I can hardly wait for part 3 of this year’s LA Times series of Sunday articles about the current state of the Southern California theater scene.

Part 1 appeared on March 28, in the form of a commentary by Times theater critic Charles McNulty. He wrote about leadership transitions at Center Theatre Group, Geffen Playhouse, South Coast Repertory, La Jolla Playhouse and the Old Globe, with a few additional reflections on the temporarily dark Pasadena Playhouse. For simplicity’s sake, let’s call these theaters the Big 6.

Part 2 appeared yesterday, in the form of a dialogue between McNulty and LA Weekly theater critic Steve Leigh Morris, covering “L.A.’s 99-seat-or-fewer scene,” which operates on Actors’ Equity’s once-again-controversial 99-Seat Theater Plan.

Part 3 of the series, when/if it appears, will cover the 36-plus theater companies that produce locally in venues of more than 99 seats and/or on Equity contracts – but that are not as prominent as McNulty’s Big 6.

Not that the Times has even hinted that a Part 3 is on its way any time soon. As I’ve previously noted, in the past year the Times has given scant indication that it’s aware that this important segment of the L.A. theatrical landscape even exists. But a guy can dream, can’t he?

I hate to run lists, but unless I enumerate these 36-plus companies, many readers would doubt that they exist. So here goes.

I’m referring in part to the midsize companies that I listed last December: the Colony, East West, the Falcon, Independent Shakespeare, International City, A Noise Within, Theatricum Botanicum, Shakespeare Center of Los Angeles, Native Voices at the Autry, Getty Villa, Latino Theater, Ebony Repertory and Weddington Street Productions (the in-house, for-profit company at El Portal Theatre).

Peter Howard in Cornerstone's 3 Truths. Photo by Gary Leonard.

In the December post, I forgot to mention Theatre West, West Valley Playhouse and Not Man Apart (soon to open Titus Redux at the Kirk Douglas) – all in LA County. I also skipped Cornerstone, because its recent productions had been smallish, but then in June it produced 3 Truths at the Watercourt. And if we add nearby counties (as McNulty did in part 1 of his series), we must include Rubicon Theatre, Theater 150, Kingsmen Shakespeare, Laguna Playhouse, Shakespeare Orange County, even San Diego Repertory.

The Times dialogue last Sunday very briefly referred to three midsize organizations that I hadn’t mentioned last December – REDCAT, Overtone Industries and the Steve Allen Theatre. But the article didn’t acknowledge that these groups don’t belong in the “99-seat-or-fewer” category that was the topic of the dialogue.

Beyond the midsize companies, a few groups produce in big venues but are not part of the Big 6 – La Mirada Theatre and the musical companies Reprise, South Bay CLO, Musical Theatre West, Cabrillo and Fullerton CLO.  Finally, let’s not forget the companies that work in sub-100-seat venues but use Equity contracts instead of the 99-Seat Plan: Furious, Havok, Syzygy and David Elzer’s productions.

With at least 36 companies, this swath of the theater scene would be big enough for it to merit its own installment in the Times series, strictly because of sheer size. Would the New York Times assess the health of New York’s theater scene by covering only Broadway and off-off-Broadway, completely ignoring off-Broadway? I don’t think so.

But these companies deserve their own chapter in the Times series for other reasons, too. Let me briefly note that the companies mentioned in parts 1 and 2 of the Times series included no race- or ethnic-specific companies, such as East West, Latino Theater and Ebony Rep. In a city as multi-culti as L.A., any overall consideration of the theater scene should mention these.

In part 2, McNulty and Morris mostly discussed the clash between box office imperatives and aesthetic risk. Yet the midsize theaters are in a strong position to bridge that gap, which should be a primary point to be made in the upcoming part 3.

Because they can play to more people than the smaller theaters, midsize theaters have a greater potential to exploit strong word of mouth. Because their Equity contracts pay better wage packages (including rehearsal pay) than the 99-Seat Plan does, they can expect more of the actors.

Yet because they don’t have to fill as many seats as the big theaters, they should be able to take somewhat greater chances than the big league – if their patrons are supportive enough. And because they often preserve almost as much intimacy as the smaller theaters, they can offer a sense of immediacy that can’t be obtained in a larger theater or on HBO — even if they’re presenting a fairly realistic drama.

But let’s move beyond realism. During the dialogue, McNulty wrote of the importance of theater “examining what separates the stage from TV and film. This line of inquiry may seem rarefied, a preoccupation of the avant-garde, but it’s fundamental.” Then he suggests that someone should produce “a marathon offering in a site-specific locale” and “more joint programs with dance companies and music groups.” In fact, the recent Songs and Dances of Imaginary Lands – bloated and unfocused though it may have been – was exactly what he was describing (but then that production was covered in the Times by music critic Mark Swed, not by McNulty).

In response to these comments, Morris cited several examples of groups that blend theater with dance or music. But perhaps because the overall topic was the “99-seat-or-fewer scene,” his examples were mostly obscure companies at small venues that stage brief runs that are probably seen by no more than several hundred people.

May I point out the singing and dancing elephant in the room during this conversation? No one mentioned “musicals.”

Yet musicals are a blend of theater, dance and music. On stage, they usually provide an experience quite different from what is found in TV and film. And far from being “a rarefied…preoccupation of the avant-garde,” they have long been the most popular genre in the American theater.

Perhaps musicals were ignored because so many musicals-only companies concentrate on revivals. Exciting new musicals emerge sporadically, but they’re more expensive to produce than non-musical plays, so it’s harder to take big risks in the musical arena.

That’s a shame, but again, midsize companies (with the proper financial resources) should be an ideal arena for introducing new musicals, which often need more room than they can find in smaller theaters.

Of course L.A.’s theater can’t be all about new work all the time. I salute the brave companies that nurture and produce the new, but — apart from an exchange about the Antaeus’ King Lear — any comments that McNulty and Morris might have made about companies that specialize in classics or other older plays were apparently cut in the editing.

Yet this omission is oblivious to a few basic rules: #1 -Most new works aren’t very good. #2 – Great or otherwise interesting old works can reveal new resonances – and they’re completely new to theatergoers who are seeing them for the first time. #3 – Most audiences hesitate to spend money on new works until they’re declared – via word of mouth or reviews or awards – to be an exception to rule #1 (or, of course, if the cast includes at least one famous actor).

We need a theater that presents exciting new plays, exciting revivals, exciting musicals, exciting non-musicals, exciting performances from actors, exciting concepts from directors, exciting contributions from designers.

A lot of this excitement could ignite the midsize level, if its institutions got the same attention and support as the larger and smaller levels. But then that will probably be the subject of the Times’ long-awaited part 3.