Are female artistic directors really holding back female playwrights?

The important thing about the recent study by a Princeton University economics student concerning the ongoing discrimination against women playwrights in the American theater is that it will throw more light on an exasperatingly stubborn problem.

But the research by Emily Glassberg Sands raises questions I think it should be examined more fully before definitive conclusions are drawn. In particular, the controversial discovery that women artistic directors and literary managers gave lower marks than their male colleagues to plays when the author was identified as female should be interpreted with caution. 

It needs to be emphasized that the research conditions are artificial in the extreme. I’ve worked in the literary offices of the New York Public Theater, Yale Repertory Theatre and the McCarter Theatre, and I can vouch that artistic directors at leading institutions don’t normally have the time to read plays by unknown authors, nevermind give their full attention to undergraduate projects, no matter how brilliant or well-intentioned the student might be. 

The infamous “slush pile” of regional theaters belongs to overworked dramaturges and literary managers along with their equally harried assistants and interns. Artistic directors are sent scripts directly by colleagues, trusted agents and artists themselves. They also read recommended plays from their staff. Work in a vacuum stays in a vacuum.

The truth of the matter is that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for an unsolicited work to make it onto the desk of an artistic director without an intermediary. This isn’t how plays normally get produced. 

If there are any unidentified Becketts, male or female, out there, they had better hope that some literary underling somewhere will lend them 60 minutes of their caffeinated attention and pass the script up the chain of command. Slim chance, I know, but marginally better than the odds of Godot one day showing up.

More problematic about the study: The idea of ranking plays doesn’t answer an important question — were any of the artistic directors eager to put institutional resources into the development and presentation of these works? We are assured that each of the plays “was written by an accomplished female playwright,” such as Lynn Nottage, whose won the Pulitzer Prize for drama this year for "Ruined." But did these plays excite their readers enough for them to want to take a financial and artistic gamble on staging them? 

Until we know the answer to that hypothetical question, we can’t be sure if the research is detecting genuine gender bias or simply different patterns of candor and courtesy in the rejection of work.
  
I don’t know any theater professional who believes it's the prejudice of powerful women in institutional theaters that is holding women playwrights back. Suspicion of cattiness is always attention grabbing, but it’s a red herring that distracts us from an issue that may have more to do with a narrowness of sensibility (what constitutes a stage-worthy play) than the sex organs of the writer. 

Toni Schlesinger, an author, playwright and performer friend of mine, raised an issue via e-mail that probably can’t be teased out by social scientists but should be taken up by cultural commentators. “I'm not surprised by the numbers,” she wrote. “Great plays are heavy duty warfare. Thus Yasmina Reza.”

No one is disputing the longstanding pattern of discrimination. (How many women playwrights can you identify before, say, Lillian Hellman?)  Or the self-defeating idiocy of the bias. Sands’ research usefully tells us that, though fewer than one in eight Broadway shows are written by women, their work sells more tickets and turns a bigger profit.

Let's hope this study encourages us to point our fingers in the right direction.  

-- Charles McNulty

Photo At top, Lynn Nottage. Credit: Associated Press.  At bottom, Paula Vogel. Credit: Con Keyes/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Tricia McDermott]

There may not be clear cut ways to determine if the bias is truly gender based but there is one way to change the perception of women writers which is to do what my company does. The Airmid Theatre Company (www.airmidtheathre.org) recovers, collects, and produces the works of women who wrote plays PRIOR to Lillian Hellman, i.e. prior to the 20th Century. By producing our history and showing that women have made a vibrant, long-standing impact on the theater I believe we can help change the future for other women in our field, and in society in general.

[Sonora Chase]

Great points are raised here. Perhaps the bottom line is that there needs be be a raised effort on the system to seek out female P.O.V. in theater for equal representation and sustainability. Broadway and regional theater are suffering in our economy and women hold the power to bring it back based on the higher profit margins of their plays.

Personally, I look at the author when deciding which play to experience. Given a choice, I often go for the female playwright because I can identify. And frankly, by the end of any given day, I've heard enough from men. After the way they run the country, the state, Wall Street, The Great White Way, Retail, Fashion, Media, Motor Vehicle Companies, War... I need a break. It's so refreshing to hear what women think for once.

Even if it's only once a week for two hours in a theater in a make believe world. Bring it on.

[Ryan]

Well said Mr McNulty. A much needed courterpoint to the Princeton study. Hopefully this discussion will continue.

[Jocelyn Prince]

"It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for an unsolicited work to make it onto the desk of an artistic director without an intermediary"- truer words were never spoken

[Thomas Garvey]

After reading this post, I think it's clear that Mr. McNulty has not actually read Ms. Sands's study.

If he had read the study, he would know that Ms. Sands realized that it would be hard for her scripts to make their way to artistic directors. Thus, through an elaborate procedure, she created an incentive for them to pay some attention - the scripts were submitted as part of a (fabricated) study of the play selection process in professional theatres, and if the artistic director read the script, it was promised his or her theatre would be entered into a lottery (again, imaginary) for a $1,000 prize. It is possible that still some artistic directors did not actually read the scripts, but this does not account for the odd difference in the responses to the different genders.

Mr. McNulty also wonders, "Were any of the artistic directors eager to put institutional resources into the development and presentation of these works?" Again, if he had read the study, he would have known that Ms. Sands did ask questions specifically about this issue.

I've been thinking about the study myself quite a bit, and have come to the conclusion that her conclusions about female artistic directors and literary managers are, in fact, sound. It's actually her work about prejudice on Broadway that is vague in its methodology. Hopefully Mr. McNulty will someday read the study and see what I mean.