Why is NYC the next logical step? Part Deux
I got a lot of comments regarding my post on Monday, “Why is NYC the next logical step?”. Today I’d like to address some other thoughts on the issue.
Alison said,
I agree with Hans’ initial point so, so much. See, New York WAS the next logical step for me - but NOT the ending point, or even the capstone to my theatre career. We’re all striving for something different. And while no one would argue with a starring role, most of us willingly accept it’s a dream and not a reality. (italics mine)
I disagree. I DON’T think “most of us” accept that it’s a dream and not a reality. I think most people our age think they can move to NYC and honest to God get on Broadway within six months. You’ve learned the harsh reality of an actor’s life in NYC (although I’m pretty sure you already knew that going into it). The point isn’t taking the NEXT step. That I can totally understand. My real question is… why NYC? Why not Chicago or Asheville, NC or Atlanta? Why does it HAVE to be NYC? because Broadway’s there? I don’t feel that’s a good enough reason. But then again, like you said, everyone’s got different goals.
Hans said,
As for Scott’s comment: I’ve lived in the Prof’s own town for a couple of years now and am once again considering the very step he questions. The reason is that I’ve now been hired to direct at the professional regional theatre level, but I’m still working at a bar, often full-time. I’m on a new level now, professionally-speaking, and to really take advantage of that perhaps I need to locate myself in one of the major theatre centers of America. Because won’t most professional theatres across the country be more likely to hire someone out of New York than out of a small city in the mountains of Western North Carolina? It’s unfair and more that a little stupid, but the fact remains.
One of Scott’s consistent points is that there’s no need to go to Nylachi to “make it big”. While that’s true in a sense, and while you make a good point (it’s unfair and more than a little stupid), it follows a certain logic. Scott is fond of hearkening back to the medieval times, to the Elizabethan period, to commedia dell’arte. He claims Shakespeare had a tribe, the commedia dell’arte groups were tribes, etc. That’s true. Very true. But where did Shakespeare work? In the equivalent of Broadway. Where did the commedia dell’arte groups work? They toured, often in major population centers.
To even take the analogy further than that, the way Shakespeare’s business model worked was more of a apprentice/master relationship than anything else. The principal actors got the lead roles, and they apprenticed the youngest members. Contract members were often brought in to fill in the supporting roles. Incidentally, the apprentices (who weren’t paid, but were given room and board) often got bigger roles than the contrators, simply because the women were played by the young boys.
In other professions, an apprentice is sent to a master to learn. These apprentices often come from poorer families in small towns and hamlets, while the master craftsmen are in larger towns and sometimes cities. A young boy from Asheville, NC might be sent to Atlanta, GA to apprentice to a master carpenter.
In much the same way, moving to a larger area is like starting an apprenticeship or becoming a journeyman. You can’t stay in your small town forever and still get better at your craft. I think Hans is making the right choice — but I DO think that he’s doing it for the right reasons. He’s considering moving to NYC because he’s established himself elsewhere and has been offered a professional gig. This is majorly different than moving right out of college to NYC.
RebeccaZ said,
And, yes … I might decide to take our company elsewhere based on a lot of different factors (I’m past the age of 25 but still have a bit of wanderlust in me), but I’m glad to say that I gave Chicago a go of it, instead of always wondering what it would be like.
And this is the biggest reason why I plan to move to Chicago at some point in the future. Not because I expect to make it big (like Alison, I realize that “making it big” is more of a dream than a reality), but because I expect to have a great time in a thriving theatre city and, worst case scenario, I can say “I went to Chicago, gave it a shot, and here I am.”
My biggest thing about NYC is that so many people romanticize it, as Hans said, and are willing to pack up and move to NYC and wait tables and such because society says that if you’re a theatre person you HAVE to go to NYC. I disagree. There are tons of other places you can go and get a similar experience: Chicago, Atlanta, D.C., St. Louis. I resent the idea that NYC is the only place that actors should go.
When I first started pursuing drama, my father was strongly against it. Not because he hates theatre, but because he felt like I would never survive in NYC. I finally sat him down and said, “Dad, I have no desire to move to NYC and ‘try and make it’, so you can rest assured that I’m not going to starve and live out of my car trying to break into Broadway. If I ever move there, it’ll be because I am reasonably confident that I’ll have steady work and make enough to pay the bills.” After that (and a few rather good productions I was in), he relented and now he supports my decision.
My father, like millions of other people out there, hear the word “theater” and automatically think NYC.
In my mind, that has to change.
Tags: broadway, new york city, next step, theatre, why
July 16th, 2008 at 6:03 am
I think the one piece that is often forgotten in my assertion that it isn’t necessary to head to New York or Chicago, and that Hans hits on somewhat, is that you have to create your own work yourself. In other words, if your model of finding work is auditioning for other people’s productions, my opinions make no sense at all; if that’s your orientation, for God’s sake head for a place with lots of auditions. If, on the other hand, you are willing to put together a small company and start creating work yourself, then going to NYC or Chicago is the kiss of death, because the cost of living (and the cost of producing) is too high.
You talk about the apprentice model of Shakespeare’s theatre, but you are looking at it from the viewpoint of somebody who wants to break into a pre-existing company; I am writing from the viewpoint if Shakespeare, Burbage, and the gang who pooled their resources (by becoming shareholders by investing in shares of the company) and started their theatre. In short, to consider working in a smaller market, you have to be entrepreneurs. And yes, Shakespeare was in London, which I suppose is the equivalent of New York — except not when they started out. There were no theatres in London until Burbage started building one. In other words, Shakespeare and his buddies were pioneers creating a professional theatre in a city of 200,000. This is not the equivalent of heading to NYC today, a city of 8 million where annually there are 1700 Off Off Broadway productions alone. That market is saturated.
The current way we think about theatre is very difficult to get away from. We break out of one box only to find ourselves in different one. NYC is the center of the actor as employee: you spend much of your time trying to convince somebody to hire you (as “A Chorus Line” musically emphasizes). Staying out of NYC is the actor as entrepreneur: you spend your time creating a business.
Your choice is to ask yourself which mode is more “you.”
July 16th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Yes, very true. One thing to consider is that, like Alison said in her comment the other day, different people have different goals. Not everyone WANTS to be an entrepreneur, not everyone wants to have their own company. Some people do want to break into a pre-existing company.
And on top of that, it’d be a bad idea for a bunch of inexperienced people to start their own company — someone like, say, me. I think I’m more knowledgeable than many of my friends (certainly not all, but many). Mainly because I’m more realistic and pragmatic than they are. But at the same time, I know I don’t know as much as you or Don or Hans. And I certainly need to be mentored and learn more before I attempt to strike out on my own.
That’s why someone like me SHOULD move to a larger area such as Chicago or DC or Atlanta or St. Louis or New Orleans or God knows where. To get experience.
I don’t think it’s NECESSARY to go to NYC, nor do I think it’s a good thing to do until you’re experienced enough and connected enough to get steady work there. But once you’re at that stage, why even bother being a commodity when you can be an entrepreneur?
Point is, it’s all about what you’re looking for. At this stage in time, I am looking for mentors, teachers and role models to bring my skills up to snuff. In a few years, when I’ve learned a lot more, then my own company in a region that has high demand and low supply would be a better option.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:48 am
You are exactly right: not everybody has the same goals. And if the Nylachi experience is your dream, then you should certainly follow it. If you wish to be an employee and not an entrepreneur, you should certainly do it. I have never said that this path is a universal one. In fact, one of my biggest complaints about the New York myth is that it does assert that it is a universal path, the only path to theatrical legitimacy.
However, you’ve made a serious logical leap in the other part of your argument, one that many have made before you and many will make hereafter. You believe that you shouldn’t form a company because you lack experience, and that a big city is where that experience can be gained. I would assert the opposite: that precisely because you are inexperienced, you SHOULD start a company and you should NOT go to Nylachi. Why? Because when you go to Nylachi, you will find yourself in direct competition with many, many people who already have experience. While you might learn second-hand from them, the likelihood that you will gain firsthand experience, by which I mean time in front of an audience, is slim because those experienced people will beat you out. What you NEED is time in front of an audience, any audience; time to try things out, learn from them, and become a wise artist. You need to do that where the cost of living and cost of production is lower than in New York, where the cost of getting in front of an audience is lower. It doesn’t matter how big that audience is, it doesn’t matter where that audience is located — what matters is the process of putting a show together and putting it in front of real people. Young painters paint canvas after canvas in the privacy of their own studio, and expose their work to whoever will look. Most of it isn’t very good, and there is no reason anybody should be particularly interested in it, but the purpose of the creation of all that work is to get to the point where you create a work that IS worth looking at. The same is true for a young theatre artist. Put together projects. The Royal Court in London had a long-standing series in the 60-seat Theatre Upstairs called Sunday Night Theatre Without Decor — to doesn’t have to be full productions. It doesn’t have to be in “real theatres.” It could be in a community center, a hotel conference room, a high school gym. Just do the work and learn. In NYC, what you will learn most is how to audition. That’s my complaint about NYC or Chicago for young people.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I spent all night last night pondering this last comment, and I really have no response.
I’ll admit, I have other reasons for wanting to go to Chicago. Only a small part of it actually has to do with theatre. But you’re absolutely right — getting in front of an audience is the most important part.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Well, the other reasons can be good ones, important ones. Decisive ones. Just know why you’re going, and know what you can and can’t expect!