In Theater News: ACT's "Naughtiness" and Growing Confidence

Psychologically speaking, there's a certain euphoria that comes with surviving a near death situation; eight years after their near collapse, ACT seems to have taken the axiom "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" to heart. Though their programming choices and production approach still straddle the line between safe and adventuresome, in nearly every other aspect, they are taking chances that continue to pay off for them.

The boldness that characterizes those chances are increasingly and subtly becoming visible. Take for example ACT's recent announcement that, until further notice, tickets for any show being produced under their auspices will be "Pay What You Can"--as long as the tickets are bought, in person, on the day of the performance, and after 1:00p.m.

The process still rewards customers who buy tickets ahead of time, as the only way to guarantee obtaining a seat during shows that are enjoying a popular run would be to buy tickets ahead of time. However, the move addresses a number of issues facing large theater companies during these financially strapped times. A prosaic example is the need to put butts in empty seats for shows not enjoying a hugely popular run; another is instilling the habit of going out to see theater in a population all too eager to find reasons not to go, the high cost of attending being a primary one.

ACT is essentially saying "we believe the plays we produce are of such a high quality, that you should see it; we'll even let you pick the price." We eagerly await to see the results of this experiment, and are willing to wager that even if it doesn't prove immediately successful in financial terms, ACT will have generated a large amount of good will among theater-goers new and old.

For the record, we do recommend putting this policy to use during the closing weekend performances of Pilgrims Musa and Sheri in the New World. It also would come in handy (ahem) for those who want to see what all the fuss is about ACT's next production, Sarah Ruhl's In The Next Room, or the vibrator play; the title of which has landed ACT in something of a minor uproar with traditional forms of advertising.

ACT began airing their opinions over the tempest in a teapot on Wednesday, by simply talking about it with their followers on their Facebook page: "Some of our advertisements for the upcoming comedy In the Next Room, or the vibrator play by Sarah Ruhl were rejected, because they contained the word ‘vibrator’[...]"

Brendan Kiley's Slog entry on the issue lists two of the rejectors: Google (because of the sliver of cleavage in ACT's ad image, and because the word in question triggers their emergency porn klaghorn) and the Christian-Family-Values oriented ClearChannel corporation, which owns more than a few billboards across Seattle. We can't help but feel a little exasperated by this sudden burst of prudishness, though we're not surprised at ClearChannel's balking (Google, on the other hand, we expected more from).

Granted, there was a similar hullaballoo a decade ago surrounding the title to The Vagina Monologues, but it isn't like 'dildo' is the offensive word in question here. ACT isn't trying to promote the Tony nominated The Motherfucker with The Hat; besides, it's just a word. By itself, it holds no sexual connotations, it could be describing a kid on a massive sugar rush, for all we know.

In their informal Facebook poll, ACT asked "what do you think? Is the word offensive? Does it need to be kept out of the public sphere?" It should be clear where we stand on this matter, but in case it isn't:

Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator. Vibrator.

Vibrator.

That was oddly satisfying, much like it must have been for the first woman who--never mind.