Official Kickstarter to get Spring Awakening to perform on the Tonys — Page 20

If Marlee Matlin mentions the Kickstarter during her presentation of th cast's performance, I might actually scream.

gypsy101 said: "Are you implying that the cast of Spring Awakening is a bunch of idiots? If we could figure it out on this board I hope to God they aren't that dumb."

All I said was that I don't think the cast were privy to the details of whatever deal that Davenport and Deaf West made. Who knows, maybe they were told that the investors would only give them X amount of money if the Kickstarter raised Y amount. Maybe they were completely misled. The point is, you and I don't know what kind of discussions were being had behind the scenes, and I'm hesitant to criticize the cast without knowing what really happened.

At the end of the day, they're performers, not producers/financiers/theater management. Most of them have never been on Broadway before, half of them are deaf or have another disability (and probably face limited roles as a result), and they're excited to perform on national TV. I won't begrudge them of that, despite my misgivings about this Kickstarter debacle.

I didn't see this production (it ran like 2 months, right?) and I didn't see the original (though I saw it on tour) but I love the original cast recording and have a soft spot for that original cast. These shenanigans have soured me to the musical as a whole. I kind of want to throw the CD in the trash. And I kind of don't want to watch the cast perform at the Tonys now."

That's your prerogative, but I find that really sad. Spring Awakening existed before Davenport came along, and will continue to exist longer after the dust has settled from this issue. I can't tell you how to handle your relationship with a work of art, but I don't see how your distaste for Davenport should extend to the cast/creatives who probably had nothing to do with how the Kickstarter was handled.

I am also incredibly put off by how this entire thing was handled. I didn't give a dollar to the Kickstarter, and I'll probably be hesitant to support another production that Davenport mounts. But I can separate the art from the controversy, and my feelings on this don't change my love for SA. Seeing this production was a transformative experience, and I'm excited to see the cast share their incredible talent on a national stage. I just wish the producer's greed didn't cast a shadow on the entire production.

Great, so we have Ken Davenport to thank for maybe not getting a cast recording. That's awesome. It's hardly the same thing, and we actually GET something out of a Kickstarter for that.

Liza's Headband said: "You're really quite daft, aren't you? Do you not understand that by allowing the campaign to unfold in this manner, Deaf West is essentially endorsing the tactics? Hoped you would reply to my earlier response. Guess I was hoping for too much."

I didn't reply to your earlier comment because I think the non-profit topic is incredibly complicated, and we clearly feel differently about it.

For one, since I'm from LA, I have to say I don't think you and others grasp quite how minuscule Deaf West is. They had a big break with Spring Awakening now and Big River quite a while ago, but they are still a tiny, tiny theater company in LA, a city that is already not exactly theater central and not so supportive of its theater community. They were all but bankrupted by the recession, and I read in a Deadline interview with DJ Kurs today that they are about to move out of their theater this month, at which point they will effectively be homeless for the foreseeable future. Shocker, deaf theater doesn't rake in big bucks, but it's still important. Deaf West have had a good niche following in recent years, but that's about the extent of it to my knowledge. Then SA skyrocketed them back to Broadway and the mainstream so suddenly, that I think they were nowhere near prepared infrastructure-wise (as some of you have pointed out about their website).

Deaf West brought Big River to Roundabout in 2003, and as a fellow nonprofit that was probably a very natural fit. And yet, there was no Tony performance in that scenario, even though they were nominated and worthy. As far as I'm aware, this Spring Awakening revival is Deaf West's very first time with a purely commercial producer on Broadway (or anywhere for that matter), and clearly this combo is strained.

I think this all boils down to the question of non-profit vs for-profit theater, and the sometimes extremely blurry line between them. Recently I saw the Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder tour at the non-profit CTG in LA, and several donors were named as sponsors for the show in the program (which will likely also be the case when Fun Home stops there next year). Is it fair to have donors underwrite a tour stop of a successful show that won the Best Musical Tony? Your logic seems to say no. And yet, it's happening everywhere. Personally I think it's okay (if there is an educational/community component, etc).

Same goes for this Kickstarter- a Tony performance is huge exposure for Deaf West, and their whole mission is to combine hearing and Deaf audiences. This will achieve that on an enormous scale- one of if not the biggest theatrical platforms they could ever hope for. Is it fair to fund that with donations? I personally think yes (theater donations get applied to Marketing budgets all the time after all). Since Deaf West now had a commercial run, they have a commercial producer, with his own whims and tactics. There is no rulebook for how non-profits should deal with commercial producers. I think Deaf West are in a vulnerable position where they have no choice but to play along with his tactics, because he brought them to Broadway and he is effectively their mothership.Yes, in an ideal world they would have a robust Board and tons of money and staffing to sort through the legal and ethical ramifications of everything in advance. But once again don't forget they are a very, very tiny company. Honestly my impression is that "they" is probably mostly DJ Kurs, maybe a couple more. I know they were just represented on Broadway and have a ton of people obsessively talking about them across the country on this very Board, so this might be understandably hard to grasp.

I will say, I think Deaf West is a very special case with almost no comparison in Broadway history, except for Big River. They are a non-profit through-and-through, a company with an important if far from mainstream cause to promote. This is Deaf-accessible theater- which at face value alone even sadly deters some people from coming. While other shows may have started at non-profit theaters, this show is a non-profit cause in and of itself.

She Loves Me is at Roundabout and I guess is technically non-profit, but when you compare that to the technically commercial Deaf West Spring Awakening, which one is really promoting a non-profit cause here? So, I don't think this is black and white- it's very, deeply complicated. And I think you're missing the big picture if your first instinct is to attack and dissect Deaf West.

HogansHero said: "@Green, that transparency is missing in your scenario, and DW is complicit in that lack of transparency because they obviously made the deal, didn't disclose it and made affirmative representations to the contrary. "

I do agree with you on this. I wish someone would just say something already, anything to clear this up, but the radio silence coming loud and clear from Ken is what makes me think Deaf West's slightly less intense silence is a result of his approach. The truth would probably make Ken look bad no matter how you put it. I have a lot of reasons to think Ken is the ringleader here- as someone mentioned earlier, the 'getspringonthetonys.com' domain was registered by Ken's company; the non-cast related Kickstarter rewards are quintessential Ken bulls**it and seemed very un-Deaf West from the first moment I read through them ('digital copy of cast created Spring Awakening Yearbook' and 'digital copy of an *exclusive* Spring Awakening coloring book'? You really can't even send physical copies??), etc. It's true Deaf West is going along with it, but for reasons mentioned above I personally don't feel comfortable blaming them as I think they are in a very tough and unprecedented position.

Updated On: 6/9/16 at 05:46 AM

"I really hate Ken Davenport for casting such a shadow on this show with his misguided tactics. This has probably even erased any tiny chance Spring Awakening may have had of taking home any awards."

I'm a voter, and that's the least of it. Davenport has been bombarding our inboxes with events and appeals that may BARELY meet the criteria for contact with voters, I don't know. The other day it was a letter from Ali Stroker asking us to vote for the show. Every voter I've talked to about it feels that his efforts are in bad taste...and I'm not that thrilled that he has my email address!

If it helps, I don't think it would have won the Tony in any case - at least not this season. In another season, it would be a slam dunk. But all signs pointed to "She Loves Me" (which I really enjoyed, although SA was superior in my opinion) until "Color Purple" brought in Heather Headley. Erivo is a master and the show is now incredible on just about every level.

With really smart producing and marketing, I think the race would have been closer, but Davenport is about as subtle as a blitzkrieg. Tony voters expect a certain level of "let the work speak for itself"--which in the case the work did very well--and this feels more like your neighbor promoting his new network marketing business.

Kad said: "Regardless of who is pulling the strings of this campaign, Deaf West is formally the public face of it. Their name is what's driving it, their reputation is what was put forth as the reason to donate. Whether it's fair or not, they've opened themselves up to take the hits for a disingenuous fundraiser- something that could have been totally avoided even if the campaign was spun as "help us recoup our costs!" rather than "if we don't raise the money, this won't happen!" But the latter inspires more sympathy, doesn't it?

Deaf West was not powerless in this scenario, and they have been around too long to be naïve about these things.



"



Thank you for so eloquently and succinctly stating what I was coming over here to do. GreenSharpie is having a difficult time separating the fundraising initiative from the show itself, and it shows in his/her flawed analysis of best practices and principles for non-profit governance; an area I have extensive experience in.

^it was announced yesterday and it's definitely.

I am thrilled that SA will perform, and furious (like others) about what KD has done surrounding this.



Since Davenports is producing the tour, this basically helped him finance the biggest promotion for that tour he can have-national exposure. Its a shame that he took advantage of those who really believed in the merits of this show being seen on a national stage to further his own interests. Not surprising, but a shame.

HogansHero said: "@GreenSharpie I agree that there is no reason to be focusing on DW (or the actors) here. I think what they did is borne of ignorance and not malevolence. I suspect they are much less ignorant now, but clearly it's too late to extricate themselves from the miasma. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive."

You are seriously wrong however when you say "There is no rulebook for how non-profits should deal with commercial producers." That's just wrong-there are books on the subject, loads of regulations and rulings. And it is done entirely properly day in and day out. The line is not blurry at all. And your focus on CTG (or its analogues) is misguided-what they do is manifestly proper.



"



Actually, I would argue it's more than just ignorance on the part of the Deaf West Board of Directors. They have a fiduciary responsibility and are typically held liable in large cases of neglect, malfeasance, etc. They should absolutely know better and the fact there hasn't been any kind of clear statement on the matter issued by their Board is both alarming and concerning.

They are a public charity. They have a responsibility to be transparent. They must be held accountable. I hope their donors begin speaking out and question both the Board and its management.

If you do any basic research on Deaf West, like review their publicly available 990's, you will see there is a small Board and at least two salaried full-time staff members, along with a moderate amount of private support, which translates to "donors." So yes, they exist and I knew that when making the reference.



I also find the suggestion that they weren't aware of this campaign beforehand completely preposterous. Someone at the organization knew. It would had to have been authorized beforehand, especially since the funds are being directed to Deaf West; that is after all, their KickStarter account being used for this campaign.