I was going to continue the work I had started in my post on breakdowns in the writer-dramaturg relationship (the sequel-- breakdowns in the writer-director relationship! followed by the director-actor relationship!) but as I started writing it, I realized the problem.
It was going to be the same post with certain different words plugged in. What it was going to come out to was, essentially, that by not working to create a relationship or an environment to do work in, no good work could happen.
So then I thought... is that just a basic problem across the board? To which I can only say... well... yes.
So then I got to the big question... is the issue not that we need better systems of doing business but rather that we have systems at all?
And then I thought... well... maybe so.
Let's look at some vauge examples.
1 My post on the dramaturg-writer relationship and its many pitfalls and breakdowns can be summed up in a few short sentences really. The system of NPD in this country has a specific way of doing business, and when that's followed to the T, dramaturgs are invested with an authority that writers feel they haven't earned. When they act on that authority (by, say, giving notes to a writer within fifteen minutes of meeting them), major problems ensue.
Now we could say that the issue is that the system of NPD is broken in this country. Most people would agree with that. So the question ususally becomes... what's a better system we could develop? And the answer is usually more full productions of plays.
I want to suggest hat we look at it as a problem of having a systematic (or system-based) understanding of how to create art in the first place. The assumption (in broad strokes) being that there is a way that can be used to take a draft of a script and get it production-ready, and that that way works across the board, regardless of the people or art you plug into it. So the solutions that are usually offered are changing out one system (workshops) for another (productions).
But, as Jaime pointed out in the comments, full productions aren't necessarily going to be good for every play out there. So I would like to offer instead that maybe theatres commited to new plays and new playwrights should work on a case-by-case basis to create those plays in the ways that are best for those plays, assuming those "best" ways can be broadly agreed upon.
2 Making my way through The Open Door has revealed three basic lessons-- (1) Context matters. (2) every play is different and thus must be approached differently. (3) Creating a play is a journey of discovery, not knowledge.
I think we'd all probably tacitly agree with these. But as much as we agree with #2, in practice we don't particularly honor it. Most rehearsal processes proceed the same (or in very similar) ways-- 1/4 table work, 1/4 staging, 1/4 fine tuning, 1/4 tech-and-previews. And even within those four quarters of the rehearsal process, the techniques and methods we use are probably fairly similar show to show. But playwrights vary greatly, even contemporaries.
By using the same methods regardless of the context in which they're used, we make it much easier for deadly forces to creep in. Repeating what you know is always more boring than creating something new, and I suspect it's frequently more boring for audiences too.
This gets even more drastic with resident theaters. When every play has to be put on in the same space regardless of what the play is, your options get very very limited.
3 My major problem with the American Method as it is often taught and used by actors is that it is so heavily ideological that it often excludes other ways of working. In other words, since many method acting training programs are a bit religious in their devotion to the One True Way of Acting, other methods and possibilities cannot be entertained. This is really a shame, becuase there's a lot of great tools that the Method teaches actors. Better (and better trained) actors are able to use those tools when handy and discard them when not.
This is because the Method was developed in the context of a very specfic strain of theatre. There are many many plays that fall outside of this narrow range, and frequently actors attempting to apply method techniques to, say, early O'Neill or Hamlet fall flat. Again you cannot simply plug in the same system of doing work regardless of what the work is that needs to get done.
4 Awhile ago on this blog, I posted as an idea that, when about to cast an actor in a major role whom we've never worked with, it would be worth it to take them out for a cup of coffee to get a feel for whether or not you two could work together. The next day, someone at Lincoln Center told me I read that thing on your blog! Equity won't let you do that!. Thus our system for how people should be treated might actually keep an actor from understanding whether or not a particular working situation is right for them.
We could go on and on like this, but it basically comes down to this: every play is different, and needs to be approached simply from the starting point of what is best for this particular play and the people involved in doing it? And, building off of that, I would suggest that maybe we should replace our more systematic way of understanding theatre-making with some base-line standards and attitudinal starting points (people should be paid, for example, or directors shouldn't change non-classic texts they're directing).
What this also raises for me is that smaller, scrappier theatres (especially those without spaces to call their own) are uniquely suited to have the kind of flexibility necessary to really approach each play fresh and create each play with only the play as the concern.
Recent Comments