Thoughts from a Los Angeles Theater Producer

I am back from Thailand!

I hope I will see you many of you at the producer panel that I am hosting on Tuesday!

The date is June 22^nd at 6:30 pm

(Click here for more details)

The cost is $10 and all proceeds will be donated to the Hollywood Fringe Festival.  If you can’t afford $10, then just donate what you can.  The Fringe is a worthy cause.

Scheduled to sit on the panel are David Elzer (Marvelous Wonderettes, Life Could be a Dream), Michael Seel (Boston Court Executive Director), and Matt B. Wells (Need Theater Artistic Director).  I will moderate.

The focus of the panel will be developing new works in Los Angeles.

Here are some questions that we will cover:

• What are your goals as a producer?  What are your goals for an individual production?
• What is the most important thing you look for in a new script before you produce it?
• How do you balance the artistic needs of a production vs. the physical cost of the production?
• How do you balance the artistry vs. commerciality?
• When you have a script that has potential, but needs work, what role do you, as a producer, play in the development of the project?
• When you are developing a production, what factors into your decision to green light a full production or shelve it?
• What is the most important thing that a producer has to do on the business side of producing?
• Producing often deals more with managing people and managing relationships.  What are some obstacles that you have encountered when managing of people?

 Please come and buy your tickets early!  If you are a producer, want to be a producer, or just want to get a better understanding of what a producer does, you will not want to miss this!

Also,

Take “note” of these other great panels offered by Theater of Note. 

Theatre of NOTE opens its doors to all festival participants and guests as a place to kick back, relax, network, play and meet each other Monday, June 17 – through Friday, June 25th from 10am – 5pm. Workshops will be held Monday, June 21st – Thursday, June 24th starting at 3:30pm. Writing Workshops take place 2:00pm-3:00pm Monday through Friday. ALL ARE FREE OF CHARGE.

Panel discussions and workshops are open to the public and FREE of charge. This dynamic addition to the venue’s programming is proving to be a collaborative and information way to reach out to the community and help build and maintain our Los Angeles theatre relationships and growth. For the most recent list of panelists, see www.theatreofnote.com.

If you would like to download and print the flyer to share with creative collaborators go to http://www.theatreofnote.com/fringepanelists.htm where you will find the PDF of the flyer, as well as full bios of each panelist. Feel free to repost and pass it on to everyone who can benefit from these discussions. Thank you.

WHEN:
Monday June 21 – Friday June 25, 2010
2:00pm-3:00pm (Writing Workshops)
3:30pm-5:00pm (Panel Discussions)

WHERE:
Theatre of NOTE
1517 N. Cahuenga Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90028
WHAT:

Monday June 21, 2010 – Representing Reality, Diversity on Stage

Tuesday June 22, 2010 – Beyond the Black Box – The Journey of Playwrights & Producers

Wednesday June 23, 2010 – Find Your Funding

Thursday June 24, 2010 – Taking the Leap: Stage to TV/Film/Digital Media

Monday – Friday June 21-25, 2010 – 2:00pm-3:00pm – Wordspace, The Daily Writing Hour Workshop: Wordspace – Write the Fringe Hour -

For all updates regarding Theatre of NOTE’s Hollywood Fringe Festival programming, please see www.theatreofnote.com

Several weeks ago, I emailed the LADCC and asked if they would sit down with me and discuss their awards shows.  Hanging in the air was also my concern that there are conflicts of interest within the LADCC, so I asked them to speak to me about that as well.

Here is the LADCC’s response to my requests, in its entirety, at their request:

Mr. Culbertson,

Now that this year’s awards show and accompanying business matters have concluded, the Circle is addressing the e-mail inquiries left on our website. We understand that you seek information regarding the voting procedures for the LADCC Awards.  This information is public knowledge; we have explained our process from the stage at previous Awards Shows, and briefly summarized it in the program for this year’s ceremony.

The LADCC Awards recognize theatrical excellence.  We do not award the “best” in any category; we simply award excellence.  For this reason, there are often multiple award recipients in any category.  In general, we aim for 30 award recipients out of 60 nominees, although those numbers are invariably higher as, in all cases, we resolve ties in favor of additional nominees and recipients (and, sometimes, add additional categories).

To be eligible for nomination, a show must invite all members of the LADCC to attend.  A number of critics equal to approximately one-third of our current membership must see said show (for last year, that number was five); for shows in Orange County, Ventura, and Long Beach, the eligibility number reduces by one.  The eligible year runs from December 1 through November 30.

Each category has a predetermined guideline number of nominees.  Each critic submits lists of their proposed nominees, ostensible for no more than the total guideline number in each category.  After compiling the nomination ballots, each critic votes “yes” or “no” on each proposed nominee that the critic has seen.  In each category, the guideline number of proposed nominees with the highest ratio of “yes” to “no” votes becomes our nominees, with the proviso that there are a minimum percentage of “yes” votes necessary to make the ballot.

Once the nominee list is established, each critic votes for 30 nominees across the ballot.  Awards go to those nominees with the highest number of votes, with the understanding that the Circle shall have no category in which there are no award recipients. 

The Circle reserves the right to modify the Awards voting process at any time.

As to the remarks about conflicts of interest, you have made the specifics known to several of our members.  The entire Circle subsequently reviewed and investigated each incident mentioned. Although our voting process is public, the internal governance of the Circle is, and will continue to be, a private matter.

This e-mail is a unified document. Should you wish to refer to its contents in a public or private forum, it must be quoted in its entirety.

Sincerely,

The Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle

 The most important paragraph in their response is the following:

As to the remarks about conflicts of interest, you have made the specifics known to several of our members.  The entire Circle subsequently reviewed and investigated each incident mentioned. Although our voting process is public, the internal governance of the Circle is, and will continue to be, a private matter.

The disappointing part of this paragraph for me is that the LADCC seems to think they don’t have to be transparent.

The best way to combat perceived conflicts of interest is either to eliminate them or to be transparent about them.  But the LADCC has clearly said that it is none of the theater community’s business.

Personally, I think it is our business.  As I wrote in my last post, winning an award has implications for a producer’s ability to raise money.  Additionally, as some have commented, awards affect an individual artists career and reputation. There is a lot riding on these awards for all of us.  The community, therefore, deserves to participate in an awards process that offers transparency. Certainly, we do not have the right to know who voted for what production, etc– that is understandably a private matter. But the process by which awards are granted is another matter. We absolutely have the right to know that this process is fair and free of conflicts. We have the right to request that the results are independently verified.  And if we see conflicts, we have the right to point them out.  And the response that we, in turn, receive should be rooted in the ethic of transparency.

The reality is that there is a lot of ambiguity in the LADCC’s process, especially as it relates to conflicts of interest.  What are the membership criteria for the LADCC?  Their awards are not peer judged, but rather, decided on by a committee.  Shouldn’t they then have a policy preventing peers from being members?  Specifically, what is their policy toward actors?  Certainly, it has happened in the past when Travis Michael Holder (who is an actor-critic) was simultaneously acting and a voting member of the LADCC. What was the process of the voting for his productions?  Was he eligible for an award?  Was his show eligible?  Could he vote for his own show?  What about a show that he may have auditioned for but was not cast in?  Was he allowed to vote on those shows?  Is this type of situation currently happening?  Shouldn’t we be told if any of the members of the LADCC are also trying to work as actors?  If the LADCC doesn’t see actor-critics as presenting conflicts of interest to their process, then they ought to be upfront about their position and let us know who among their members are actor-critics. If this hybridization isn’t a problem for them, they should be transparent about that.

There is a lot in the LADCC’s letter about the process of vote tabulation, but what about the physical task of tabulation?  Who is responsible for the tabulation?  Do all the members know all the votes?  Are votes conducted at a meeting? Or are they emailed around and one person is in charge of adding it up?  Could that one person change other members votes?  What are the controls in place that prevent fraud and vote changing?  Is there an independent person that oversees the voting process? If the votes are publicly tallied within the group, there is a strange situation where some of the members are the editors that other members rely on for assignments.  There is a possibility that members will vote along with the editors that give them assignments hoping to curry the editors favor.  Is there a control in place to prevent this?

When do the critics submit their lists of nominees?  Is it at the end of the year?  If so, then isn’t it possible that at the end of the year there is a tendency to nominate a production seen recently over productions seen in the beginning of the year?

In fact, over the last five years 50% of the productions that won the production award were either still running at the end of the year or had closed in October, November, or December of that year.  This clearly indicates that the probability of winning an award is greater for a show that ran later in the year than a show that closed early-on .  Is there any policy in place to help prevent this from happening?

In the end, it is clear that there are many complications and conflicts that could arise within the LADCC.  When I pointed out a few specific examples to them, they responded with a position of no transparency.

We have a lot of work to do in Los Angeles theater.  We need our producers to organize so that Equity, USA, SSDC, and the musicians union can figure out a new version of the 99-seat plan and HAT contact that works with all unions.  We need our theater owners to build and maintain better theater districts.  We need to figure out how to support critics so they can remain a relevant part Los Angles Theater.  We need the LA Stage Alliance to create a citywide theater marketing campaign.  We need our awards organizations to be transparent and fair about their processes.

But none of these things can happen if our community is going to build walls and simply say, “none of your business.”  If we aren’t even allowed to point out areas that could use improvement, how will anything ever improve?  If we don’t have the ability to look at ourselves, hear feedback and take criticism, then we will never realize the true potential of our theater community.

The LA theater community deserves better.  We all know we have problems to deal with.  If the leaders of the LA Theater community don’t want to be challenged and will try to stop criticism by hiding behind a veil of non-transparency, then we are all in trouble.

When I started this blog my intention was to write about issues in the Los Angeles theater community that are relevant to me.  If you have read my posts you know that I have a lot of opinions on various different aspects of the theater community.  I write my opinions in an attempt to challenge our community to improve.  I know that not everyone will agree with my opinions, not everyone should.  But I do hope we can all agree that discussing these issues openly is important. Hopefully, these discussions will lead members of our community to begin changing things for the better.

Part of creating a forum for open discussion includes being able to point out the flaws in our system.

Steven Leigh Morris recently wrote an article about the ethics of blogging.  In this article he used my blog as an example of unethical behavior.  Referencing this post, he wrote in his article the following: 

Earlier this year, local stage producer Rick Culbertson wrote on his Web site, rickculbertson.com, an accusation that the Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle was ensnared by conflict of interest. According to Critics Circle member Les Spindle, Culbertson hadn’t bothered to check the facts with the organization, or even to contact its people before making the accusation.

Mr. Morris and I agree that people who write publicly should exercise ethical behavior.  That said, I realize that I made two mistakes with my statement about the LADCC.  My first mistake was that I didn’t reach out to the LADCC prior to my post.  My second mistake was that I did not print my supporting evidence.  These are mistakes I will not make in the future.

But, in fairness to myself, prior to my statement I did research and verify the information I used to determine that there are conflicts of interest within the LADCC.  I was satisfied then and I am still satisfied that there are conflicts of interest.

I am concerned about our theater community when conflicts of interest occur.  The best way to improve our theater community is to openly discuss these issues.  To that end, I have reached out to the LADCC and asked them to sit down with me and talk.  In doing so, we will have an opportunity to work together to improve things.

After all, we all want our theater community to be the best it can be.

There are many reasons why we need a producer’s organization.  They range from collective bargaining, a trade organization, someone to brand us, management of a better business bureau of theater, etc.  But there’s another important need here: the need for us to take care of our new producers.  Especially the producers who don’t really even want to be producers.

In Los Angeles it’s very common to find a person producing a show because he or she wrote, starred in, or directed it.  A few weeks ago I received a phone call from one such “producer by default” who was in the middle of an 8-performance run of a show that he wrote.  He called me looking for advice on how to fill his theater with paying patrons and get the word out about his play.  Unfortunately for him, he had spent little to nothing on marketing and PR.  Given his limited budget and where he was in the run, there wasn’t much I could tell him.  With so little time left, even if he managed to somehow come up with 10-20K for a marketing campaign, there would have been no way to make it back even if he sold out his remaining 4 performances.  I told him that all he could really do at this point would be to offer “pay-what-you-can” and discounted  tickets through facebook and similar channels. Maybe he could try buying one e-mail blast from a marketing agency.

Of course, if this producer had called me before he started his run my advice would have been very different.  I would have told him to budget for and hire a top quality PR company and to put aside money for a marketing campaign.  We could have talked about goals and the results he wanted to see come out of his production.  We could have tailored his budget and spending in order to achieve those goals, or change the goals to fit the parameters of what he could afford.

This story is so common in LA.  So many writers/actors/directors produce their own work simply so that they can work as a writer/actor/director.  But so often they don’t know how to produce. Worse yet, they don’t end up producing at all, but rather, begrudgingly managing the production. Producing is not easy, and neither is directing, acting, or writing.  And when you do two (or more!) at the same time it’s even harder.  Especially when you really only want to be directing, acting, writing– not producing.

One of the underlying problems this creates is that many shows, often referred to as showcases, are produced in the same theaters as bigger shows that are not showcases. When these showcases are produced poorly or mismanaged, they tend to reflect poorly on the quality of that particular rental theater (not to mention reflecting poorly LA theater as a whole). Unknowing patrons do not distinguish between a showcase and higher quality productions.  Because of this, for those of us who are not producing showcases, it is in our best interest to mentor, support and work with people who are producing showcases.  We need to help them produce smartly, efficiently, and realistically.  Because at the end of the day, their product reflects on our product.

A producer’s organization could help foster and nourish these types of relationships between producers. New producers could join the organization and gain access to resources, support and advice.  We could create databases, helpful guidebooks and producing templates.  We could explain the way budgets work, not to mention de-mystify ROI’s and recoupment schedules.  We could teach best practices for marketing and PR, and we could help new producers identify when they need a lawyer, accountant, and bookkeeper and when they don’t.  This collective knowledge base would be more than just a phone book of designers and rental theaters.  It would be a network of real people with real experiences who can really help.  And if a new producer needs further help, we could provide a list of producers for hire (or general manage).

It’s silly for every new producer in town to have to reinvent the wheel.  And its damaging to all of us. Why not help each other along the way and in so doing, raise the bar on theatre in Los Angeles as a whole?