But Collaboration IS Fun for Losers!

by drop-in bloggationist Abe Goldfarb

Having now read two considered responses to my post about directing, I'd actually like to do something completely childish and respond to the one that lodges a disagreement. Oh, it's not so childish, it's simply that I have to be right.

So. Dan Trujillo, the blogger over at Venal Scene and doubtless a wonderful and sexy man, says that he 'admires [my] fire in the belly' (cheers, Dan) but goes on to argue that my ideas leave absolutely no room for the writer in the rehearsal room. Erm, yes, that's true. I think that unless you're workshopping a new piece, it's simply unconscionable to have the writer hanging about. Dan's right that the writer is the only power besides the director with the power to execute conceptual change in the piece. And that's why I probably wouldn't take on the job of developing a new piece. One of my limits as a director is that I need a finished piece of work before I can begin my job.

Dan calls my ideas "enlightened tyranny", which would insult me if it weren't so true in every way. There's not much to say about that.

There is only one thing Dan writes from which I take offense. He posits a scenario, a 'mental exercise', in which Shakespeare, being alive today, wants me to direct Titus, except HIS way. Dan makes it clear that this is all conjecture, so that's not what I take issue with. Bill, hypothetically, wants a Titus that is a cartoon and wacky and edgy and slapsticky, and I have the option to put up with it and direct the thing with him in the room or not. (For the record, conclusively, I'd avoid it like the plague) Dan insinuates that I would turn down the opportunity only if no pay was involved. Perhaps I read it wrong, but that seemed to be the case. I was mildly irritated by the insinuation, even if it is nit-picking. Money or no, it's exactly what I would never, ever do. And any writer, actor, director or designer who signs on to something they're philosophically opposed to for the paycheck, frankly, deserves what they get (I speak from personal experience).

This all sounds so PETTY, and it's maybe evading the issues Dan is raising. The fact is, every criticism Dan lobs is, in all, pretty valid. But then, we're at cross purposes on this one. He may as well raise an objection to the color of my hair. I adore writers, and many of my closest friends write. Without writers, the vast majority of theater would never exist. But there's simply no room for them in the rehearsal room. Just as the director must leave the room when previews have ended, or at least, barring a major catastrophy, keep his trap shut.

Over at SlowLearner, on the other hand, is a chap who agrees with me. I'm just shooting him an email and applying fuck-me red lipstick, so I'll see you later, chaps.

Comments

[Mac]

Well, strictly speaking, I didn't write that there is NO place for the playwright in the rehearsal room; I'm just arguing for LIMITED access.

It seems to me that your point of disagreement with Dan gets back to the whole issue of picking the right collaborators. It's good for directors to be brutally honest about what sorts of plays they like to direct. And it's good for playwrights to be brutally honest about what sort of input they'll want to have once rehearsals begin. Brutal honesty helps the right collaborators find each other. That's why I love that you explicate your preferences so clearly. As a playwright, I would know exactly which projects to approach you about and which not to.

On the pay issue: lots of people participate in theater they don't particularly like for a paycheck. Hell, most people work jobs they don't like for paychecks. (I'm philosophically opposed to working in a bank forty hours a week, mysef.) As long as the show or the job isn't evil in some way, I can't see anything dishonorable in getting the bills paid.

[Isaac Butler]

On the pay issue:
A director who works both on Broadway and in downtown (and international) theater came to visit the lab last week. When she was asked by someone who makes money directing for Disney
"Isn't there some value in doing commercial theater? I mean, you must find some fulfillment or else you wouldn't do it!"
The director responded:

"The only fulfillment is money and power. I do Broadway so that I can afford to pay for my house upstate and afford to lose money doing nonprofit shows. That's it."

When doing commercial theater, the director's amount of control is very limited-- there are investors who will critique your costumes, there are producers who will want things more punchy, the playwright will be a member of the Dramatist's Guild and thus you cannot deny him or her access to your rehearsal room etc. etc. and so forth.

Furthermore, working regionally, or indeed at many large theaters, the artistic director expects to have input in order to quality control your work. This is a reality of working in theater.

[Abe]

Okay, to clarify. I now seem to have come off as a naive little man who scorns money for doing the devil's work. When I said that people who take the paycheck for something they don't philosophically agree with deserve what they get, I wasn't implying that I'm above it. Simply that the example given by Dan was something I would avoid like the plague. I do believe in having no illusions about going into a paycheck job, and that's what I meant. Having said that, I'm less and less inclined to take them these days, day-job excluded (and even then, working with Young Adults Institute pays the bills and loses me no sleep). I think perhaps I'm interested in seeing just how far I can go doing my own thing. Disillusionment surely beckons, but I'm curious.