Obviously we disagree about some things, most of which cannot be proven in the short run. We have different philosophies and that's fine of course. I do wonder a few things about what we know and what we don't. Do we know specifically who has been cut? You say "already-stretched staff" but if they are significantly reducing programming, is that true? And do you know that any important-to-retain positions are being cut?
Ironically, you talk of very experienced people jumping ship but you seem to leave the head guy out of the equation. I am not a big fan of Oskar, but he is the right fit for the Public; he gets it. And you also say they are "failing" which feels like a pot shot. They are doing something they don't want to do to avoid failure. And as much as I love George Wolfe, the place Oskar walked into when he took over was a sad mess. The Public has been transformed in many ways, and all for the better. You talk of another model by which I assume you mean the old one. The world of NY theatre is not the same as it was when I was a young lad.
Finally, the idea Oskar can't make more money with a LOT less time, energy and aggravation is just not correct. The Public and Oskar does not equate with experiences "across the country." In his entire tenure at the Public he has not made as much as a bunch of directors of successful shows with long Broadway runs have made from a single show.
As I said, you are entitled to your approach and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. |
