When the winners of this year's Pulitzer Prizes were announced, it wasn't all good news that no prize was given for drama.
Even though the decision is upsetting, it was wise, since there was no drama to consider.
Let's be brave enough to ask why and, as we do so, do our best to figure out who is to blame and who is not.
If you keep an eye on Broadway so you'll know if a surprising series of events leads to a drama you might actually want to see, you know that the usual fare this past season was once again a series of over-hyped small shows.
But because of the way money works on Broadway, it's very risky for producers to put up anything that hasn't already been proven at the box office and, more importantly, with the critics, who can even stop a show that was a box office success before. All very understandable. The producers are not in the business of supporting works that haven't been proven to be good, no matter how good they think or are told they are. Not understandable.
Small and regional theatres are rarely run by people who know what will appeal to the general public. If they did, they probably wouldn't be running a small or regional theatre. It makes perfect sense.
Even if a small or regional theatre puts on a show that might appeal to a wider audience than the usual group of people whose tastes are definitely out of the ordinary, it's unlikely that a well-known critic or even a second-string critic will show up. Understandable. During the theatre season, small theatres in New York and all over the country put on shows all the time. People who might know their names as critics don't swarm to any production that doesn't have some kind of big preproduction cache. Their main job is to review small shows in big venues, not even the slightest chance of a big show in a small venue. Their secondary job, if they're ever moved to do it, is to pick out smaller productions that have some reason to be interesting to influential people. Also understandable.
When the current crop of critics sees a play or musical that seems like it's going to be popular, they probably won't like it because it doesn't fit with their own unique tastes. Not understandable. This kind of moody pickiness is what kept a fairly well-known playwright like Arthur Miller from getting a rave review in the last two or three decades of his life, and it also kept a popular confectioner like Neil Simon from getting one for a long time.
People who are different tend to like works that are different, too. Very understandable. We are all people.
But what would be really refreshing is for one or two major critics to show up whose tastes would lead them to help support intelligent theatre that deals with the major text and subtext of mainstream American life today. Once we had them, like the legendary Brooks Atkinson and the more recent Walter Kerr, we had a lot more hope that mainstream works would be able to come out. After all, critics are the first people who really pay attention to a work, so they are an important part of the effort to make American theatre smarter and more important to a wide range of people.
We must also understand the playwrights' situation. Simply put, if a hopeful new playwright with a mainstream sensibility wants to get his work seen, where can he go? And if he does, can he really expect a critic to show up, let alone one who agrees with him? A very rare combination that seems to be impossible year after year.
Even the union for actors, Actors Equity, is against the poor talented soul. If the playwright finds a theatre that will put on his or her work, he or she will get a "showcase presentation," which includes four weeks of rehearsal and a four-week run that could be extended to five weeks. Since actors have to rehearse on their own time because showcases pay so little, it's hard to get a production that does the work justice. And a four-week run is not long enough to get people talking about it.
Because there aren't many places that like playwrights whose work might appeal to mainstream America, it's hard to get a production that does the work justice, the run is short, and it's unlikely that any critics who come will like it. Can we blame the playwright who finally decides that he's in a hopeless situation? Is it any wonder that he might feel down between failed projects and finally decide to try writing, where he has a chance of getting somewhere? At least, it makes sense.
So, that's the best way we can explain why there was no drama Pulitzer.
But we could never leave you without any hope at all.
The rise of the self-funded writer-producer is the only thing that hasn't yet changed modern theatre but has changed film and TV, for better or worse. When you think about how hard it is for a mainstream playwright without his or her own money to get by, a writer-producer may be the only way out, even if the theatre establishment may see him or her as arrogant at first.
At the same time, we have to admit that it would be better not to give the Pulitzer at all than to give it to something small that pretends to be important. At least there has been some kind of standard set.
