Plato Would Hate This: Two Theatres with Successful Controversial Work
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PLATO WOULD HATE THIS: TWO THEATRES WITH SUCCESSFUL CONTROVERSIAL WORK A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By James Charles Marchant, B.A., J.D. Graduate Program in Art Education ***** The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Examination Committee: Christine Ballengee-Morris, Ph.D., Advisor, Chair Jennifer Eisenhauer, Ph.D., Co-Chair Lesley Ferris, Ph.D. Kevin Tavin, Ph.D. Alan Woods, Ph.D. Copyright by James Charles Marchant 2010 Abstract My dissertation, a multiple case study with auto-ethnographic aspects, investigates, examines and analyzes how two modern theatre companies are able to successfully produce controversial work in an atmosphere where theatres are pressured into discontinuing that type of work. I studied the Studio Theatre in Washington, DC and the Oval House Theatre in London, England, so readers could have a look at two theatre companies with different, but still controversial work and to be able to see the differences between a producing company and a presenting company. I specifically look at the role of artistic vision, finance, development and fundraising, and marketing and public relations to discover how these companies succeed where others have so often failed. My study begins with research showing that although there is an abundance of material written about controversial theatre and censorship, these studies look at why theatre companies are discontinuing the production of controversial work. My study also raises interesting questions concerning research methods where controversial subjects are covered, but confidentiality is not possible in any real terms. Rather than provide a purely standard multiple case study, I examine my own experiences within the theatre in general and at both the Studio Theatre and Oval House Theatre. These autoethnographic ii connections provide not only insight into my motivations, but a more personal look at the work of both theatre companies. I then discuss the anti-theatrical prejudice that has been with us since Greek times with Plato and follow that thinking to modern times. Here, I cover commercial, nonprofit, government sponsored and public funded theatre and the role of organizational management. I then provide current examples of controversial work at the end of the twentieth century and beginning the twenty- first century where theatrical productions have either been censored or major efforts were made to censor the work. The main focus of the study is the research concerning Studio Theatre and Oval House Theatre. Both companies are located in major, world capitals. Both companies are involved with controversial work in different ways. I found the success of both theatre companies has depended on a strong artistic vision where finances, development and fundraising and marketing and public relations are used to serve the needs of the artistic vision instead of the artistic vision being defined by the ideas put forth in these areas. Even though both companies are successful, I provide for recommendations on how they can make their organizations stronger so they can continue their work. iii Dedication To my Mother, Janet Kush, and my Father, William Marchant, for all of their love and support and for giving me the strength to follow my dreams no matter where they take me. iv Acknowledgements In my research into the controversial work of theatre companies, there are many people who need to be thanked who have helped and supported me in my research. First, I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Christine Ballengee-Morris, Dr. Lesley Ferris, Dr. Alan Woods, Dr. Kevin Tavin and Dr. Jennifer Eisenhauer for guiding me and keeping me on a path where I could focus my ideas into a coherent whole, rather than getting side-tracked by other interesting ideas. Dr. Christine Ballengee-Morris has been with me since the beginning she has been an inspiration to me in my research, my work and my personal life. Dr. Lesley Ferris introduced me to a more in depth study of theatre than I had ever attempted in the past and awakened a love for British theatre that is obvious throughout my work. She also provided an ear when things seemed to be going wrong and kept me on track and moving forward. Dr. Alan Woods and Dr. Kevin Tavin helped keep me moving forward when it sometimes felt like it would never happen. I am very thankful to Dr. Jennifer Eisenhauer who amazingly stepped in at the last minute to help me finish the work I had begun. All of the faculty I worked with in the Art Education Department, the Theatre Department and the John Glenn School of Public Affairs, provided me with the skills necessary to produce this research at all and listened to all of my questions. v I would also like to acknowledge the people at both the Studio Theatre and Oval House Theatre who made my research possible. The staff of both theatres was amazingly helpful, but I could never have completed my research without the help of Ben Evans, Debbie Vannozzi, Morey Epstein, Liane Jacobs and Sarah Wallace. vi Vita June 1985.......................................Nute High School May 1990.......................................B.A. Justice, The American University May 2000.......................................J.D., Temple University Beasley School of Law Fields of Study Major Field: Art Education Minor Fields: Art Policy & Administration and Theatre Performance vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................... ii Dedication .......................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ v Vita ..................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ...................................................................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ........................................................................................................................... 6 PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTION ......................................................................................................................... 8 SUB-QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 8 RATIONALE FOR STUDY .................................................................................................................................... 8 LIMITATIONS FOR STUDY .................................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter 2: Research Methods ......................................................................... 12 AUTOETHNOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Evaluating Autoethnography ........................................................................................................... 14 Linking Science and Emotion .......................................................................................................... 15 STUDY DESIGN.............................................................................................................................................. 17 DATA GATHERING ......................................................................................................................................... 19 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 21 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 23 UNIQUE RESEARCH ISSUES: SENSITIVE TOPICS RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 24 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 24 High Risk/Sensitive Topics .............................................................................................................. 27 Interviews to Obtain Data ................................................................................................................. 30 Consent .............................................................................................................................................. 33 Confidentiality .................................................................................................................................... 34 APPLICATION TO CURRENT RESEARCH ............................................................................................................... 40 Chapter 3: Literature Review ........................................................................... 43 THE ANTI-THEATRICAL PREJUDICE ...................................................................................................................