The lack of transparency on behalf of GBCA indicates there was no formal process but simply those with the connections to the group's steering committee had the opportunity to present their case for receiving money. Essentially, anyone outside this group was not included in the process. No surveys, no notifications, no emails or formal meeting were presented by the GBCA to indicate there was a process of determining who may be entitled to this funding.

I'm not sure this is what the community foundations wanted with this donation.

The 12 foundations believe in cultural diversity as indicated by Ms Dedecker, "The foundations earnestly value the great diversity of the arts and cultural organizations in our community," yet is diversity the true measure of who deserved the financial boost or was it simply those with reputation and a loud representative voice to carry their message.

What is truly troubling is that with the great efforts of Artvoice's founder, Jamie Moses, and his Give for Greatness, funding, those who are already receiving a portion of the $430,000 are lining up to receive a percentage of this campaign.

Fortunately, a reliable source informed me there has been some balance added to the committee overseeing this distribution, and objectively look at which groups are in true need of a financial boost. This will potentially moderate money flow to more established cultural groups who claim to have bigger financial needs than smaller ones.

Overall, this recent 430,000 blessing strikes me as another example of "have and have nots". Where those part of Cultural Advocacy group inner circles or steering committees have the representative voice to put their hands in the air and shout for their Lion's share. Whereas groups outside these circles, or those who may be members but cannot attend meetings, do not have the opportunity to be heard.

Whether or not this is intentional remains up to debate.

What truly should happen with these Cultural Alliance/Advocacy groups is the replacement of cultural group Artistic/Executive directors, who administrate steering and planning committees, with objective, non-cultural, business people. In turn, these individuals can oversee decisions and direction based on sound business decisions, responsibility, vision and transparency that benefits all cultural groups.

Arts community members can still be involved but the conflict of interest dominating the present process would be eliminated. Instead, to influence decisions, these members would have present sound presentations and provide clarity into initiating programs that will benefit all groups and not just their organizations.

A prominent business leader said of these organizations, "I can't act, so don't put me on stage. What makes these Arts people think they can be Business people?"

Does he have a point?

Perhaps.

What he should say on behalf of these Cultural Groups is "practice what your preaching" and be more concerned about what it means to support Arts in the community and not supporting one's art to live in the community.

Matthew LaChiusa is the Executive/Artistic Director for the American Rep Theater of WNY. His proudest accomplishment was working up from a waiter to a manager/wine steward positon at a prestigious Baton Rouge steakhouse.

As of 3/3/2011, GBCA has not posted information on their website or returned email