Tom Kitt/Yorkey Musical "The Visitor" starring David Hyde Pierce — Page 2

Anotherdayofmadness said: "$30 tix using code HEARTBEAT saw it on an FB ad and it worked for me!"

Thanks so much! Just got some great seats at a reasonable price.

---

Agree with everyone on this thread— cancelling the first week of previews this late on is such a bizarre stunt.

There’s definitely been a shift in cultural understanding since the beginning of the pandemic but this show has so obviously been a white savior story from the beginning—and people talked about it that way back in 2019-20, too, especially after Ari’el called out the production team for making him do a shoddy and inaccurate accent.

It truly feels that The Public doesn’t care about the “centering of whiteness” in this situation— if they did, they wouldn’t have hired an almost all-white creative team at the start. My theory is that after JLP got so much widespread hate they realized that they would, you know, have to create a show and production that were dramaturgically sound instead of using minority voices as a token.

Which sucks, because I love David and Ari’el but man, nothing about this show sounds good.

Oof, a lot to unpack here.

Firstly, thank you to the person who mentioned the new date for the free performance, because I would've absolutely shown up on October 14th and been disappointed. Why on earth they're having it the week of Thanksgiving is far beyond me.

Secondly, @iluvtheatertrash: when I saw Hamlet, I was told by an usher that the reason they cancelled the matinees is that the floor of the set (which was carpeted) had to be cleaned between each performance, because the staging involved making all kinds of messes on the carpet. But there wasn't enough time for the carpet to adequately dry between the end of the matinee and the beginning of the evening show.

As for the Public's ethics and such. There are definitely some warranted criticisms, and I have had a long-standing love-hate relationship with them for some similar reasons. They are so far up their own asses, and often have ticket-policies that don't feel like they're in the audience's best interest. But I think they've made some positive changes in recent years to make tickets more accessible to the public. Someone also once pointed out to me that, while their mainstage season can sometimes feel gatekept by high prices and difficult ticket policies, that shouldn't totally negate the good work they do with their other programs (MobileUnit, PublicWorks, etc.) that successfully reach underserved communities. Not to mention SITP, and the free previews.

However, I DO wonder how much Oskar is raking in amidst all of that. Would be curious to know, if anyone has a handy tip or a link. Again, there are still some warranted criticisms



As for The Visitor and these specific cancellations - as I always say on this board: more than one thing can be true. My guess is that the Public put all their anti-racism resources into examining policies, procedures, and season curation. In the meanwhile, they probably just thought "well, we already promised to do The Visitor, and we already hired this white creative team, so we'll just move forward with it and do better in the future." It probably didn't occur to them until concerns were flagged that they could actually implement significant changes within the work itself. Jury is still out on whether they can.

But I don't think it's fair to say "the Public doesn't actually care about this, or else they wouldn't have done xyz back in 2019." I think they probably do CARE about it, they just weren't doing a good job. Now someone has pointed out how they could be doing a better job, and they are taking concrete actions to improve. Doesn't mean they are absolved from any guilt or criticism, but they should be allowed the good grace to make amends.

RippedMan said: "as of a few years ago he's making $700,000 a year. So yeah, he's fine. And that's for a "NON PROFIT.""

Many theatres have salaries for their executives that put them as close as possible to the lifestyles of the donors they'll need to befriend. Rarely ever directly spoken about, but true.

JBroadway said: But I don't think it's fair to say "the Public doesn't actually care about this, or else they wouldn't have done xyz back in 2019." I think they probably do CARE about it, they just weren't doing a good job. Now someone has pointed out how they could be doing a better job, and they are taking concrete actions to improve. Doesn't mean they are absolved from any guilt or criticism, but they should be allowed the good grace to make amends.

I think that rings true here. They also have implemented several institutional changes to bring more anti-racism into the organization and de-centralize some power. So, like has happened with HR departments over the past few decades, it's possible a complaint like this is being taken more seriously because there are people on staff now whose job it is to take things like this more seriously. I've never heard of a theatre cancelling a week of previews after years of development to make such changes. Usually, they'd just do it through previews in front of paid audiences. And usually, they'd never openly discuss what they were doing. But this is different now.

iluvtheatertrash said: "The Public didn’t inform customers of that with hamlet cancellations. We were told the cast was exhausted and couldn’t do the two show days. It was closing weekend. They figured that out then? And so these audiences just don’t get to see it at all? And then they had the gall to ask us to consider donating our ticket prices?"



Fair enough. I remember having some different -- but similar -- issues with the Public's policies and audience treatment right around that same time of Hamlet. I feel like that production occurred at the peak of their hubris and money-grubbing tendencies. Like I said though, I do think they've made some improvements since then.

Those salary numbers are not surprising. It is similar to what Todd Haimes and Andre Bishop earn annually, though a lot less than what Peter Gelb earns at the Met. The heads of the Actors' Fund and Broadway Cares all earn well over $200K. Simply because someone leads a 501C3 does not mean they live like a pauper; nonprofit status simply means that no individual or company is an investor earning profit from the institution.

A commercial producer would earn significantly more from producing a hit show, and significantly less from producing a flop.

To put it another way: The Public is a financially-solvent nonprofit with millions in earnings per year (Hamilton, sponsorships, individual giving, ticket sales, etc). His salary does not go up if they have a great year, but it also doesn't go down. The salary is intended to serve him -- as the 60+ hour a week leader of the organization, the artistic head of the organization, and the chief fundraiser/figurehead -- whether the Public has a good or bad year.

I don't want to speak for RippedMan, but I didn't get the sense that they, or anyone in this thread, were actually confused about how non-profits function.

It's not that anyone expects the heads of these companies to live in poverty, but $700,000 is a hefty paycheck. It's a hefty paycheck even at a for-profit company. The argument is "well, this is what you can expect people of his position to make, and many people make a lot more than that." - and my feeling is: yeah, that's the problem. There's a huge wage-disparity plaguing this country, executives are making hugely disproportionate amounts compared to people lower down. Is Eustis the worst case of that? No of course not - far from it. But this thread is about the Public, and he's the one we're talking about right now, so it's worth mentioning that he probably doesn't need to be making that much money to avoid poverty.

I read RippedMan's "Non-profit" comment less as a misunderstanding of how non-profits work, and more just as commenting on the irony of it. Non-profit status is granted to organizations that claim to serve the people in some way, and The Public, by its very name, asserts that claim.

Can The Public serve the people while still paying for a Eustis summer home? I guess so. But then if we ever encounter money-grubbing attitudes from them, it's harder to feel sympathy.