Here we go again…
Pasadena Playhouse, more than any other L.A. institution, qualifies for the “fabulous invalid” nickname that’s often applied to Broadway or theater in general.
The playhouse declined in the ’60s and was comatose in the ’70s. It revived in the ’80s, was briefly on the critical list in the ’90s, and since then had survived a couple relatively minor ailments, until the onslaught of the 2008 national economic crisis.
And now?
Well, you’ve probably read the stories:
How will it re-open?
The playhouse will suspend most operations after the current Camelot closes at the end of the week. Thirty-seven employees were laid off Thursday - and probably couldn’t have been paid under any circumstances after this week. The playhouse faces immediate bills of more than $500,000 and back debts of more than $1.5 million.
Bankruptcy is on the table. Not on the table is the notion of drawing on more than $6 million that has been pledged for a capital campaign to refurbish the playhouse. Efforts to find someone who would donate $5 million in exchange for his or her name on the playhouse’s main auditorium have yielded no takers.
The fate of nearly 8,000 subscribers, who have seen only Camelot out of six shows that had been scheduled for 2010, is unclear.
The subscriber question could have a ripple effect on the surrounding theater community. Probably the best bet would be for the playhouse to arrange for subscribers to be given the option of seeing shows at other theaters. That would erase many of the necessary reimbursements and production costs for the playhouse and potentially expand the audiences for the other theaters, while enabling the subscribers to see something that might engage them as much as the playhouse fare would have.
But even under the best-case scenario, the cancellation of a subscription season at a theater of Pasadena’s prominence is terrible news for everyone who wants theaters to grow.
A subscription asks that you pay money upfront with the trust that you will at least see the promised fare, even if you don’t like all of it. Even that risk - that you might not like some of the plays - is too much for many consumers in today’s environment. Several years ago, Pasadena Playhouse instituted a program in which subscribers who didn’t like a particular production could receive additional ticket vouchers for shows that they were confident that they would enjoy.
Still, subscriptions are declining nationwide. If you add the additional chance that you might not even see five-sixths of what you bought, every arts subscriber within 50 miles will be spooked. Bye-bye, subscriptions. Bye-bye to the idea that theaters can do any planning or budgeting based on subscriptions, and to the ideal that a subscriber community feels loyalty to the institution beyond the merits or flaws of any particular production.
In a subscription-less world, it’s each show for itself, each theatergoer for himself or herself. Of course many smaller theaters and larger commercial productions already operate on that basis. But it’s a challenge to do so if you want to pay your performers and staff regular salaries as opposed to gas reimbursements, if you want people to be able to make a living in the theater instead of doing it as a glorified hobby.
When I talked to artistic director Sheldon Epps on Saturday, he said that the theater is asking for subscribers’ “patience and understanding,” and that so far “nobody has screamed, shouted or threatened lawsuits.”
Of course if theaters develop enough loyal angels, who donate enough money beyond the price of a subscription, the collapse of the subscription option might not be so dire. This is one of the reasons why I suggested a few days ago that theater developers should read Stepping Ahead, a History of South Coast Repertory, for tips on how SCR has pulled it off.
The playhouse is continuing efforts to encourage big-ticket donors, hoping that the news of the temporary (?) closing of the theater will cause enough wealthy Pasadena residents, foundations, corporations and Hollywood figures to reflect on how much the playhouse in particular and theater in general has meant to their town or their careers or their souls. “The hope is that widespread coverage will unearth possibilities we have not considered,” Epps said.
Let’s face it - that $6 million pledged for refurbishing the building would be a fairly hollow gesture if the building is devoid of theatrical life. The essence of theater is what happens between the people on the stage and the audience. It isn’t about the architectural wonders of the theatrical venue. Many donors prefer capital campaigns because buildings have more permanence than any particular production or season - but that sense of permanence isn’t what theater is all about.
The Playhouse has the honorary title “State Theatre of California.” Given the state’s own economic crisis, it’s hard to imagine the state rushing to rescue its entitled theater. Epps was nonetheless hopeful about that prospect: “One can be surprised by sources of relief that can come from the state.” I asked him if he had ever met Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did, when he accepted a 2007 Irvine Foundation Leadership Award in Sacramento.
Epps said he has no regrets about the cost of any particular productions. The costs of large-scale musicals are frequently enhanced by payments by commercial producers, so “you’d be surprised by how little the theater has to spend.” And they often attract more single-ticket buyers than non-musicals.
The decision to present an eight-actor Camelot with a stripped-down design was made on aesthetic grounds, Epps said, but the production will cost half, or even less, of the $1-1.2 million that the playhouse would have spent on a conventional Camelot.
The playhouse’s mission has been more sharply defined in the Epps years than it was in previous administrations. He has concentrated on musicals in general and on diversifying the audience with a variety of African-American-oriented plays and musicals. I thought some of the recent new musicals fell too easily into formulas. But Epps hasn’t jettisoned other kinds of productions - a revival of the non-musical, hardly-black The Little Foxes was probably the most satisfying playhouse production of 2009.
When the playhouse returns to producing (I’m being hopeful here), I hope that it doesn’t have to rely on one-person or other small-cast shows. It’s one of the great paradoxes of L.A. theater that the bigger theaters feel compelled to program smaller shows for financial reasons, despite the fact that those shows are aesthetically more comfortable in smaller venues, while the smaller theaters are free to do cramped versions of bigger shows - because their actors will work almost for nothing. What’s wrong with this picture? Plenty.
Still, small-cast shows at the Pasadena Playhouse would be better than no shows at all. Despite what I said earlier about the relative unimportance of the building, compared to the work, the Pasadena Playhouse building has seen such a variety of work through nearly a century that it does possess an historic aura that no other active L.A.-area theater can match - not even the Pantages, which is too big for the kind of theater the playhouse has presented.
While we honor the building, the best tribute we can pay to it is to make sure that it doesn’t turn into merely a museum - or into an ongoing corporate p.r. outpost, which is what the Ricardo Montalban Theatre (formerly the Doolittle and the Huntington Hartford) has become with its current Nike tenant. These great old buildings should be living, breathing theaters. Let the death-defying transfusions of support begin.
For LA Times’ Charles McNulty’s response to the Pasadena Playhouse closure, click here.
Well said. Hearing about the closing of such an institution made my throat catch this morning.
I hope the 8,000 subscribers don’t turn their back on theater in general… I hope that no matter what happens they head out to see five more shows this year… we would be glad to work something out. Anyone bringing in an unused ticket from the Pasadena Playhouse can use it as a voucher to buy one full price ticket and get one ticket free for any performance at our theater… or come by yourself and get in at half price.
Since I was asked to make a comment, here goes: If there is $6 million dollars around to rebuild or whatever they were planning - forget it - use the money to keep the theatre alive - No one cares how gorgeous the building looks - people go to the theatre to be entertained by what’s presented on the stage. Pasadena Playhouse looks great - it’s a nasty habit in Los Angeles of tearing down and rebuilding everything that has substance and exchanging it for glitz and glass - who cares! - Pay off the bills - bring in productions that audiences want to see - be really careful when you hire a director and choose actors that are not necessarily stars - but exciting talents - there are plenty out there - check some of the productions at the smaller theatres. And as far as the subscribers go - they’ll be happy if they know there’s an attempt to keep the theatre going with a promise of honoring those subscriptions as soon as it’s up and running again - people have an amazing ability to work with anyone that is trying to keep a life going - they don’t like someone that quits. Well, you asked for a comment -
I’ve already posted some thought on the situation at http://cahwyguy.livejournal.com/tag/pasadena-playhouse . I’m a 20+ year subscriber, and I’m sad to see this news, and I’m sad at how the Playhouse treated subscribers (I learned about this first from the newspapers, not the Playhouse, which is bad form).
As for how us subscribers should be treated: Unless there is a plan to come back quickly, I don’t think subscribers should be asked to wait and pray. I’d rather get a refund, and use those dollars to support active productions. However, given the financial problems, I don’t expect to see a refund (it would be nice, but…). They could make arrangements to honor the subscription at other facilities, but I’m not sure that work work given where audiences come from (we come from Northridge). At minimum, they should give us a letter acknowledging a donation for the remaining value of the subscription, and should do that as soon as possible so we can use it for our 2009 taxes.
Does this burn me off of subscribing? Hell no! We’re also season subscribers at Repertory East Playhouse in Newhall (we’re seeing “Living in Yonkers” tomorrow); at Cabrillo Music Theatre in Thousand Oaks, and for the “Meeting of Minds” series at the Steve Allen Theatre. For us, we would likely switch our Pasadena Playhouse subscription to either the Colony or the Geffen, depending on the cost and the show mix.
LA Stage Alliance is helping to coordinate other Greater Los Angeles theatres (in many parts of the city) to jointly offer support to Pasadena Playhouse in whatever way or ways the Playhouse feels is most appropriate. This may include offering shows to current subscribers, or other opportunities.
Theatres who want to offer their support, please let me know. Other folks, stay tuned!
Douglas Clayton
Programs Manager
In 1957, I was immersed in my senior year of high school, struggling to cope with my English Four class which was dedicated to English literature. One spring morning, my teacher, Mr. Rabkin, declared, “The Pasadena Playhouse is bankrupt and, as a fundraiser, will be presenting “Romeo and Juliet,” film stars Margaret O’Brien and John Barrymore Jr. We cannot lose this vital cultural institution.”
The whole class went to a Wednesday matinee. It was beyond awful. The next day, Mr. Rabkin stared at us solemnly in class. “I’m sad to say the Pasadena Playhouse should not only be closed it should be executed for crimes against Shakespeare and humanity.”
Over the decades, Pasadena Playhouse has flowed and ebbed. I am sure it will flow again.
It is always disheartening to see an important cultural institution fail, particularly one as storied as the Pasadena Playhouse. However, in yesterday’s LA Times article (Jan. 30, 2010) it is implied that the current management takes no responsibility for this sad turn of events. As stated in the LA Times article, after Theatre Corporation of America, the management company that operated the theatre from the early 1980’s until 1995, went bankrupt in 1995, “[t]he nonprofit corporation that now runs the theater had to shoulder about $2.5 million in leftover debt . . .that Epps wryly refers to as `alimony from a marriage that I was never in.’”
While it is true that the non-profit, which in 1995 was run by my husband Lars Hansen, had to struggle to stay afloat after the TCA bankruptcy, the non-profit did not assume TCA’s debts. In fact, the non-profit was a creditor in the bankruptcy. As Don Shirley reported in the LA Times on April 2, 1995, prior to the bankruptcy, the non-profit had a contractual guarantee from TCA to cover any and all loses incurred by the theatre. However, as Shirley reported, because of the TCA bankruptcy, the non-profit’s board could no longer “count on Theatre Corp. to pick up any new losses.” Between 1995 and 1999, Lars and the non-profit’s board and staff worked diligently to rebuild the playhouse, without the financial guarantee of a for-profit manager. Indeed, in those years, the playhouse produced the wildly successful musical Sisterella, as well as many other hits, including Tin Pan Alley Rag, Moon Over Buffalo, After-Play and Blame It On The Movies!.
Neither at the time of the TCA bankruptcy, nor at the time Lars left the playhouse in 1999 to become the president of Theatre LA, did the playhouse have a debt anywhere near 2.5 million dollars. Indeed, even AFTER the devastation of 9/11, as Don Shirley reported in the LA Times on February 17, 2002, the playhouse’s debt was only $405,376.
Since 1999, the playhouse has continued to produce some great theatre and I sincerely hope that it can rebound from its current difficulties. However, for whatever reason, the subscription audience is not responding. As Don Shirley reported in the LA Times on February 16, 1997, the playhouse then had 18,000 subscribers. According to the LA Times, as of last week, only 8,000 remained.
Simply put, it is unfair for anyone to suggest that the playhouse’s current problems did not arise during the reign of its current leadership.
I am hearing so many different stories about the “debt.” At this point, I think finger-pointing is unnecessary and unhelpful in saving the Pasadena Playhouse. Let’s get it back on its feet and if you guys want to duke it out as to whose fault it is, do so later.
I am spearheading a campaign to raise money to save the Playhouse. That’s what needs to be done now, and done fast. We have a group on Facebook that is collecting “pledges,” and a website is in the works for people not on Facebook. We’re having a meeting tomorrow night to discuss a benefit concert and/or a telethon and I’m also in the process of putting together an online auction (If you have high-priced items you can donate, please contact me).
Too many theaters in Southern California have gone belly up, we can’t let the Pasadena Playhouse go as well.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=277328928333
Not exactly the best way to think about it. “Subscribers” to any arts institution are intended to be precisely that: “sub-scribers” ie “Under-writers” of the enterprise - not a group finding a way to get discount tickets. No ticket buyer to a not-for-profit theater (whether subscriber or single ticket purchaser) ever pays what the production ‘costs” or “needs” or is valued at. every not for profit produces at a loss (or should) - and makes up its operating costs with donations from individuals, corporations, foundations etc. Subscribers are (or should be) invested in the theater in other ways than simply seeking a discount. They support the Idea of the theater. As such, there may be other roles for the subscribers to the Playhouse than trying to get their six plays. Maybe that’s worth writing about.