Skip to main content

Theater and the Outbreak

After last week's interview, a representative from a theater that recently experienced the results of opening too soon reached out to speak with me.

I want to thank this person for coming forward in the hopes that it'll change some minds about what's safe and what isn't when it comes to the performing arts.

Here's the interview:

ME:  So this wasn't a full production or--

THEM:  No. It was us trying to do a little something for friends and donors.

ME:  Who is 'us?'

THEM:  The board of _____.

ME:  And how long have you been on the board?

THEM:  Three years.

ME:  What was this going to be?

THEM:  There's a, uh, beautiful park here in town, and we wanted to do an outdoor performance of a Shakespeare as a benefit, because, as you know, theaters are having a hard time right now paying the bills. We checked with the local government and the health department for the state to make sure we were doing everything the way we needed to in order to keep everyone safe. The President of our board is a, uh, is actually a doctor, and he felt confident that we were doing what we needed to.

ME:  And it was going to be a one-off type thing?

THEM:  Yes. On a Sunday afternoon. Out in the park. Social distancing and masks. The whole nine yards.

ME:  Okay.

THEM:  We were reading scenes. That was it.

ME:  All the performers had masks?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  And how did it feel on the day?

THEM:  It felt like everything went very well. No issues that we could see.

ME:  Okay.

THEM:  A week later, we were contacted by someone who attended the event letting us know that they had tested positive for COVID.

ME:  Was this a performer or audience member?

THEM:  An audience member.

ME:  Okay. Did that concern you?

THEM:  Uh, honestly, not at first. We are in a state that is--we're not in a state that has low, low rates. Me, I personally, uh, felt that it was--it might be possible this person had contracted it separate from attending our event.

ME:  That seems reasonable.

THEM:  They had--They told us that they had gone to the supermarket, to--I believe they said they had gone to another outdoor event like ours.

ME:  Did you have a plan regarding what to do if someone tested positive after attending the event?

THEM:  Yes. We had done contact tracing at the event, and the plan was to contact everyone upon hearing about the--if someone tested positive.

ME:  Did you do that?

THEM:  That's where we had an issue, and that's where reading your last interview, I went--I want to talk to him. Because--the other members of the board felt that it wasn't our responsibility to contact people.

ME:  Isn't that the whole reason you do contact tracing?

THEM:  Yes. That's what I brought up. Other people on the board felt that the event went well, and they were sure that this person--that nobody could have contracted the virus at our event. That it must have been from somewhere else that they went. Uh, I said...That they had a point. That could be true. But the rule--Or how I thought of it was--It's not about--The place most likely to have given it to them has to report back to everyone, but that everybody has to do it no matter what.

ME:  That would be the most logical way to do it.

THEM:  The board felt that after having such a successful event that if we then came out and said that there had been a case of COVID, that we would be prevented from doing anything similar in the future.

ME:  Because people wouldn't come?

THEM:  People wouldn't come or the--The state or the--whoever might not let us have another event? That was the question.

ME:  Did you contact the state?

THEM:  We did.

ME:  Did they tell you to contact people?

THEM:  They left it up to us.

ME:  They let it up to you?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  You know, I've been wondering how come I haven't heard about any outbreaks tied to businesses or--

THEM:  Because they're not reporting them. Like that person you spoke to last week was saying. I think they're not reporting them or they're not doing the contact tracing properly so they can't report them.

ME:  So you were arguing about whether or not to contact people?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  And what happened while that argument was going on?

THEM:  We had more cases come out.

ME:  Of people who were there?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  Performers or audience members?

THEM:  A mix of both.

ME:  How many was it?

THEM:  Uh, well, of the--We had about twenty people there, and of the twenty, it was sixteen.

ME:  Sixteen of the twenty?

THEM:  Yes.

ME:  You were there. Did you get tested?

THEM:  I did. I did not test positive for it.

ME:  Okay.

THEM:  But my husband did.

ME:  Was your husband at the event?

THEM:  No. But he started showing symptoms after the event, and he got tested, and he had it.

ME:  How is he doing?

THEM:  He's doing okay, thank god.

ME:  That's good.

THEM:  But I have to tell you--I'm sorry.

ME:  It's all right. You want to take a second?

THEM:  No, it's okay. Uh. I have to tell you that, reading that last interview, I just--I wanted to say to people, myself, that there is so much we do not know about this virus. About how it spreads. You had our board with a doctor on it--a very well-respected doctor--saying that we were doing everything right, and you had sixteen people--that we know of--get this thing? You cannot be taking chances with it. That's what I wanted to say.

ME:  Do you know if it's possible that someone at the event may have forgotten to social distance or maybe took their mask off at some point?

THEM:  They might have. I can't say. Who can say?  Even when you do a small event like ours, you can't really say you're watching everybody all the time.

ME:  Right.

THEM:  And we don't know that doing everything right--The person you spoke to is exactly right. We don't know that it keeps everybody safe. We know it's safer. We don't know if it's safe.

ME:  Has this had a negative affect on your theater?

THEM:  I think so. It's hard to tell, because everyone was there of their own choice, but we had people get sick. We had people hospitalized. I'm sorry, but I'm not worried about our reputation as much as I'm worried about somebody dying because of what we did.

ME:  I understand.

THEM:  People were saying that we shouldn't have done anything in the first place, but we've got restaurants open. We've got lots of thins open and I'm thinking maybe that shouldn't be the case. If this thing is that contagious, why is anything open? It's nuts, I think.

ME:  I agree with you.

THEM:  If you think about getting someone sick for what? We made a little bit of money. That was it. A little bit of money and we got to see some people in person again. That's not worth somebody getting sick. I'm sorry, but it's not.

ME:  And that's a change of position from you?

THEM:  What?

ME:  Because you--

THEM:  I was wrong before, yes. I will say that. I was wrong. I think everybody knows they're wrong now, but we could have caused--We did cause harm. People getting sick is causing harm.

ME:  I think some people feel like it's the government's job to come out and tell you that you can't do something.

THEM:  But they're not going to do that, are they? And aren't we adults? We can't make good decisions for ourselves without people up high telling us what to do?  We shouldn't need it. Not now. We know what the government's done on this, and we shouldn't be going by that.

ME:  Well, thank you for speaking with me.

THEM:  I hope it makes people think carefully--not just in theater, but everybody--what they're doing when it comes to seeing people, because I'm telling you, this is all worse than you think. It's more contagious than you think. It's still--We're still losing people everyday. You'red bored? Too damn bad. One woman who came to our event almost died. Sorry you're bored. You'll live. That's the point. You'll live. Not everybody will.

Them is a realtor and mother.

Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This article was forwarded to me in the hopes I might pass it on to the theatre-related social media groups I admin, but after reading it, it's clear that I can't.

    This blog entry is useless, because there's no way to verify that the events described herein actually happened.

    Rather than wasting time being artificially coy and doing the whole "the names are being withheld to protect blah blah blah", stand by the courage of your convictions: if you really want to help people, then allow the names of the persons or organizations involved to become a matter of public record. If that were done, I'd be more inclined to share the blog entry as a cautionary tale.

    As it currently reads, it's little more than a "he said, she said" puff piece, which accomplishes nothing more than to ratchet up fear and distrust, and there's already enough of that nonsense going around .

    Best,

    Michael J. Curtiss
    Admin, THE GRANITE STAGE, BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE & NH COMMUNITY THEATRE ASSOCIATION pages (Facebook)
    CAUGHT IN THE ACT! (Blogger)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm confused. Are you living in the same country as I am where there are still 40,000 cases being reported a day or do you think that's "he said, she said" as well?

      Just checking.

      Delete
  3. No, no, no. You don't get to pivot, or obfuscate, or make a sad attempt to use the "40K cases per day" defense to bolster your argument.

    You took it upon yourself to report on a specific source of infection stemming from a specific place by a specific company, but you did it in such a manner as to make it impossible to tell the difference between you and the sleaziest gossip-monger employed as a stringer at TMZ.

    You claim to have a first-person account about a "certain company" being a source of a COVID-19 infection, but you're not willing to back those claims up with facts.

    Either you're a serious journalist looking to shed light on the wrongs being done in the theatre industry, or you're just another wannabe coward hiding behind innuendo and dubious narratives looking to advance your own agenda. So far, it's easy to tell into which category you fall.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All RIGHT Both of you go back to your corners and calm yourselves. Don't make me have to stop this car because the salient points here are being subverted.

    As I see it, THEM has come forward with her experience which is germane to the pandemic, holding public events and the handling of contact tracing. There are several important points to be made regarding who has the actual authority to advise a Board of Directors and subsequently any subordinates; not to mention any moral authority within ourselves to do contract tracing and who may or may not be doing it. What she has discovered is indeed disturbing. Very disturbing.

    Caught in the act also makes several important distinctions here, Kevin and I don't think you're going to like this. If THEM is concerned about discretion for any number of important reasons that she cannot give her name and the name of the organization she should not have approached you in a professional capacity as a journalist. She should have passed her information and concerns along to you as a fellow thespian with the hope that you would discretely pass the word along.
    It may be fine for you to mask the names to protect the guilty when you're writing about a brawl in a theater lobby, but it is not the same thing when you are writing about something as serious as a pandemic and the fear and hostility that exists around how to navigate our way through it. It is the difference between a journalistic interview and a gossip piece. Publishing things anonymously only gives way to speculation and innuendo and leaves other questions unanswered.

    I in no way wish to imply that THEM'S story is anything but factual and it's unfortunate they cannot come forward publicly. If she disseminates her information privately, it will carry much more weight then your interview and will probably circulate just as fast to the people she would like to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Brad. You present a cogent third-party view which doesn't duck the salient points made by either side. Well done. I appreciate your input.

      Kevin Broccoli, I'm sure you have your reasons for reporting as you do, and it's not my place to convince you that doing otherwise could actually be more helpful.

      Although it would be, and it is.

      If you need evidence of just how effective calling out someone who's crossed a line and violated a sacred trust can be, AND having the courage to sign your own name to it, then I recommend you Google "Tom Gleadow", Salve Regina College" and "Kat Witschen".

      This is a breaking story that's still unfolding, and you can see for yourself exactly what is possible when people stand behind what they write.

      Making allegations in the arch tones of a dilettante isn't what kills the monsters. It's real people, taking real risks by stepping up and showing their faces, who kill the monsters. Every time.

      Best,

      Michael J. Curtiss

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A List of People Who Can Go to Hell Now That I Can't Have Elizabeth Warren

So today was a rough day for everybody who isn't a @#$%-ing #$%hole. Let's just start there. If that upsets you, by all means, go straight to hell. This entire rant is going to be exactly what it sounds like. I am mad and I am going to exercise my right to BLOG ABOUT IT LIKE IT'S 1995, SO BUCKLE UP, BUTTERCUP. I really don't even know where to start, so let's just jump right in with the first person who comes to mind. Bloomberg, go to hell.  You really didn't have anything specific to do with today, but you can just go to hell for spending an ungodly amount of money on literally nothing.  I mean, you could have lit millions of dollars on fire and at least warmed the hands of the homeless, but instead, you made tv stations across the country that are already owned by Conservatives rich, so kudos to you and go to hell. Amy Klobuchar, I STUCK UP FOR YOU AMY.  I got into FIGHTS on SOCIAL MEDIA while DEFENDING your sorry, self-interested ass.  You know

People You Know Are More Important Than People You Don't Know

This post is in response to arguing with people--straight and gay alike--about a certain celebrity, whether or not she's an ally, if she's pandering, if pandering matters, and whether or not I'm an asshole. The last part is probably an enthusiastic "Yes" but let's reflect on this for a bit anyway without actually giving more time to an argument about a person none of us know, which is a crucial part of what I want to talk about. People you know are more important than people you don't know. I realize it's tricky in an age where we've never been closer or more engaged to our celebrities to keep in mind that we do not know them, they are not our friends, and while we may love them and stan and feel like we're attacked when they're attacked-- That is not true. That is not real. They are in no tangible way connected to us. Now, as someone who is obsessed with pop culture, I get that it's a little hypocritical for me to be making