Photo with 1 note
David Melville, ISC impresario at hotel cafe. Listening to music…and planning our fall musical Murder In the Red Barn. He’s written four songs. Anil is in the background.
Financial disaster? Ha!
I took note of this quote a while ago—can’t recall where I saw it or who said it. It is giving me a bit of backbone today! Which we need because, according to our cash flow projections, we are going to run our of money by July 1. And we’re in that awful place of revising our goals downwards, which is obvious to the detriment of our audience. Give me strength to be selfless!
Q: What’s the number-one quality one needs to have or choice one needs to make in translating a brilliant idea into successful entrepreneurship?
A: Be selfless. Do not think of yourself, your needs, your protection, your security. Think only of what would be a dream-come-true for your customers, and find a way to make that happen. Only after you design a perfect business from their perspective, should you adjust the numbers to make sure it’s sustainable. But focus entirely 100% on them, not yourself
How long has it been since I folded laundry? Damn you, Independent Shakespeare Co.!
Post with 1 note
The Craziest Thing I’ve Read Lately
My friend Frances recently posted this link on facebook: http://ronrussellepic.tumblr.com/post/15383817759/my-response-to-tom-laughlins-outrageous-post-about That’s not the crazy thing. Rather, it’s Ron Russell’s brilliant and inspiring response to this—which IS the craziest thing: http://www.apoorplayer.net/2012/01/the-great-whiter-than-ever-way/ If you don’t want to read it, the author basically asserts that theater audiences aren’t all that diverse because people of color must not be that interested in theater as an art form. Wait, what? Really? That’s just….CRAZY. Now, I hardly ever respond to things, because, you know, I am a very demure soft-spoken lady (stop laughing). However I had to respond to this! Here it is. Don’t worry, I was polite: Tom, you will be happy to know the theater I work with in Los Angeles has an audience 49% of which define themselves as non-caucasian. The plays we produce? Shakespeare. An outdoor, summer Shakespeare Festival where half the 25,000 audience members are non-white. Our acting company? About the same level of diversity. Why? Because we live in America and actually care about serving the entire range of our community, and representing the world as it is today. Plus, we’re just modern that way. And no one has bothered to tell Los Angelenos that many of them aren’t supposed to be interested in plays.
Post with 3 notes
A recent email exchange between myself and an angry member of the public.
We recently sent out a fundraising email—everyone who donates at the $200 level, can come to a cast party hosted by one of our Board Members.
Following is a response I got from someone on our email list, who presumably has seen one of our productions. I guess I should file this one under, “No good deed goes unpunished.” Did I overreact, I wonder?
On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:18 PM, XXXXX wrote:
Really? $200.00 minimum?
Greed.
Here is my response:
Hmmm, would you have us host a party for everyone in our audience? We can’t provide free theater and free food and drinks!
Donations at the park average 3.00/person, so clearly some people give, but the majority either do not, or donate a dollar or two. Which is fine—many in our audience are on a limited income, and that is why our program is free. However, donations at the park certainly do not add up to the cost of the program.
(And by the way, in addition to the free plays, this year we also offered free pre-show workshops for families in Spanish and English, as well as a free evening of music.)
We have to raise funding somehow. We pay actors, rent to the city, all city staff costs, our water bill at the park, electric at the park, and to re-seed the lawn. Not to mention the cost of equipment, costumes, and staging. And our own staff.
We either need to fund raise or stop producing theater that can be attended by anyone, whether they can afford to buy a ticket or not.
Therefore, we need to think of ways to encourage those that can afford it to donate a bit more.
In any case, you will receive many fund raising emails from us. If you prefer not to receive them, simply scroll down and un-subsribe from our mailing list.
As for “greed”…. most of my company works for embarrassingly low wages. Or no money whatsoever. I myself mortgaged my house one year to fund payroll. We may be a lot of things, but greedy is not one of them.
Melissa
Link with 2 notes
Shakespeare in L.A.: Summer of our discontent →
ISC gets some great coverage in this one! I talked with the writer, James Taylor, for about 45 minutes in the Trader Joe’s parking lot while my kids were in the back seat. My daughter kept passing me notes, “Please stop!” “Can we go to Starbucks now?” “Can we go to ice cream instead of Starbucks?” We ended up in Baskin Robbins, finally, where they ate ice cream while I…took a conference call. Sigh.
Post with 4 notes
Wait, what, we’re opening?
On my to do list, buy a dishpan for between Lorenzo’s legs, find a giant pile of dirty clothes, procure a loofah. The essential elements of the play! Meanwhile…here are my notes on The Merry Wives of Windsor. Tell me what you think…not that anyone is reading this! The Merry Wives of Windsor is written nearly entirely in prose, and is more concerned with humor than with poetry. It is also Shakespeare’s only play that deals with middle class, Renaissance society. As such, it is a fascinating insight into the concerns of his friends and neighbors. Chief among these concerns is money: who has it, and how to get more of it. Sir John Falstaff is out of cash, so he fires his followers and devises a plan to fleece the “Merry Wives”. The Wives, however, are much savvier-and more devious-than he thinks. The secondary plot line involves the Page family: three suitors are vying for the daughter, Anne (who is to be left a large inheritance by her dying grandfather). Mr. and Mrs. Page each want to marry her to a different suitor, both of whom are rich and foolish. And they are united in their opposition to their daughter’s choice: the nobly born, but poor, Fenton. The dazzlingly daft Mistress Quickly runs errands for everyone involved, enriching her purse as she goes. But underneath the jostling for cash and comic turns lies another theme. Falstaff is one of Shakespeare’s enduring characters. Full of appetite, desire, and childlike self-assuredness, he embodies raw life force. Merry Wives is Falstaff’s third outing. He appears in the Henry IV plays, as a mentor to the young Henry V, widely considered England’s greatest King. Those plays end with a stunning betrayal: The new King Henry V’s renouncement of Falstaff and all that he represents (“I know thee not, old man.”) As painful as that scene is, it is Shakespeare’s recognition that the forces of civilization, of necessity, seek to repress the anarchic life force. In the Henry IV plays, Falstaff loses. In Merry Wives, Shakespeare has given Falstaff several adversaries: the Wives of the title, as well as the parsimonious, self-denying, jealous Master Ford. He represents rules, regulations, the repressive side of civil society. In Henry IV, civilization wins, as we all know it must. But Merry Wives is wish fulfillment of the most delightful sort. Despite the community’s best efforts to punish Falstaff, it is they themselves who are transformed, and in the final moments, Falstaff is allowed to rise again, supreme and unrepentant. In The Merry Wives of Windsor, Falstaff wins, and when he does, so do all of our collective, childish selves longing to eat whatever we want, to stay up late, and to only come home when we’re good and ready.
Page 1 of 4
