Theater as an entitlement

[Seperite]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 8:19am

Whenever people post messages lamenting the ever-rising cost of theater, or griping about onerous or restrictive rush/discount policies, they are invariably chastised by the great Defenders Of Producers (DOPes) who helpfully remind them that Broadway is a business, that the complainers' sense of entitlement is misplaced, that people who cannot pay full-price for tickets have no right to whine, etc.

But is all of that really true? Is there no inherent 'entitlement' to affordable theater tickets?

As a basic human necessity, theater certainly doesn't rise to the level of food, water, shelter and healthcare. Nor is there a human 'right' to theater the way that there is to, say, education. But society has long recognized that there is an additional rung of cultural privileges that citizens deserve -- not because they are absolutely vital to human survival -- but because they enable a certain quality of life that everyone should have, regardless of their ability to pay. To that end, parks are free. Beaches are free. Libraries are free. Zoos are free (on certain days of the week). News broadcasts, music, movies, and other forms of entertainment are free (over television and radio airwaves, which are all considered public.) And beyond the realm of culture, cellphones, transportation, and access to the internet are all either free or heavily subsidized (for those who cannot afford it).

None of the foregoing are absolutely essential to human beings' survival. But we as a society have nonetheless determined that enabling public access to these privileges, regardless of people's ability to pay, contributes to the greater good, and is therefore worthy of societal investment and 'sacrifice.' To be sure, the quality of the beaches/books/movies etc. you get access to are enhanced if you elect to pay for these things out of pocket. But even the most destitute among us can still dip their feet in the same ocean waters, read the same works of literature, and be awed by the same prehistoric fossils as the most privileged multi-billionaire. And that's a beautiful thing.

Theater, however, is excluded from the list of cultural treasures the public has access to. To my knowledge, there is no truly 'public' theater in New York; no way for those who cannot afford it to be moved, inspired, and stimulated by professional calibre theater for free (other than by waiting in the park all night for Shakespeare in the Park tickets a few weeks a year). And that's a terrible shame. Those of us who read and participate on this board know first-hand how wondrous and inspiring theater can be. Why should that experience be reserved for the privileged few who can afford it?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 9:29am

The few? There are tens of thousands every week that attend theater in New York City.

Just how do you propose they make it affordable? Ask the actors to take a cut in pay? Should the producers not be able to make a profit? Maybe we should ask the ushers to rely on tips.

I want a Maserati. I can't afford it. I don't whine about it. And just like I drive a cheap car, if I can't afford B'way ticket prices, I look around for what I can afford. Regional theater. Or going less often.


It still comes down to whining because you can't have everything you want. That's life.

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 9:44am

"Theater, however, is excluded from the list of cultural treasures the public has access to"

There are some free staged readings to be found, such as those offered at the Lincoln Center Library.

What is unfortunate is the snooty, condescending posture some people here have taken with respect to those who lament being shut out of theatre due to rising prices. One would think there would be some degree of empathy from fellow theatre lovers. Not here, I guess.

And no, it is not a question of "entitlement." It's simply a reaction to having to give up a special part of one's life and the sadness one feels doing it. Yes, we all realize it's all just a business, and that's how the market works. And we accept that reality, for really, what other choice do we have? Does that mean we should exult over it?

The snarky crew here would say emphatically, "Yes!" Or more accurately, "YESSS!!!"




Updated On: 2/26/15 at 09:44 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 10:04am

In NYC, one of the wonderful things used to be that if you couldn't afford Broadway, there were always good productions off-Broadway and off-off-Broadway.

But now the off-Broadway scene has shrunk. With the closings of places like Actor's Playhouse and Circle Rep, the choices have become less. And with organizations like the Public Theatre leaning more towards the wealthy, theater is becoming more for the privileged.

Unfortunately economics has taken its toll. Rising production costs and stagnant wages have created a gap where people don't have as much discretionary money. Even movies are reaching exorbitant prices and people are being much more selective about waiting until movies hit Netflix before watching them. And PBS has not kept up with its commitment to the arts either.

I don't think that people are entitled to theater or any form of entertainment. But I do think that there should be ways to make it more available.

[Seperite]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 10:10am

"Tens of thousands" attending theater every week is definitely the "few" in a region of some 15 million people, the vast, vast majority of whom cannot afford to attend Broadway theater with any regularity. Contrast this with the public's access to museums, libraries, zoos, radio, television, parks, and beaches, which everyone can afford, because they are all free.

The reason that those other cultural treasures are free is not because it doesn't cost anything to maintain a museum, library, or park. It's because the government invests in and subsidizes these things, out of the recognition that while access to books and fine art are not absolutely essential to human survival, the enrichment they confer, and the benefit of mass accessibility to these things regardless of citizens' ability to pay, is well worth the investment. Theater should be treated no differently. Given the society's recognition of the importance of mass access to culture and art, there's no reason that the government shouldn't subsidize, say, ten seats at every theatrical performance for those who couldn't otherwise afford to pay. Or the producers, most of whom, I'll bet, were not born into money, could align their liberal sensibilities with their pocketbooks and do so of their own volition. Almost all shows have at least ten empty seats at every single performance anyway, so it's no skin off their back.

[Seperite]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 10:17am

Gotham PC --

You say that people aren't entitled to any form of art, but society disagrees with you. Museums, libraries, television and radio are all subsidized by government, and therefore, free, out of the recognition that the public IS entitled to free access to art.

Dramamama --

You noted that you cannot afford a Maserati, and don't whine about it, presumably because you rightly recognize that you're not entitled to one. That's true, of course. A Maserati is a super-luxurious way of getting around, which you only get if you're willing to pay. But you're still entitled to SOME safe, convenient, speedy way of getting around, in the form of heavily subsidized, and therefore affordable, public transportation.

Art is no different. Those who cannot pay should not be entitled to house seats in sixth-row center of the hottest Broadway show, I agree. But you should be able to get some kind of access to professional-calibre theater, not an amateur production in a senior citizen or high school.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 10:21am

'Given the society's recognition of the importance of mass access to culture and art, there's no reason that the government shouldn't subsidize, say, ten seats at every theatrical performance for those who couldn't otherwise afford to pay."

This country is in debt to the tune of around 18 trillion and you want them to pay for theater tickets, how about repairing roads, bridges and building new schools instead. Why stop at Broadway theater? Have the government buy tickets to the opera, symphony performances, ballet etc. See where I am going - lol.



Updated On: 2/26/15 at 10:21 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 10:26am

"the public IS entitled to free access to art."

I have to agree with this - art is part of free education. In the elementary schools music and art are part of the curriculum, which acknowledges that these are subjects necessary for a well rounded human being. Due to finances, those subjects are the first to go in some school systems. When that happens, there's usually a public outcry, which is warranted.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 10:45am

It is sad to me when I read posts confusing commercial Broadway theatre with theatre. There is a wealth of theatre well within the means of everyone: gripes about Broadway prices are the noise of people who think they should get for free the output of a commercial luxury market: it is like whining that you are shoeless because that pair of Louboutins is not affordable to you. You can go to the theatre every night of your life in New York for less than the cost of a latte. And you can see any must see show by saving up for it-no matter what station you are in. And the quality of what you will see for less is, on average, better than the crap that passes for theatre on Broadway.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 10:58am

Gotham PC --

You say that people aren't entitled to any form of art, but society disagrees with you. Museums, libraries, television and radio are all subsidized by government, and therefore, free, out of the recognition that the public IS entitled to free access to art.

Society is a fickle mistress. "Subsidized by government" only means that someone else has paid for them so they could be free for you. If American industry ever ground to a halt, you wouldn't have any of these things. If the Donald Trumps of America stopped paying taxes, all of these things would shut their doors within a week.

And as Margaret Thatcher so succinctly stated: At some point you're going to run out of other people's money.

Updated On: 2/26/15 at 10:58 AM

[Seperite]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:04am

Where is there professional theatre for less than the cost of a latte in New York? Don't tell me about some elementary school production -- that doesn't count. When you go to the museum, for FREE, you get to see the greatest works of art humanity has ever produced -- "professional" art, not children's scribbling. When you go to the zoo, for FREE, you get to see every animal humans have deemed worthy of capturing, not just cockroaches and mice. When you go to the library, you get to read every work of literature, not just some basement-dweller's blog. When you turn on the TV, you get to see the same dramas and comedies produced by Hollywood that the wealthy get to see. When you listen to the radio, you hear the same stirring performances of the same works of music everyone else hears. And on and on.

Why shouldn't the calibre of theater the public has a *right* to access be of any lesser quality than the calibre of other forms of art that society has deemed all people to be worthy of? No, that doesn't mean the producers should be giving away house seats. Hell, it doesn't even mean that seats to Broadway theater, per se, should be subsidized. But if society is going to make access to professional-calibre every-other-form-of-art free or affordable, there's no reason theater -- with its incredible power to move, stimulate and inspire -- shouldn't be as well.

[kade.ivy]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:06am

"Society is a fickle mistress. "Subsidized by government" only means that someone else has paid for them so they could be free for you. If American industry ever ground to a halt, you wouldn't have any of these things. If the Donald Trumps of America stopped paying taxes, all of these things would shut their doors within a week.

And as Margaret Thatcher so succinctly stated: At some point you're going to run out of other people's money."

PREACH!

[Seperite]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:12am

Gotham and Kade --

You're not showing enough sympathy to those less fortunate than you.

Personally, I make enough money to attend professional theater regularly, so I spend the money, and I go. It's a priority for me. But most people don't go, not because they don't want to, but because they cannot afford to. To be unsympathetic to their plight, especially when your presence on this board indicates that you know how transformative and powerful theater can be, is unfortunate.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:14am

"When you go to the zoo, for FREE, you get to see every animal humans have deemed worth"

I'm curious, which zoo is free?

[Seperite]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:21am

The Bronx Zoo, one of the most well-regarded, largest, and most comprehensive zoos in the world, is free on Wednesdays. Other NYC zoos may be on Wednesdays as well.

I'm not arguing that the best seats to Broadway theater should be free all the time; that's clearly absurd. Money does, and should, buy you BETTER access in a capitalistic society. The problem is that there is NO professional calibre theater that is available to the public for free or affordable prices, at any time, ever, and that's inconsistent with society's treatment of other cultural treasures.

Updated On: 2/26/15 at 11:21 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:24am

Just as an aside - have you been to the Bronx zoo lately? oy, there's a place that needs some financial and artistic intervention.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:41am

Now you're talking about zoos, which aren't CULTURAL or ARTISTIC institutions but scientific? Talk about moving goal posts.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:45am

duplicate post Updated On: 2/26/15 at 11:45 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:46am

"What is unfortunate is the snooty, condescending posture some people here have taken with respect to those who lament bring shut out of theatre due to rising prices. One would think there would be some degree of empathy from fellow theatre lovers. Not here, I guess."

After Eight, - and I never thought I'd say this - I completely agree with you.

[Seperite]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:49am

Zoos may well serve scientific purposes for the zoologists and scientists who work there, but their primary functionality, at least as far as the masses of people who visit them every day, are a source of education, entertainment, and wonderment. They are undoubtedly part of our collective culture, and I don't think anyone would quarrel with labeling a place that puts animals on display for public enjoyment as a cultural institution, the same as we do a place that puts works of art on display for public enjoyment.

Regardless, my point was broader than artistic or cultural institutions. I mentioned public transportation, too. It's certainly not critical for human survival the way that food and shelter are, but society nonetheless deems it worthy of public investment, and provides access to the masses for prices that are deeply discounted below the actual costs of operation. Beaches and parks are in the same boat -- not artistic or necessarily "cultural," not absolutely vital to human survival, but nonetheless maintained by society and available to the public for free because access to them has profoundly positive effects on people, and they are therefore worth the cost.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:50am

Gotham and Kade --

You're not showing enough sympathy to those less fortunate than you.

Because you know all about the charities we support and the work that we do?

Why don't you buy a pair of theater tickets and donate them to some person less fortunate than you? And don't be such a tightwad, make sure the tickets are fifth row center.

How many Broadway shows do you see being performed for the less fortunate? They'll do a performance for Broadway Cares/EFA once in awhile or a performance for The Actor's Fund, but do you ever see them doing a performance for the unemployed? Do you ever see actors forgoing one performance worth of salary so that the less fortunate can attend theater?

The problem is that it's always on someone else. The "rich" should subsidize or the "government" should subsidize. Why don't John Lithgow and Glenn Close forgo one performance worth of salary?

Updated On: 2/26/15 at 11:50 AM

[Pootie2]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 11:51am

"The problem is that there is NO professional calibre theater that is available to the public for free or affordable prices, at any time, ever, and that's inconsistent with society's treatment of other cultural treasures."

Wait, haven't people been giving all those examples about lotto, rush, and so on? If you're going to argue those prices on tickets aren't "affordable," that's moving the goal posts again, because what that word means is different to every person. Since those lotto/rush examples are much cheaper than a regular full-price seat, your claim about "at any time, ever" is completely false.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 12:15pm

Roundabout, MTC and LCT are all non-profits, partly subsidized by the government. You can get fairly cheap tickets to these shows, especially with membership discounts.

The Roundabout Underground is always $20 per ticket. NYTW offers many $20 Sunday night tickets. The Signature offers wonderful deals on tickets as well, especially early in the run.

You can also see plenty of shows (quality not guaranteed) on Play-by-Play or other similar services. They might not all be great, but they are usually "professional" productions.

So there is the equivalent of theater to museums, parks, zoos etc. You just aren't going to be able to see the big, hit commercial ventures.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 12:29pm

I don't think the comparison to museums/libraries/public television is really accurate here. Part of the reason why it's possible for those things to be free is because more people can access it. You can have thousands of people come to a museum every day, and theatre on average can maybe bring in 500 people a day because there are only so many seats. The accessibility of theatre is just so much lower that it can't compare.

Not to mention, I really do think that if you view all theatre as expensive you just aren't looking hard enough for affordable options. I live in New York working two jobs and don't make much money at all, but I still manage to see quite a bit. I wait for discounts, I'm not picky about where I sit, and on occasion I splurge, sure. But on the whole, there are certainly ways to see cheap or even free theatre in this city- all those complaining about the Public seem to forget that they offer two shows with high class actors and production values for free every summer. That's pretty impressive, and certainly not done by any other major company in the city'.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 2/26/15 at 12:47pm

"The problem is that there is NO professional calibre theater that is available to the public for free or affordable prices, at any time, ever, and that's inconsistent with society's treatment of other cultural treasures. "

You don't think RUSH tickets for $20 is affordable. This is even better than the ABT which has $30 tickets for students (18-29).