I am going to take it for granted that, since you’ve opted to read this article, you care about the arts. I’m also going to save time and typing by assuming that you appreciate media coverage of the arts and that you realize that without the attention of the media, it will be ever harder for the arts to share their news, their work and their value locally, nationally and internationally.

Since we are agreed, I will proceed directly to my point.

If you want to see intelligent, comprehensive coverage of the arts – features and reviews alike – then you’ve got to start clicking. Journalism is well on its way to being a numbers game for most outlets. How many people clicked on a story or video, how many times was it liked or shared, how much time was spent looking at it? We are already seeing journalism sites paying writers base salaries with bumps or bonuses based on online metrics; outlets say they are dropping certain types of coverage because it’s simply not generating enough traffic. It’s not enough to be happy that arts coverage exists, you have to actually engage with it to insure its survival and the job survival of those who create it.

Clicks mean eyes and eyes mean advertisers. As print becomes an ever-harder sell, online advertising grows ever more important to outlets. Even back in the days pre-internet, I encountered cuts in arts coverage because the arts didn’t generate enough advertising revenue (whereas advertisers loved sports sections and we get regular features about new cars because auto dealers buy big ads). Even now, arts spending online is a small sliver of online advertising, so our best means of supporting arts coverage is by actually reading it.

Let’s face it: anyone with a WordPress blog knows how many people read each piece they post (yes, I’m watching you). But that’s amateur hour compared to the realtime and cumulative algorithms and analytics applied at big media outlets. There are teams of people looking at clicks, links and likes for every story, and media empires are being built on click-bait methodology (why, hello BuzzFeed). It’s running the show in many places and it can’t be ignored.

So here’s what I propose. Every morning, when you get online, go to the arts section of your local media outlets, seek out their arts and entertainment stories, and click of them. Don’t click on each in rapid succession, but spend 30 to 45 seconds on each one (remember your multiple browser windows). You have to wait a bit because one analytic is stickiness or hang-time or whatever it’s called now, namely whether people are really engaging with coverage. A click on and immediate click off looks like you got there by mistake. And needless to say, it certainly won’t hurt in the least if you actually read a story or watch a video while you’re at it.

I should also note that just liking or retweeting a story isn’t enough: you actually have to look at it. Sometimes you’re just liking a friend posting about a story, not the story or video itself, and that’s an important difference. There have been studies that show that many people retweet items without ever actually reading them, and anecdotally I know that to be true: I often see my own tweets with embedded links that have more retweets than clicks. You’ve got to stop and look. That said, on Facebook likes and shares feed into an algorithm that’s sure more people might see the post featured in their feed, and retweets do the same, so be liberal with those too.

You need to share this idea with your staffs, your audience, your donors. This can’t be an effort by a couple of thousand core die-hards; this has to be a movement and it has to be sustained. I do my part every day in curating the articles I share on my twitter feed. You don’t need to be as exhaustive as I am, but whether you seek out a story or if it comes across your social media feed, click on it (often click on opera and symphony stories even though I rarely attend them). If the arts generate eyes, if they generate numbers, you’re going to have a direct impact on how the arts are viewed by the media decision makers. Clicking on the occasional ad next to an arts story matters too.

I’d like to give this idea some snappy name that the field can adopt, but I’m only coming up with corny and possibly inexplicable ideas like “Click 10 For The Arts,” which in my mind is shorthand for remind you to click on 10 arts stories daily. I hope that if people buy into this idea, someone will come up with something clever.

But unlike the world of journalism 25 years ago, where outlets only knew how many papers they sold, it’s now exceedingly easy to know what gets traffic and what doesn’t. No need for audience surveys when our every move online is recorded. If we don’t actively work to pump up the stats for arts coverage, it’ll continue to erode.

To quote Joni Mitchell, “you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til its gone,” and we’ve lost too much already. So next time you want to take a quiz about what Shakespeare villain or what Sondheim character you are, at least spend the equivalent amount of time reading articles about Shakespeare plays or Sondheim shows. Because while the former may be fun, it’s the latter that will actually sustain arts journalism and sustain the arts.

P.S. Thanks for clicking on this story. Now would you be so kind to like it, favorite it, share it, retweet it and so on? And yes, I’ll know if you did.

This post has been updated, and a story that began as an account of censorship has become one of, dare I say it, resurrection. Here’s the tale.

Three days ago, the town council of Newtownabbey in Northern Ireland shut down a planned engagement of the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s The Bible: The Complete Word of God (abridged) on the grounds that it was sacrilegious and anti-Christian. In doing so, they overrode the prior decision by the town’s Artistic Council to allow the show to go forward in a town-financed facility. I abhor this action in no uncertain terms, and anything I write would simply be variations on that theme. So rather than embroider my own thoughts, I offer you – consistent with the practices of my friends at Reduced – a relatively brief compendium of what has occurred since the first announcement, all via local coverage from Ireland (links to each complete story are contained in the name of each press outlet), as well as select comments from Reduced’s chief twit Austin Tichenor. I trust you’ll see this for what it is, censorship, pure and simple.

From the Newtownabbey Times, “Artistic board axes controversial theatre show”:

Newtownabbey Council’s Artistic Board has cancelled a comedy show due to take place at Theatre at The Mill next week, following complaints that the production would be offensive to the borough’s Christian community.

The move to pull ‘The Bible: The Complete Word of God (abridged)’ comes after councillors and officers received correspondence from individuals and church leaders calling for the “blasphemous” show to be axed.

At Monday night’s Development Committee meeting, several councillors voiced their objection to the Reduced Shakespeare Company production taking place at the council-run venue. And there was significant support for a proposal from DUP councillor Audrey Ball calling for it to be cancelled.

Other members argued against “political censorship” of productions and a decision on the issue was deferred to allow council officers time to look at potential contractual and financial implications arising from stopping the show just days before the scheduled start of its two-night run.

From UTV, “Bible theatre show cancelled after row”:

The party’s Robert Hill told UTV on Thursday that members of the public had approached representatives asking them to “get it stopped” on the grounds that it was offensive.

He said the council was “willing to take a moral stand” and hit back at those who have criticised the decision by claiming it amounts to censorship of the arts.

“Every film in the theatre is censored – that’s why there are age limits on what can be seen and what can’t. And where do you stop? There has to be a limit somewhere,” Mr Hill said.

UUP Mayor Fraser Agnew also told UTV that he felt the right decision had been made regarding the controversial play, adding that a professional facilitator had been brought in to resolve the issue.

“There were a lot of people concerned about the nature of this play, that it was anti-Christian – and we have established indeed it was anti-Christian,” he said.

From the Belfast Telegraph, “Bible spoof play ban makes Northern Ireland a laughing stock”:

The decision by Newtownabbey Borough Council to cancel the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s light-hearted revue of the Bible gives religion a bad name.

It also underlines the backwoods narrow-mindedness of some people in Northern Ireland as it begins to show a more multi-cultural face to the world.

We must ask ourselves where else would this happen, except among the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Surely God must have a sense of humour – how else could he put up with the numpties of Newtownabbey?

From BBC News, “Comedian Jake O’Kane criticizes ‘zealots’ who cancelled play”:

Mr O’Kane said: “I haven’t seen the play, and unfortunately I’ll never be able to see the play because councillors have decided that we will not be allowed to see the play.

“It’s like getting in a time machine and they went back to before the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

“There was £7m spent on this theatre, it opened in 2010, and they may as well close the doors. If they are going to be the moral guardians of what we see and don’t see, that theatre is dead in the water.

“We already have laws, we have hate speech laws, that dictate what the arts can and cannot do. If it is hateful, if it is against minorities, the laws are already there to censor that.

“We don’t need a bunch of unionist councillors in Newtownabbey deciding what we can or cannot go to see.

“They call themselves moral guardians – they weren’t elected to be moral guardians. We elected them to empty our bins, make sure the leisure centres were open – that’s the powers they have.

From the Newtownabbey Times, “Council faces stinging criticism over decision to axe show”:

One Belfast newspaper claimed that the board’s decision had made Northern Ireland “a laughing stock”, while playwright Dan Gordon said it was “staggering that this type of censorship still appears to flourish in the UK.”

Alliance Alderman John Blair said that cancelling the show had “brought us back into the Dark Ages and turned us into a laughing stock”. But Alderman Billy Ball argued that the board had made “the right decision,” while Raymond Stewart, secretary of Reformation Ireland, welcomed the move to axe what he branded “an insult upon our Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel.”

From BBC News, “Banned play: Arts minister ‘saddened’ by council decision”:

In a statement, the arts minister said: “I was disappointed to hear of the decision to cancel the production of The Bible: The complete Word of God (Abridged).

“I know that the play has travelled extensively and been performed on the international stage for the past 20 years.

Arts Minister Carál Ni Chuilín said audiences should be given the opportunity to “judge for themselves”

“I am saddened that audiences here will not be offered the opportunity to see the performance and judge for themselves the virtues of the show,” Ms Ni Chuilín added.

“I fully support the views of the Arts Council that the artist’s right to freedom of expression should always be defended and that the arts have a role in promoting discussion and allowing space for disagreement and debate.”

From the Irish Indpendent, “Cancellation of ‘blasphemous’ play interferes with freedom of speech: Amnesty International”:

Amnesty Northern Ireland director Patrick Corrigan said: “It is well-established in international human rights law that the right to freedom of expression, though not absolute, is a fundamental right which may only be restricted in certain limited circumstances to do with the advocacy of hatred.

“It is quite obvious that those circumstances are not met in the context of this work of comedy and, thus, that the cancelling of the play is utterly unjustified on human rights grounds.

From The Belfast Telegraph, “Bible play goes on in Newtownabbey… but only behind closed doors”:

The company behind the show, Newbury Productions and Reduced, have told this paper that they have already booked flights and accommodation and intend to come to Newtownabbey as planned.

They will take to the stage at the Theatre At The Mill for technical and dress rehearsals ahead of the rest of a UK tour, which takes in more than 40 venues in England, Scotland and Wales.

Last night a spokeswoman for Newtownabbey Borough Council confirmed the public would not be permitted access to watch the rehearsals.

“As is normal practice, dress rehearsals are not open to the public,” she added.

It has cost the council at least £2,000 to cancel the show.

Davey Naylor, general manager of Newbury Productions, told the Belfast Telegraph that tech and dress rehearsals will be taking place at Theatre At The Mill on January 29 and 30 as planned.

He said: “We will be there, we just won’t be able to perform for the public at the theatre.”

From The Irish News, “Comedy company considers other venues for Bible show”:

Last night the show’s producers – who revealed it was the first time in 20 years the production had been cancelled – said they would definitely consider returning at another date.

Davey Naylor said they believed the “good people of Northern Ireland should be free to come and see the show to make up their own minds”.

He added: “Sadly, at this late stage, I think another performance next week is remote, however, our tour goes on until April and there’s no reason we couldn’t come back at some point.”

By sheer coincidence, the website Upworthy happened to feature a video by Monty Python member John Cleese, “On Creativity: Serious vs Solemn,” which seems particularly apt to this situation, billed by Upworthy as, “John Cleese Describes Why Nothing Is ‘Too Serious’ To Be Joked About”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdWKQ36JkwE

I sincerely hope that the Reduced Shakespeare Company does return to play Newtownabbey. I suspect they need a good laugh there just about now.

Update, January 27 8:15 pm

From The Belfast Telegraph, “Newtownabbey Borough Council has reversed the controversial decision to ban comedy play The Bible: The Complete Word Of God (Abridged).”

The Reduced Shakespeare Company production is expected to run as originally scheduled on Wednesday and Thursday this week. Anger had been growing since it was revealed the council’s artistic board – made up of councillors and independent members – had pulled the plug on the show at Newtownabbey’s Theatre At The Mill

DUP members had branded the pay blasphemous and an attack on Christianity, but the decision caused outrage and made international headlines. But on Monday night the artistic board announced it had reversed its decision – an announcement that was backed by the full council.

From the BBC, “Newtownabbey council reverses decision to cancel Bible play”

Austin Tichenor of the Reduced Shakespeare Company said: “I’m thrilled that the Newtownabbey community can now come see the show and decide for themselves what kind of a show it is. “My biggest fear is that they’ll come see the show and go ‘this is what all the fuss was about?’. I think people assume we’re coming from a place of hatred and mockery and we’re absolutely not. This is a celebration of the Bible and I think anybody who has seen the show, and many people of all faiths have seen the show, testify to that effect.”

 And, I trust a good time will be had by all.

Update, January 30, 11 am:

Southold (NY) High School

You’re not going to believe this.

On Monday, Principal Marc Guarino of Trumbull High School in Connecticut reinstated the Thespian Troupe’s production of Rent, after three weeks of negotiation and outcry. On Tuesday, The Suffolk Times on Long Island published an interview with Southold Schools Superintendent David Gamberg in which he, acknowledging awareness of the Trumbull situation, proudly announced that Southold High School’s Drama Club would be producing the school edition of Rent in March, just like Trumbull.

But don’t cry ‘yippee.’  This isn’t a story to celebrate.

Here’s a paragraph from the article:

“What we did was we looked at the school script and we asked the teachers involved in it to really take a good look at it to make sure it’s fitting for the community,” Mr. Gamberg said. “It has a very strong and powerful message that we think is going to be very positive, but again this is based on the idea that we want to make sure that it’s very sensitive to the community as a whole. The three teachers involved are very responsible for that.”

The reporter then goes on to say that Mr. Gamberg doesn’t know what kind of modifications the school might make.

Wait a minute. Modifications?

Perhaps Mr. Gamberg isn’t aware that when you license a play for production, whether at a high school or a professional company, you are entering into a contract giving you the right to produce a copyrighted work as written. You can’t just pull out the metaphorical red pen and edit it to your own specifications. If you do, you’re in breach of contract. That’s something that rights holders and licensing companies take seriously.

The fact that some authors have permitted their works to be edited, or participated in such editing, for licensing as “school editions,” doesn’t give anyone permission to pile on and make more changes. When licensing houses find out such a thing is happening, they get very serious very fast, and that can lead to the loss of rights to the show. This post, combined with The Suffolk Times article, is all that’s needed to place your school under scrutiny. You might tell your committee of bowdlerizing teachers to take a break. Incidentally, where is the school’s principal in all this?

Now when small changes are requested for specific, defensible reasons, the licensing houses may have some latitude to work with schools on  very minor revisions. They’re in the business of helping schools; they’re not monolithic ogres. But before anyone thinks this is a run of the mill copyright and license violation, you all need to know: it gets worse. Again, from the article:

“Plans for the school performance led a pair of Southold residents to contact The Suffolk Times with concerns over the school’s handling of gay characters in the play. An anonymous letter writer said the play was inappropriate since it could “put students in the position to have to play gay/lesbian or drug addicted [characters.]”  One parent said her child believed the district was making changes that might offend gay students, including a decision to cast a female to play the role of the drag queen Angel, which is traditionally played by a male actor in school, community and professional productions.

When asked about a female student being cast to play Angel, Mr. Gamberg, who said he didn’t know if any casting decisions had been finalized yet, said, “I think that goes in line with being sensitive and making sure it’s appropriate for school. I don’t think it’s going to be written and spoken in a way that’s going to be seen as inappropriate. That’s the kind of sensitivity that [teachers are] looking at.”

Well, Mr. Gamberg, now you’ve done it. The storyline of Angel is very specifically written as a gay male role. To suggest you can simply change the performer to female fundamentally alters the work and seems designed, at the very least, to eliminate the drag queen element of the character – which is essential. Believe me, I’m completely supportive of non-traditional casting, but not when it’s used to smooth over “difficult” content in order to placate the narrowminded.

Wilson Jermaine Heredia & Jesse L. Martin
in the film of Rent

Tell me, will you be making your female Angel heterosexual or lesbian? Exactly where does your “sensitivity” lie? You may think you’re appeasing your community by suggesting this change could happen, but instead you’re flirting with tampering with a beloved work without the right to do so in order to kowtow to homophobic sentiment. Are you just afraid of what some people in the community might say about Rent? What exactly is inappropriate in the school edition? There is nothing sensitive in what is going on with Rent at Southold.

This post, coupled with my advocacy on behalf of the students of Trumbull High School, may suggest that I’m a rabid Rent partisan, but I’d be writing this if the show was Spring Awakening, Legally Blonde, Avenue Q or Grease. My issue is the rights of students to take on challenging work in their schools, rather than forcing all high school theatre to be utterly anodyne. I’ll yank this post down immediately and replace it with a full apology if I learn that the school is in consultation with MTI, which licenses Rent. But I’m placing my bet that you’re out of bounds Mr. Gamberg, though I’d be perfectly delighted to be proven wrong. The simple solution is to do Rent: The School Edition as written. However, if you are intractable in your desire to rework the show to your own standards, and your statements and planned actions result in your school losing the rights to Rent, there will be only one person for your students to blame. He sits in the superintendent’s chair of the Southold School District.

My thanks to Natalie Chernicoff for bringing this situation to my attention.

In the immediate wake of announcing to the Trumbull High School Thespian Society that he was canceling the planned spring production of Rent, Principal Marc Guarino spent almost an hour talking to the students about his decision, speaking of “challenging issues” with the play and saying it wasn’t “the right time.”  These nebulous explanations didn’t seem to satisfy the students or many of their parents.  Two days later, the principal let it be known that he was going to have further conversations on the topic, suggesting there might still be the opportunity for the Tony Awarded and Pulitzer Prize-winning musical to play this spring.

Well the hammer dropped last night, only two working days later, given the Thanksgiving holiday. At a meeting of the Trumbull Board of Education, a letter from Mr. Guarino was read reaffirming his decision to terminate the production. Yes, that’s right – a letter was read. Principal Guarino wasn’t present at the meeting to make his position known, or to respond in any way to the comments and questions of parents in attendance.

Trumbull High School

As the first-year principal of a school in a new system (he was previously an assistant principal in Guilford CT), Mr. Guarino has adopted a stonewalling stance. He has not responded to inquiries from me or from any member of the media, including major national outlets. What at first seemed like it might become a valuable dialogue about art, educator’s responsibilities and important themes that run from Jonathan Larson’s 1996 musical right through the present day, has turned into the cone of silence. In the course of a little over a week, Mr. Guarino has transformed himself from educator to autocrat.  That’s a real shame.

Neither Guarino nor the system’s superintendent’s office are willing to even release the text of the letter that was read at the board of education meeting last night. Obviously by dragging things out, he makes it utterly impossible for Rent to go forward, even though his letter will eventually (presumably) be released when the minutes of last night’s meeting are approved and made public.  But make no mistake about it, his actions have poisoned the atmosphere at his school and fostered a somewhat heated dialogue on the Facebook group Keep Trumbull Real. The issue will not die.

In the absence of official comment, I can only respond to what I’ve heard and read from others. As a result, I have many questions.

• Why did Principal Guarino meet on Tuesday afternoon with the drama director and principal of a nearby high school which has already successfully produced Rent, if there was presumably already a letter to be read at the Board of Education meeting hours later? Was that meeting for show, a pretend stab at looking for a positive solution?
• In speaking about the “issues” of Rent, what exactly troubles Principal Guarino? Is it the mere mention of AIDS & HIV, which have been sad facts of life since before the Trumbull students were born? Is the mention of drugs, which are so prevalent in both our society and our entertainment that one of the most acclaimed TV shows in recent years is about a high school teacher turned meth kingpin? Surely Mr. Guarino can’t think of gay, lesbians and transgender people as lesser citizens. Besides being discriminatory, that retrograde thinking can’t be countenanced in anyone in an educational position. So exactly what’s the problem here?
• Mr. Guarino reportedly expressed the feeling that there was not adequate time to prepare the appropriate contextual activities to prepare students and the community for the show. But beyond asking the drama teacher what she would do, did he reach out to anyone for the study guides and lesson plans that already exist at the many high schools that have already done the show? Or did he just foist blame onto a 17-year veteran of Trumbull High for not having one that met his undefined standards? There’s so much support that could be brought to bear if only Mr. Guarino wished to try.
• Could there have been better communication between the drama director Jessica Spillane and Principal Guarino? Yes, it would seem so, and presumably appropriate but not draconian consultation will occur in the future. Yet why punish the students for this, since that’s who are really losing out – in particular the seniors.
• Mr. Guarino, are you opposed to Rent, or are you afraid that others will be and, in your first year, are you moving it off the school’s stage to avoid controversy? If so, you’ve actually blown it, because now, unless you completely capitulate and let the show go forward, a portion of faculty and the community will always see you as someone who didn’t want to work for the best possible solution for the students, rather than for yourself. If, as I’ve been told, you’ve said that you’d be open to Rent at some point in the future, you might salvage the situation by immediately and unequivocally declaring your approval for Rent beginning next year, and leading the effort to create whatever education plan you feel is necessary for a production.
• I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I was intrigued to learn that the mother of Trumbull’s First Selectman, Timothy Herbst, is the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Education. Neither of them have spoken publicly about this situation, but do I detect a bit of a dynasty? And is it at all relevant that in winning his third term, Mr. Herbst defeated Martha Jankovic-Mark – the mother of Thespian Society president Larissa Mark? What is the official stance of the Town of Trumbull on this dispute?

One person who was eager to talk about the situation in Trumbull is Daphne Rubin-Vega, a Tony nominee for creating the role of Mimi in the premiere of Rent, now the mother of a nine year old child. Asked about whether the content of Rent should be considered problematic for teens, she said, “In this day and age, I can’t think of anything more appropriate. It’s perfectly designed for high school.  To me, a loving awareness of the issues, sexuality, health, AIDS in particular is important. Rent is the perfect way to open up dialogue with young people. The cancellation of a production that people have been looking forward to is an obvious sign that our educators don’t want to take on the responsibility of educating our young. They’d have to answer questions and they don’t want the questions raised.” Vega said her child has already seen Rent and asked me if we should jump in a car right now and go up to Trumbull to lobby for the show. That may yet happen.

Does any official in Trumbull have to answer my questions? I guess not. I’m a former Connecticut resident, but I don’t live there or pay taxes there. However, if these questions are being asked by residents, by parents of students in the schools, by the students themselves, by the press, they deserve a coherent, public answer, and an answer that is neither reactionary or fearful. They deserve it not next week, not next month. Now.

*   *   *   *

Update December 4, 10 pm: Several hours after my post was made public, the statement from Principal Guarino was publicly released. I reproduce it here in its entirety, as posted on the Keep Trumbull Real Facebook page.

Dear Trumbull students, parents, and community members.
    My decision regarding the spring 2014 musical Rent: The School Edition was a difficult one and understandably caused much disappointment. I truly believe that successful and supportive schools are those that nurture strong relationships between the school and its community. Programs which foster student learning, growth and creativity require support from all aspects of the school and community. 
    With that said, I understand the responsibility I have as Principal of Trumbull High School to assure that our school is a safe, supportive environment for all students to learn, grow, and create. I first learned Trumbull High School was producing Rent: The School Edition not from the theatre arts department, but rather from a member of the community where I reside. Mrs. Spillane neither informed me nor consulted with me regarding the selection of Rent: The School Edition during the meetings we had in July and August. I appreciate that Rent is an important piece of American musical theatre. It presents educational opportunities for our students, staff, and community members to explore themes like acceptance, love, and responsibility. 
    Rent: The School Edition also presents challenges – both in content and execution. There is no evidence that an open communication, collaborative process – with either my predecessor or me—was considered to further explore Rent: The School Edition’s inherent opportunities and challenges. Open communication would– to the best of the school’s ability – provide a safe environment educationally, artistically, and emotionally for all of our students. Whether or not a formal approval process was required in the past, these opportunities and challenges should have been shared with me, especially given the fact that I am new to Trumbull High School and the Trumbull community.
    Since this decision has been made, I have met with students and have read their messages of support for this production. I have met with parents and received correspondences from community members and concerned individuals from around the country. The commonality I share with all these groups is the potential Rent: The School Edition has to promote our district’s mission statement and our school’s core values and beliefs. To date, I have not been presented with a plan to make this a reality for our students, staff, and community. Without a thought out plan, Rent: The School Edition will be a missed educational opportunity. Without proper planning, Rent: The School Edition has the potential to become a speech rather than a meaningful dialogue to capitalize on all significant themes it presents. I am committed to developing this plan to best meet the needs of all students.
    Trumbull is a wonderful community and our students continue to impress and amaze me. I am honored to serve as Principal and will always focus my efforts to support all aspects of student growth and development. I have already spoken with Dr. Cialfi, Dr. McGrath, Mrs. Spillane, and Ms. Bolan regarding my intentions to develop a collaborative process based on open communication to bring Rent: The School Edition to Trumbull High School. This process will require input and feedback from various groups. Most importantly, it will take time. Based on my research with various schools, this process will not meet the timeline for the spring of 2014. As I told our student leaders, Mrs. Spillane, Ms. Bolan, Dr. Cialfi, Dr. McGrath and some parents, I fully support Rent: The School Edition. We will bring Rent: The School Edition to Trumbull High School following a model that has proven to be successful at meeting our intended learning goals. 
Thank you.
Marc W. Guarino
Principal, THS

November 21, 2013

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC  20500

Dear President Obama:

There was an anniversary yesterday, and I’m willing to bet that you forgot all about it. You didn’t need to send a card, but it would have been nice if you’d made some gesture of recognition, of concern. Presidents often do that sort of thing, especially when they’re stalling about something. But since you were silent, I’ll remind you: yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the day that Rocco Landesman announced his resignation as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Now I can understand if you don’t remember the letter I wrote you about this in June, expressing my concern about this issue; it might have registered somewhere in your press office, but there are probably lots of bloggers yapping about this issue or that every day. Yet in August, your inaction on this topic was written about on successive days by Robin Pogrebin in The New York Times and Frank Rizzo in The Hartford Courant, and surely those are outlets that your media team pays closer attention to. But months have passed since then, still without a word.

I wouldn’t, as David Letterman says, give your problems to a monkey on a rock, especially with the current Obamacare debacle and the Senate denying hearings on some of your judicial nominations. But as a citizen who places the arts very highly among issues dear to me, your seeming abdication of responsibility or interest in the National Endowment for the Arts and its empty chairmanship has become not only absurd but insulting.  It’s bad enough that the NEA is a frequent and easy target for those who want to carve up the budget willy-nilly or wage some fatuous war on culture, but without the full force of the presidency behind the agency, the government’s commitment to the arts (and the humanities, since the NEH is in the same boat) suggests that they are of no value to anyone at all in Washington, since it is the Democrats who usually speak up most strongly in defense of government funding of the arts.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, if you don’t have the time to have someone on your staff deal with this, then by all means nominate Joan Shikegawa, the acting chair, and let her fully assume the leadership mantle. The agency may be functioning as it stands, but you’re hobbling it by not appointing an officially vested leader. It’s also worth mentioning that in the past few weeks, two key staff positions have also opened up at the NEA, as Ralph Remington, head of the theatre and musical theatre program leaves for a job with Actors Equity, and the agency’s chief of staff Jamie Bennett decamps for ArtPlace America. I’m not saying there’s any connection here, simply that at a time when the agency has important decisions to make very soon, you have proven unable to make one after a full year’s time.

I take no pleasure in watching you struggle these days, but after an almost playful tone in my prior communiqué, my sense of humor on this topic is pretty much gone. I still support you, Mr. President, but I’m impatient now. Surely someone in your staff can vet candidates and get someone appropriate ready for your review. But in the meantime, your silence is sending a very negative message about the future of government funding of the arts and the value of the arts in Americans’ lives. You disappoint me and my colleagues and to be honest Mr. President, when you start making us angry, you’re really chipping away at your base.

Sincerely,

Howard Sherman

Addendum: 20 minutes after I posted this letter, Mark Swed, music critic at The Los Angeles Times, posted an excellent essay about President Kennedy’s one-time role as “arts patron in chief.” It speaks directly to the leadership gap in this area today and throws the problem of the NEA into even greater relief.

If you’ve not yet heard the story, the basic facts are these. Earlier this week, members of the football team at the University of Mississippi (aka “Ole Miss”) were required to attend a performance of The Laramie Project, the play by Tectonic Theater Project and Moisés Kaufman about the murder of Matthew Shepard 15 years ago and the impact of his killing on the town of Laramie. Some 20 players were among the students who taunted the cast with gay slurs; they may have instigated the incident. In the many news reports about it, it has been noted that the players were required to write a note of apology; one may have done so in person.  You can read accounts from the Associated Press and ESPN for more details.

This profoundly upsets me, and I suspect anyone who reads what I write, so my personal condemnation of the incident is insignificant. Given that just last week I explained how I can barely watch fictional stories about sports, and that I previously spoken up on the value of seeing Laramie Project produced in high schools, my deep dismay over this incident is unsurprising.

It remains a sad fact of American life that this kind of bigotry flourishes. For all the advances that have been made since Shepard’s murder, there are clearly swaths of people in this country whose reactionary behavior proves just how far we have to go in accepting that all people are created equal. It is a bit of sick irony that the football players at Ole Miss were required to attend a performance that explores the pain and horror of hate crimes and used it as an opportunity to display their basest beliefs.

I am encouraged, however, to see that the sportswriting community, which I do not know well (as you might surmise), has not shrugged off this incident. I recommend to you three columns in particular. “Apology isn’t enough for what Ole Miss thinks its football players did” is the headline of a piece by Gregg Doyel of CBS, who expresses my shared skepticism that the players will face any meaningful punishment for their actions. Greg Couch of Fox Sports goes further, and calls for the suspension of the players (“Time for Ole Miss to send a message”) as does his colleague Clay Travis (“Ole Miss Must Ban Players — Now”) – and I agree with them completely.  I am pleased to see members of the sports media standing against these actions, since they have access to the general public in a way the theatre community itself could never muster, even if every website and blog were to unite over this issue.

But the culture of college sports, especially at schools with teams that compete at the top level in games that land on television, have this pathetic inability to truly address meaningful change in an often corrupt universe. At The New York Times, business writer Joe Nocera has written column after column about the repeated failures of the NCAA to curb abuses within their system, specifically the kind of money made on the backs of so-called student-athletes, with a particular eye to the long-term effects of traumatic brain injuries. We read about crimes, in particular sexual assault, that is systematically hushed up at colleges, by athletes and other students, in the name of protecting the reputation of the school. Disrupting a play doesn’t rise to a comparable level of criminality, but this week’s events are symptomatic of a larger disease, one that is not unique to sports programs, but that is in abundant evidence right now at Ole Miss and should be quashed in no uncertain terms.

We only have to read the accounts of Tuesday’s Laramie performance to see that Ole Miss cares more about their football team than about the student body at large, let alone the drama program in particular. When members of the team began their heckling (too soft a word, just as bullying is insufficient these days as well), it was the football coach who was called – but what about security, the police? They will be held accountable as athletes within a special system, not simply as students, let alone as individual citizens ganging together to espouse hate.

Ole Miss has a football game tomorrow. The school has not yet said whether these offenders will play in it, or whether anything more will be asked of them than the wan apology already proffered. At the same time, I suspect if activists were to interrupt the game by running onto the field and calling the players names, they would be arrested, suspended, and expelled or some combination thereof.

Even if you agree with every word I’ve written even before you read it, I hope you’ll add your voice to the chorus speaking against this incident at Ole Miss and all of those like it, in person, online, using whatever resources you have. Even if, like me, you’re no sports fan, surely you have friends and family who are, and who should hear about what has happened this week in Mississippi, since it’s hardly an isolated case. Worse has been done and sadly will be done, but we can’t allow the empty theatre of college athletic penalties (if they even occur) to trump the sad human drama that led to Matthew Shepard’s killing and which is played out on our national stage day in and day out.

To write directly to members of the University of Mississippi athletic program, here’s a complete list of contacts. Write directly to the Chancellor of the university, Dr. Daniel W. Jones at chancllr@olemiss.edu and to the director of Athletics Ross Bjork at rbjork@olemiss.edu.

Direct tweets to @OleMissRebels, Ole Miss Athletics (@OleMissNow) and football @CoachHughFreeze. Post Facebook messages to www.facebook.com/olemisssports and www.facebook.com/OleMissFootball

Update – Saturday, October 5, 8 am: The Ole Miss’s “Bias Incident Response Team” released the following statement on Friday evening:

“The task of identifying specific individuals who were purported to have disrupted the performance is difficult because of the dark theatre, and initial reports vary in regard to the frequency, volume and source of the comments or disruption,” the statement read. “Although initial reports indicate that student-athletes led the action, it is important to note that this has not been verified and they were not the only students present. Reports indicate that comments were made by student athletes and students but no report has singled out a specific student or mentioned any names.”

According to a report in the Jackson Clarion Ledger, headlined “Ole Miss delivers punishment in homophobic slur incident,” members of the team at the performance will, however, be required to attend “educational dialogue session led by university faculty and allies.” In other words: we know they were part of this, but not enough to actually punish them, despite what the headline says. Apparently at Ole Miss, the dedication to football outweighs the word of a faculty member. The headline from ESPN, “No evidence against Ole Miss players,” seems to completely absolve them.  The ugly game goes on.

The 2012 NEA SSPA Report

If yesterday’s news that theatre attendance is down more precipitously than any of the arts caused you to spit out your coffee over breakfast, well that’s probably because you haven’t been paying attention. To be fair, I suspect a lot of people haven’t been, with virtually every discussion of the performing arts in since 2008 having been prefaced with either “in these challenging times” or “since the financial meltdown of 2008.” But the time for qualifiers and excuses is clearly past, especially as every news report on American life in general seems to invoke the fairly recent cliché “the new normal.” Things have changed. Things are changing. Things will change. The arts need to change.

In citing slides of 9% for musical theatre and 12% for non-musicals over the past five years, and even more pronounced numbers over a longer range, the picture painted by the NEA shows an overall decline in arts attendance, with theatre hardest hit. Coming just days after some co-mingled summary numbers from an Americans for the Arts report suggested theatre might be looking up, it was certainly startling news. But a closer look at the latter study actually confirms the reported  NEA trend.

Looking elsewhere, the same picture appears. The last Theatre Communications Group “Theatre Facts” report, covering results from 2008 to 2012, shows a 1.8% decline in attendance in the portion of their membership studied – not as pronounced as the NEA figures, but certainly heading the wrong way as well. It’s also important to remember that as expansive as it is, TCG itself is only a subset of overall US theatres. In a more easily defined theatrical realm of activity, Broadway in the same period shows a 5% audience decline, with a 17%  increase in income, suggesting an increasingly inaccessible theatrical realm, and an economic model that will only further stratify audiences.

The Ticketmaster UK Report

The only encouragement that one might wish to cling to is a report from Ticketmaster’s analytics division, which shows stunningly positive stats about arts participation by younger audiences (including a snappy infographic). While it hints that there might be some lessons to be learned, we’d have to go to England to get them, because the study is entitled State of Play: Theatre UK. While it does include some US audience members (as well as a selection from Ireland, Germany and Australia), the US sample represents only 13% of the total, with 65% from the UK. Also, under theatre, Ticketmaster has folded in opera and dance, so it’s not a true apples to apples comparison.

Now I am one of the many who believes that theatre as a discipline will manage to survive the onslaught of electronic entertainment precisely because it is live and fundamentally irreproducible. We may be a niche, but there will always be those who treasure being in the same room with artists as art is created; I have often joked that theatre will only be in real danger when Star Trek: TNG’s holodeck becomes reality. Even these reports don’t sway me from that conceptual position. But I’m not sticking my head in the sand either.

Appreciation of the arts is, for many, something that is learned in childhood – namely in schools. Yet we only have to read about the state of public education to know that resources are diminished, anything that isn’t testable is expendable, and fewer students are being exposed to arts education than they were years ago. Citing the 2008 NEA SSPA report: “In 1982, nearly two-thirds of 18-year-olds reported taking art classes in their childhood. By 2008, that share had dropped below one-half, a decline of 23 percent.” In less than 30 years, inculcation in the arts through the schools declined notably, so is it any wonder that we’re seeing declines in arts participation over time?

In a 2012 Department of Education study, it was reported that “the percentages of schools making [music and visual arts] available went from 20 percent 10 years ago to only 4 and 3 percent, respectively, in the 2009-10 school year.  In addition, at more than 40 percent of secondary schools, coursework in arts was not required for graduation in the 2009-10 school year.” That’s all the more reason to be concerned. Certainly many arts organizations have committed to working with or in schools, but are the programs comprehensive enough? We’ve become ever more sophisticated in how to create truly in-depth, ongoing education experiences, but perhaps in doing so, we’re reaching fewer students. Maybe we have to look at how to restore sheer numbers as part of that equation, while maintaining quality, to insure our own future.

Art from Americans for the Arts report

It’s time to make an important distinction. As I said, I believe ‘theatre’ will survive for years to come. Where we would do well to focus immediate attention is on our ‘theatres,’ our companies. On a micro basis, it may be easy to shrug off declines, especially if you happen to be affiliated with a company that is bucking the trend. But these reports with their macro view should take each and every theatre maker and theatre patron outside of the specifics of their direct experience to look at the field, not simply year to year, but over time. It suggests that there is a steady erosion in the theatergoing base, which hasn’t necessarily found a new level; just as a rising tide floats all boats, eventually our toys lie at the bottom of the tub once the drain is opened.

I don’t have the foresight to know where this will lead. One direction is that of Broadway, where the consistently risky business model favors shows that are built for the truly long run, but only for the select audiences with the resources to support ever increasing prices. Might that be mirrored in the not-for-profit community as well, with only the largest and most established companies able to secure audiences and funding if resources and interest truly diminish? Or might we see a shift away from institutions and edifices and towards more grass roots companies, where simpler theatre at lower prices and more basic production values finds the favor of those who still harbor an appetite for live drama?

I’ll make a prediction. While in the first half of my life I watched the bourgeoning of the resident theatre movement, which in turn seeded the growth of countless smaller local companies, my later years will see a contraction in overall production at the professional level; it’s already begun, as a few companies seem to go under every year and have been for some time. That means that it will become ever harder for people to make their lives in theatre, because there will be fewer job opportunities for them.

Since I’ve already employed science fiction in my argument, let me turn to it again. We’ve all seen or read stories where someone goes back in time to right some past wrong (and for the moment, let’s forget that they often as not ruin the future in the process). Is there a point where we could or should make some fundamental change in how theatre functions – not as an art, but as an industry? Is there a single watershed moment where one choice determined the course of the field that some future time traveler could set right? I suspect not, unless we were talking about preventing (in succession) the discovery of electricity, the invention of TV and movies, or the creation of the internet.

That’s why we have to shift the paradigm now, and not just worry about selling tickets to the current show or meeting next year’s budget, but focus on what’s truly sustainable in 10, 25 or 50 years time. This week’s data barrage shows one thing we mustn’t ignore: even if we can’t see it in our own day to day experience, what we’re doing now isn’t working and the tide is going out.

My thanks to Mariah MacCarthy, who brought the 2008 NEA SSPA Report summary and the 2012 Department of Education report to my attention.

For all the years I lived in Connecticut, I used to feel I was missing out, as I saw offers for advance screenings of films dropping into my inbox and plastered on various websites. But, alas, the screenings were focused on “major cities” and it hardly made sense for me to take a two hour drive to capitalize on an offer to see a film I could catch a few weeks later for all of $10. But now that I’m in New York, I’ve discovered that while these screenings are plenty convenient, the cost could be much greater – to the tune of $5 million for an inappropriate tweet.

That’s not a typo. An e-mail offer for a screening of Ron Howard’s Rush this evening, from the site previewfreemovies.com, has an extensive list of caveats about who can attend and what they’re able to say – or more accurately, everything they can’t say – if they accept such a gracious offer. I’d be out, according to their requirements, right off the bat, because they wish to prohibit anyone from the entertainment industry, market research or media from participating, since the screening is being done for market research purposes. I would say this is a pretty sloppy way to assemble a representative moviegoing sample in New York, but presumably they want “average viewers,” whoever they may be, not us media elite (what, me elite? ha!).

Now it’s worth noting that Rush screens tonight and opens Friday, so this isn’t a test screening that might result in edits and reshoots; all they can gather at this point is how the audience feels about the film. The methodology seems different than that used by Cinemascore, which one reads about, so who the results of this effort are seen by is an unanswered question. But the movie isn’t about to change in the subsequent 72 hours (now that many films debut on Thursday evenings around 9 pm).

What gets my goat about this “invitation” is the lengthy list of warnings and potential liabilities you undertake by participating. While I understand the concern about surreptitious filming (we know that bootlegs of shoddily shot screenings copntribute to movie piracy, and should be averted), the idea that a tweet or blog about a film could ruin someone’s finances is something else altogether. In this case, it’s pretty preposterous, as the film has already been screened at the Toronto Film Festival (and I’ve seen tweets about it), but this language is in place for many such advance viewing opportunities.

Frankly, I have a sneaking suspicion that if an attendee posted a few words or even a few paragraphs online that were laudatory about the film, all concerned would turn a blind eye to the praise. But if anyone of influence happened to express negative opinions, the potential for action rises. While I doubt that any company would want the negative p.r. of swooping down on some innocent Facebooker who didn’t mind the fine print, I bet they’d put the fear of god into them as an example, so they can run their marketing they way they like, with “average moviegoers” as tools to be used, rather than customers and potential supporters.

Please don’t moan to me, movie marketers, about how social media has ruined the preview process and upended your efforts; every industry has had to adjust to the revolution. But if you want to know what people think, it should be an all or nothing proposition – you get your info, but so do friends and family and followers of those you drag in with your offer of marginal value, unless you offer them something more valuable than the right to see a movie a few days early, while being subject to draconian penalties.  The public shouldn’t be bought so cheaply while assuming a ridiculous risk. So I just might see Rush when it opens – and say anything I darn well please about it,wherever and whenever I want.

For the record, here’s the language that appeared in the e-mail invitation itself, verbatim:

By attending this private event you agree to all of the following:

• A Photo ID or Passport is required for admittance.
• The audience at this screening may be recorded for research purposes. By attending, you give your unqualified consent to the filmmaker and its agents and licensees to use the recording of your person and appearance and your reactions for its review in any manner in connection with the purpose of this recruited screening.
• No one over or under the above-listed age group or infants will be permitted into the theater, and if you accept this invitation, you and your guest represent that our ages are BOTH within this listed age group.
• No one involved in the entertainment advertisement, market research or media industries, or anyone who writes, blogs or otherwise reports on media in any form or forum whatsoever will be admitted.
• By accepting this invitation and attending this screening, you agree not to disclose any of the contents of the screening prior to the release of the movie to the public. If you are discovered to have written about, posted or disclosed in any manner any of the contents of the screening – including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, blogs or any other social media outlets, we will pursue all of our legal rights and remedies against you.
• The theatre is overbooked to ensure capacity and therefore you are not guaranteed a seat by showing up at this private event.
• There is no charge to attend the screening, but as a condition to admittance, audience members are required to complete a short questionnaire following the movie.
• No audio or video recording devices will be allowed into the theater, including but not limited to camera phones and PDAs. If you attempt to use a recording device you will be removed from the theater immediately, forfeit the device and you may be subject to criminal and civil liability.
• Audience members consent to a search of all bags, jackets and pockets for cameras or other recording devices. Leave any such items at home or in your car.
• All non-camera cell phones and pagers must be off or on silent mode during the screening.
• Anyone creating a disturbance or interfering with the screening enjoyment of others in the audience will be removed from the theater.

By accepting this invitation and/or attending the screening event, you acknowledge and agree that neither you nor your guest(s) are guaranteed admission to the theater, or any specific seating if you are so admitted, and that none of you are entitled to any form of compensation if you do not get admitted into the screening or if you are offered seats that you choose to decline.

And here, also verbatim, is the language that appears in a scrolling box on the actual RSVP form. This is where it gets expensive:

CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

THIS CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between Screen Engine, LLC, a California limited liability company, dba previewfreemovies.com, (“Company”) and/or its affiliated or related companies and clients, and you, the individual confirming your attendance at this event (“Individual”). For good and adequate consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Individual hereby agrees as follows:

Individual is or will be a guest of Company at a market research event for the purpose of viewing “works-in-progress” creative content that may be associated with movies and other media (the “Creative Content”) In the course of Individual’s viewing of the Creative Content, Individual may acquire or may be exposed to information (including, without limitation, information that is written, oral, photographed or recorded on film, tape, or otherwise), as well as any as-yet unreleased creative content. Individual agrees that he/she shall not, during the term of this Agreement, or thereafter, in perpetuity, disclose or cause to be disclosed (or confirm or deny the veracity of) to any third party or use or authorize any third party to use:

(1) Any information relating to the Creative Content, the business or interests of Company, or Company’s Affiliates, that the Company and/or its Affiliates has not revealed to the general public;

(2) Any information developed by or disclosed to Individual by Company, Company’s Affiliates, or by any third party, which is confidential to Company, its Affiliates, Clients and/or which is not known to the general public;

(3) Any information that Company, or its Affiliates instruct Individual not to disclose or confirm. The information described in (1)-(3) is hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Confidential Information”

Individual acknowledges that maintaining complete privacy and avoiding disclosure of Confidential Information are critically important to Company and its Affiliates, that Individual would not be given access to Confidential Information if Individual were not willing to agree to these terms, and protect and preserve that privacy and confidentiality, and that Individual’s full and strict compliance with this Agreement is a fundamental inducement upon which Company is specifically relying in allowing Individual to view, hear or learn of the Creative Content. Confidential Information is and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of Company and its Affiliates, and, during and after the term of this Agreement, Confidential Information, even when revealed to Individual, shall be deemed to remain at all times in the sole possession and control of Company and its Affiliates.

a.) Without limiting any other provision hereof, Individual shall not give any interviews regarding or otherwise participate by any means and in any form whatsoever, including but not limited to blogs, Twitter, Facebook, You- Tube, MySpace, or any other social networking or other websites whether now existing or hereafter created, in the disclosure of any Confidential Information or any other information relating to this Agreement, the Creative Content or the business of Company or its Affiliates. If Individual is contacted by a journalist, a representative of the media or other third party who requests that Individual disclose or confirm or deny the veracity of any of the Information covered by this Agreement, Individual shall reject said request and/or issue a “no comment”, and Individual shall immediately advise Company thereof.

b.) Company shall have the right to confiscate, (including seize and destroy the contents of) cell phones, cameras, PDAs and any and all other infringing devices, and take all necessary measures to protect its rights.

c.) Individual agrees that any breach of this Agreement will cause Company and its Affiliates and Clients incalculable damages. Such damages include all costs of any nature associated with the Creative Content, as well as the incalculable management time necessary in creating and distributing the same. Accordingly, Individual agrees that in the event of breach of this paragraph, Individual shall pay Company, upon demand, as liquidated damages, the sum of Five Million Dollar ($5,000 000.00) plus any actual out-of-pocket expense, as well as any attorney fees expended in enforcing this paragraph.

The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of Company, its successors and assigns and to the benefit of Individual and his or her successors and assigns.

June 26, 2013

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC  20500

Dear President Obama:

I realize it’s been a busy week, what with the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act today and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act yesterday. I know you’ve just begun a weeklong trip to Africa and presumably get home just in time for some fireworks (actual, not political) next week. But we’ve really got to talk about this NEA thing.

I’m referring, of course, to the fact that there hasn’t been a chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts since Rocco Landesman stepped down at the end of your first term. While presumably the agency is running smoothly, the fact remains that for six months now, there’s been no notable public effort to replace him. I know how these things go (I watched The West Wing and House of Cards) and there may be elaborate machinations going on behind the scenes, but without a new chair even proposed, you’re giving off the signal that the arts don’t matter.

A lot of us in the arts know that isn’t true. Since you first took office, we’ve been pleased to see you, the First Lady and your daughters taking in cultural events in New York and in Washington and hosting others at the White House. Some of us would lobby for the symbolism of a cultural excursion by your family taking place outside of the aforementioned cities, or your Chicago hometown, to demonstrate how broadbased the arts community truly is, but the girls have school and you and your wife have countless commitments. We get that. But considering how little attention the previous tenants of your house paid to the arts, I would think that your small personal actions would lead you to action on the big picture.

Sure, I know all about the various government positions you’re trying to fill, including serious problems with stalled judicial appointments, and I don’t want to in any way minimize their import. My god, the whole IRS situation alone must keep you awake at night. However, second terms are when people start peeling away from government appointments, not running towards them, since there’s more than likely a ticking clock on their service, depending upon the preferences of the next president.  When Rocco took the NEA gig, he knew he had four years guaranteed, said he only wanted four years, and proved to be a man of his word. His successor might only get three years, even if you act soon.

I know you’re not personally conducting a search or vetting candidates; you have a team of people to do these things and bring names forward for consideration. I’m not presumptuous enough to proffer candidates, especially as my list might be rather theatre-centric, and you may not want to follow Rocco with another theatre-oriented person, since the NEA has an impact on so many areas in the arts. Again, symbolism can be important. Beyond having an advocate in your administration who has the unequivocal authority of the office, we need the affirmation that this is important to you and that you believe the arts are important to the American people. It’s the silence that hurts, especially as we’ve watched the agency diminished over time, albeit with some recent gains that don’t go unnoticed or unappreciated.

Now I don’t know Joan Shikegawa myself, but if the trouble of a search is too onerous and she’s been doing well, then give her the full power. Don’t wait any longer. While we appreciate acting in the arts, “Acting Chairman” diminishes authority, rather than enhancing it. It suggests something transitory, and we need some permanence. We’ve spent too much time over the past couple of decades worrying whether the agency, and federal funding, would even survive.

There are remarkable leaders in the arts, who would be great advocates and great politicians. They would do your administration proud and the arts community could take pride in them. There’s very little the average citizen can do to nudge you on this, although I’m quite certain I could rally the troops on Twitter or Facebook to lob ideas at you via social media. But you probably want more decorum.

Now if it so happens that there’s something we can do, reach out. If there are factors contributing to the delay, give us a sign, so we know where we stand. But what I, and I suspect others, want to know is that the arts aren’t forgotten, and that our president believes they are important enough for his concern, his enthusiasm, and his actions. Name a chairman. Please. I look forward to hearing from you. Not by mail, but in the national news. Soon.

Sincerely,

Howard Sherman

I am not a Pollyanna about the continuing challenges of racial inequality and prejudice in this country and around the world. I fear that mankind’s seemingly inexhaustible capacity and compulsion to define an “other” is so deeply seated that it will take many more generations to eradicate, largely through what futurists and fantasists predict to be an eventual blending of all races. I will not live to see that day.

But I thought we were above this sort of thing in the arts, at least insofar as exploiting racial differences go. But with this morning’s announcement of a new Broadway production of Romeo and Juliet, featuring Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad as the famed lovers, I find that neither the press nor those associated with the show are able to simply announce their production and its fine cast. Instead, words like “interracial” and “mixed race” pepper nearly every article I’ve seen since I first learned of the production; whether that is by design of the producers or the reaction of the press is difficult to parse. The director has already been quoted speaking about wanting to emphasize the division of the Montagues and Capulets through his casting; he notes that he didn’t start with the intent of separating the warring families along racial lines, but that it evolved once his leads were selected.

Why is calling out the racial element necessary, I wonder, especially at the very moment the show is made public. They’ve announced with poster art in place, so it’s fairly self-evident that Bloom is white and Rashad is black. The casting of the veteran actor Joe Morton as Lord Capulet is also noted. Do we need to have this color divide spelled out for us? I tend to think we would do well to discover it when we see the show, or simply become more aware as more casting announcements ensue. Certainly it’s something for feature stories closer to the opening.

I am, emphatically, not arguing against the show artistically in any way. It’s a perfectly valid approach and I look forward to seeing what David Leveaux does with it. I’m especially eager to see Rashad because she’s such a compelling actor and I want to watch her career and talent grow.  It’s the racial emphasis of the initial news that concerns and surprises me, and it’s interesting to note that it has overwhelmed the observation that the actor playing Romeo is 35, which might otherwise draw attention.

Color-blind and color-specific casting has been used for years, especially with Shakespeare. At Hartford Stage in 1987, I did press for a production where a white Pericles married a black Thaisa, who was the child of a Latino father; Pericles and Thaisa’s child Marina was played by an Asian American actress. A year later, Jim Simpson, now of The Flea Theatre, directed a stage adaptation of Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons in which the gentry were white and the serfs black, to bring home the class divisions viscerally for modern audiences; it was not in the text. That was a quarter century ago. I recall a Pygmalion at Yale Rep with an African-American Eliza. Just last year in a glorious As You Like It, Lily Rabe, Andre Braugher and Omar Metwally were among the denizens of Arden for The Public Theatre, all of different racial heritage, yet it mattered not a whit; in 2007 The Public offered us a Latino Romeo portrayed by Oscar Isaac.  I’m sure there are countless other examples, which escape me only in the haste of my writing.

There are those who cling to ideas of what is historically correct with Shakespeare, but his work was both a product of its day and at times anachronistic unto itself (i.e. mentions of clocks in Julius Caesar). “Purity” would require the use of original pronunciation and all-male casts, both of which are rarely employed; I say anything goes if it is true to the text and illuminates the play. I reject narrow-mindedness.

But when it is instantly obvious to anyone with a knowledge of the actors already announced that the show is being cast along racial lines, and when there is imagery to point that out to the unaware, why must that be the beginning of every story? If Will & Grace, Modern Family and Ellen are now cited as leading Americans to greater acceptance of marriage equality, can’t the arts explore racial themes without using them as a marketing ploy? After 400 years, we all certainly know that the youthful protagonists die, in no small part because of the clannish enmity between their families; we’ll see that transposed in this production onto racial lines and yet, presumably, the message remains the same – the prejudices of parents must be eradicated, for the sake of children’s happiness and the betterment of society.

Talk to me about Orlando Bloom’s Broadway debut. Rhapsodize over Rashad’s talented family. Praise the acumen of the director. Embrace the timeless story of lovers separated by foolish divisions. But don’t parade out “interracial” and “mixed-race” as if such a casting idea is new to the stage, even when employed in a work where it is neither explicit or implicit in the text. In doing so, there is the risk of suggesting not how acceptable it is or should be, but rather that it is still something remarkable or strange. Frankly, I’d be thrilled if someone actually got to the show with no knowledge of the racial element, and discovered how it, perhaps, serves to bring the drama home, especially if it runs against their own expectations or prejudices.

“Mixed” romances and marriages, whether racial, religious, or based in some other bias, are certainly not fully accepted in every corner of this country or the world, but we are 40+ years past Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner.  Sell me this Romeo and Juliet on its many merits, not by suggesting that it will be heightened by a portrayal of racial enmity. Let’s show the way in our art, not exploit retrograde ideas in our rhetoric.