Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » NEA Grantees Should “Spread the Wealth”
Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » NEA Grantees Should “Spread the Wealth”
Although Broadway - and by extension National Tours of Broadway shows - tend to be the showcase for the American theatre industry, the vast majority of the works that end up in that showcase are born and nurtured in the vast network of non-profit theatres stretched across the country.
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco as well as smaller cities like Minneapolis, Houston San Diego and beautiful Costa Mesa (!) have major producing organizations that act as feeders for Broadway and the road. New playwright programs designed to nurture writers and their works are a staple of most non-profit and institutional theatres. And these theatres are funded, in part, by federal grants from the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA).
Rather than waste time (and Mr. Breitbart’s precious bandwidth) arguing the legitimacy of the federal government’s role in using taxpayer dollars to fund the arts (let’s face it, Republicans didn’t even TRY to get rid of the NEA when they controlled congress, it’s here to stay, let’s be realistic), I would instead like to propose a more fiscally conservative set of ground rules for recipients of NEA grants. In short: If the NEA funds a play or musical that becomes a huge hit, we, the taxpayers should get our cut!
It always astounded me that “A Chorus Line” ran for over 6,000 performances, was the longest running show of its time, remains the longest running show originally written and produced in America, made fistfuls of money, and yet the producer - the non-profit Public Theatre - continued to be funded by tax dollars, and continued to beg for money from its patrons. Consider that “A Chorus Line” had a 19 person cast - none demanding star salaries, a basic unit set, and each character had one costume change. What I’m saying is “A Chorus Line” was a cash cow! And since “A Chorus Line” was developed with some tax payer funds through city, state and federal grants, we, the tax payers were investors. Where is our cut?
If you think we got our money back via corporate income taxes from the profits of the show, think again. Non-profit theatre means these companies are 501(c)3 organizations… meaning: THEY DON’T PAY TAXES! Joe Papp, the Artistic Director of the Public Theatre had a nice, tidy 6-figure income thanks mostly to the huge success of “A Chorus Line,” but we got nothing back for our investment, except an annual request for more money. This just doesn’t seem right.
Sometimes a non-profit theatre will mount a world premiere of a new play and it gets enough recognition that commercial producers mount a Broadway production of it. In these cases, the non-profit is not the producer of the show, so they are not in line for any additional revenue from the commercial success, right? Wrong! To ensure that they continue receiving royalties on future productions of a play they premiere, the non-profit theatres often contractually obligate the playwright to give up part of their royalties of future productions in exchange for the non-profit mounting the play in the first place. So, the non-profits make sure they get THEIR cut, but again, the taxpayers who actually funded the play via government grants get nothing.
What also irks me about the whole set up is that the larger non-profits these days are using their funding to produce plays that don’t require the non-profit protection. For example, the latest revival of “South Pacific” at Lincoln Center theatre has been a bonafide hit. And, again, all of those profits are coming in tax free to LCT. But come on, are we supposed to believe that the NEA needs to fund a theatre and the government needs to grant tax-exempt status to a producing entity so they can mount a production of “South Pacific” as though otherwise this great important work would not have been done? How many revivals of “South Pacific” have there been over the years? Why do we need to subsidize another one?
Here is my proposal: If a play or musical is developed at a non-profit institution which receives NEA grants, then a percentage of that institution’s revenue from any commercial production of that play should be paid back to the taxpayers as a return on their investment. And, while we’re at it, why is it that I’ve never seen a cut of any of the merchandise sales from the Muppets? Didn’t the taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting System pay to develop and promote those characters which in turn got turned into every toy, article of clothing and trinket imaginable? Shouldn’t we get a cut of those sales as well? I want my cut of the Tickle-me-Elmo and I want it NOW!
In the commercial theatre there is a word for a person who puts money into a show for the sheer joy and satisfaction they feel and never expects any return on their investment even if the show is a success: Sucker.
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Although Broadway - and by extension National Tours of Broadway shows - tend to be the showcase for the American theatre industry, the vast majority of the works that end up in that showcase are born and nurtured in the vast network of non-profit theatres stretched across the country.
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco as well as smaller cities like Minneapolis, Houston San Diego and beautiful Costa Mesa (!) have major producing organizations that act as feeders for Broadway and the road. New playwright programs designed to nurture writers and their works are a staple of most non-profit and institutional theatres. And these theatres are funded, in part, by federal grants from the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA).
Rather than waste time (and Mr. Breitbart’s precious bandwidth) arguing the legitimacy of the federal government’s role in using taxpayer dollars to fund the arts (let’s face it, Republicans didn’t even TRY to get rid of the NEA when they controlled congress, it’s here to stay, let’s be realistic), I would instead like to propose a more fiscally conservative set of ground rules for recipients of NEA grants. In short: If the NEA funds a play or musical that becomes a huge hit, we, the taxpayers should get our cut!
It always astounded me that “A Chorus Line” ran for over 6,000 performances, was the longest running show of its time, remains the longest running show originally written and produced in America, made fistfuls of money, and yet the producer - the non-profit Public Theatre - continued to be funded by tax dollars, and continued to beg for money from its patrons. Consider that “A Chorus Line” had a 19 person cast - none demanding star salaries, a basic unit set, and each character had one costume change. What I’m saying is “A Chorus Line” was a cash cow! And since “A Chorus Line” was developed with some tax payer funds through city, state and federal grants, we, the tax payers were investors. Where is our cut?
If you think we got our money back via corporate income taxes from the profits of the show, think again. Non-profit theatre means these companies are 501(c)3 organizations… meaning: THEY DON’T PAY TAXES! Joe Papp, the Artistic Director of the Public Theatre had a nice, tidy 6-figure income thanks mostly to the huge success of “A Chorus Line,” but we got nothing back for our investment, except an annual request for more money. This just doesn’t seem right.
Sometimes a non-profit theatre will mount a world premiere of a new play and it gets enough recognition that commercial producers mount a Broadway production of it. In these cases, the non-profit is not the producer of the show, so they are not in line for any additional revenue from the commercial success, right? Wrong! To ensure that they continue receiving royalties on future productions of a play they premiere, the non-profit theatres often contractually obligate the playwright to give up part of their royalties of future productions in exchange for the non-profit mounting the play in the first place. So, the non-profits make sure they get THEIR cut, but again, the taxpayers who actually funded the play via government grants get nothing.
What also irks me about the whole set up is that the larger non-profits these days are using their funding to produce plays that don’t require the non-profit protection. For example, the latest revival of “South Pacific” at Lincoln Center theatre has been a bonafide hit. And, again, all of those profits are coming in tax free to LCT. But come on, are we supposed to believe that the NEA needs to fund a theatre and the government needs to grant tax-exempt status to a producing entity so they can mount a production of “South Pacific” as though otherwise this great important work would not have been done? How many revivals of “South Pacific” have there been over the years? Why do we need to subsidize another one?
Here is my proposal: If a play or musical is developed at a non-profit institution which receives NEA grants, then a percentage of that institution’s revenue from any commercial production of that play should be paid back to the taxpayers as a return on their investment. And, while we’re at it, why is it that I’ve never seen a cut of any of the merchandise sales from the Muppets? Didn’t the taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting System pay to develop and promote those characters which in turn got turned into every toy, article of clothing and trinket imaginable? Shouldn’t we get a cut of those sales as well? I want my cut of the Tickle-me-Elmo and I want it NOW!
In the commercial theatre there is a word for a person who puts money into a show for the sheer joy and satisfaction they feel and never expects any return on their investment even if the show is a success: Sucker.
Stage Right is on Facebook.
0 Responses to "Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » NEA Grantees Should “Spread the Wealth”"
Post a Comment