Rob noted today that About Face's Eric Rosen (or at least someone who signed their comment "Eric Rosen"—as my colleague said in his year-end PerformInk wrapup, these Internets are hard to trust sometimes) left a comment on Rob's post about The Little Dog Laughed, which both Rob and another one of his commenters had seen in previews. Rob took the opportunity to reiterate his previously posted question about whether or not it's okay to post review-like thoughts about a show before it's opened to the press.
Rebecca riffed on Rob's post to ask another salient question, which is why do theater companies do previews in the first place?
Then another of Rob's commenters (did I mention the Internet is hard?) said this: "but also - the poster say Jan 9th - i don't see where it says PREVIEWS jan 9th - ? so, if you are going to put that, then expect that people will have opinions - they paid their money (ok, maybe less than the price will be after opening night)."
This actually touches on one of my pet peeves of the past few years. I think I've written about this before, but it was probably on my old, now-defunct blog. Rebecca, I'll say to you that I understand the need for previews—sometimes it's helpful to have a coupla-two-tree audiences stocked with regular folks (not production staff or friends of the company) to figure out what's working and what's not before you officially open. (I don't understand when nonprofit companies that are doing limited three-to-six week runs think they need a full week or two of previews, but we'll leave that aside for the moment.)
What gets my goat is when companies don't clearly label previews as previews. Let's go back to TOC's Fall Preview issue: There's a display ad for the current production of Altar Boyz at Drury Lane Water Tower Place that says, "Performances begin September 28." The press opening for that show, which I attended and reviewed, was October 7. I gave it a very favorable review, so this isn't vindictiveness. I liked the show, but (and this is happening increasingly with nonprofit theaters as well) it should be made clear that previews are previews.
It's admirable that Eric made a preshow speech indicating that the preview performances were just that, but were ticket buyers made aware of that beforehand? I don't know that they weren't for Little Dog (which, for the record, I quite enjoyed, and you'll see my review next week), but I do know that About Face's website says "January 9–Feb 17," when the press opening was January 15. Since I've been handling TOC's theater listings for five months, I've noticed several nonprofit theaters that don't even offer a lower ticket price for their previews. The average audience member, presented with a display ad that read "Now Playing," even though the show might not be "set" for another week, wouldn't have any way of knowing it before arriving at the theater.
So, Rob, you're in a bit of a quandary. Shows that sell tickets to previews are presumably hoping for good word-of-mouth. But the word-of-mouth business has changed. I've been avoiding Rob's blog for the past few days because I heard he'd written about Little Dog, and I didn't want to see what he'd said until I'd written my own review of the press opening Tuesday night. And then in the past couple of days, I've found myself avoiding other blogs I read regularly because they'd seen previews of Goodman's Shining City or Court's Titus Andronicus.
It's a new landscape, theaters. Do you want to have previews or not?
Previews are dress rehearsals with audience.
The audience is providing a service to the show by attending - you don't charge them anything.
This is why I like the "invite only" preview.
Posted by: Don Hall | January 17, 2008 at 06:59 AM
I think previews are a very good thing for companies. (and one thing that many tiny companies sorely miss.) There are always things that you don't see until there is an audience in there.
Especially with space issues, if a small company is loading in on Sunday and opening on a Thursday or Friday, the SM may need an extra run to get all the cues down. Often in my experience previews can help in the tech dept. more than anywhere. And hopefully any small kinks aren't worked out in front of critics.
I have no problem opening them up to the general public (at a discount.) Basically saying this is a work in progress, that's why tix are cheaper. "They are cheaper so cut us some slack if a sound cue goes at the wrong time. . ."
It does get problematic (I think Kris previously used the term douch-y) when companies try to have it both ways, not telling the general public it is a preview, and charging full ticket prices.
Then it's not a preview and companies have nothing to complain about.
Posted by: Tony | January 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM
If and when certain bloggers in Chicago begin to be offered comps to previews as we are here New York gear up for brouhahas similar to the Leonard Jacobs/George Hunka thing a few months ago.
I consider my art journalism as a blogger a different species of writing than the product created by a print reviewer. I am thinking that may be challenged if I write about a certain preview production to which I have been recently invited with comp as “blogger.”
I consider any “ethics” in the dilemma I need to clarify are between the artists involved in show and me. Or more precisely, the contract is between the specific production’s representatives and me. The protocols or ethics that may exist in service journalism need not apply to these new contracts in the blogosphere.
Posted by: nick | January 17, 2008 at 12:47 PM
previews are lame...esp. if the ticket isn't cheaper. whatever happened to honesty? everybody needs to get together and talk about this stuff. there should be like a theatre czar or something that sets rules for these kinds of things. everybody should do it the same way.
Posted by: jeremy | January 17, 2008 at 06:33 PM
Huh! Interesting! From the feedback I've heard on my end, I think there's quite a few people that actually PREFER to see previews. These folk tend to either see only a few shows a year, or many shows a year, but they seem to find value in the possibility that they'll see an accident, or a change, or a mistake. They also like that their reactions actually can have an impact on the show itself.
This is the same phenomenon that leads to some folks paying or donating for the opportunity to go backstage and see how everything works. That's a brillinat piece of audience involvement and excitement for the craft that I think also needs to be encouraged.
Despite that, I totally get why some folks are miffed about a lower price of ticket not being offered for Preview performances. They absolutely should be labeled (and most small theaters always do, since they're much more worried about audience complaints) Big ticket prices are way too high for some folks. I'd like to see more tiers of seat prices to encourage folks who are well off and the student with the empty pockets to enjoy the same show.
At the same time, I'd also like to see a greater exposure of the audience to both the polished post-opening show and the crazy jumble of creativity that goes on behind the scenes, because most audiences don't really get how wonderful a performance is until they see the scope of the effort that went into it.
When the giant overblown musical stops on a preview performance and the crew has to reset all the motors and line sets and props and the sound, piece by piece - the audience doesn't complain. They lean forward and look at how the whole thing is put together.
I think that's neat.
Posted by: Nick Keenan | January 18, 2008 at 12:56 AM