Zelda Fichandler and Regional Theatre

November 14, 2011 at 12:49 am

Zelda Fichandler’s speech to the Stage Directors and Choreographers society has a couple quotes in it that have gotten me thinking. From reading her speech I can’t tell her exact thoughts on the current state of the regional theatre model, and theatre in America, but here are mine.

The fabric of the thought that propelled us was that theater should stop serving the function of making money, for which it has never been and never will be suited, and start serving the revelation and shaping of the process of living, for which it is uniquely suited, for which it, indeed, exists.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Yet it seems like regional theatres around the country are targeted more towards that money making model now than ever before. While I understand that economically times are tough for everyone, especially arts organizations, forgetting the purpose is the most disastrous mistake that could be made. While I know it’s a different situation, and that change takes times and habit is learned, we know what kind of theatre can be made for $50, and I think larger scale theatre companies need to begin learning from that. Pay your artists to be creative, don’t pay your shows to look good, the artist needs it more. We’ll get back to this in a moment.

First, we must take our gaze and any preoccupation away, away from Broadway, from which we took our leave many years ago. If they want what we discover, nourish, and perform, that’s okay.

Yet again, Ms. Fichandler, wise words. ART, Huntington even her own Arena, there’s little more to say. The goal shouldn’t be Broadway, the goal should be our audience. Again, it’s about money and publicity, the celebrity of theatre, not the art of it.

Next, a theater institution, in and of itself, is an artwork, a collaborative artwork whose principal artist is the artistic director.

So…interesting. I think this is one problem of the current regional theatre model which is hierarchic and not communal. It’s easiest to put blame on someone else in this model, and even then, sure there’s the artistic director, but then we move into the Board of Directors and the Chairman of the Board and etc etc etc. Responsibility and celebration should be shared. I think this may be one of larger model changes that may happen as the current regional theatre model begins to fall.

The artwork is not truly alive until it meets its audience, so that we absolutely want and must have the audience with us, responding with their imagination and belief. But it is we who choose and create the work. Neither Picasso nor Beethoven asked anyone what they wanted to see or hear. That comes from deep within each individual artist. The artist may be lonely or feel unsure of, or inadequate to, what she is making, but she must cling to her integrity—her wholeness—and see it through. Being an artistic director, like growing old, is not for sissies. And smaller theaters are easier.

Now I think I know what you’re saying, but what it sounds like is a little different. I think you’re saying don’t make art to please your audience. What it sounds like you’re saying at first is, “Fuck them bitches.” If we’re not creating for our audience, then we’re probably creating for ourselves, and that seems wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that if something challenges me, it will challenge my audience, but that’s because my ideal audience at the moment is my peers and I feel that I understand them well. In a sense I am part of them, or at least know most of them. But the work needs to be targeted to change the audience, to move the audience, not simply as an artistic outcry that will have no effect.

New plays are, of course, central to our repertory since they come from the very time of our lives, and funds to produce them are at the moment more available than for other needs. Foundations have their cycles as do styles in fashion. But the world classics must remain alive in the present for our contribution to be complete. We are as we were and always will be, and deep truths about our misplaced love, our lust, our foolishness, cruelties, hunger for power, and dread of death are imbedded in these great plays, which turn their faces to us as the world turns. I so deeply believe this, I can’t imagine myself with a repertory that discards the classics as passé or doesn’t explore how cultures other than our own view the human experience.

This is such a bigger conversation I don’t want to get too deep into it. But let’s just say we don’t necessarily hold the same view on the classics as one another. I think they’re important, but I also think they have the right to die if that’s what needs to happen at any given moment.

If that is so, I ask this question: could it be, in part, that the imaginative scale of our work is bowing to meet the budget’s needs? If so, we must not let it happen that way. We must remember that—within reason, within the outer borders of possibility—the risk must be taken because we are in love with the project

I think, especially at larger regional theatres this is true. Like I said at first, amazing theatre can be made very cheaply. What I see happening more often than not is when you suddenly have a huge budget, imagination goes out the door for spectacle and for the real thing. Of course this isn’t always the case, but often, in my personal experience at least.

I appreciate the regional theatre model. I think it’s done some great things up till now. I also think it needs to change. I think it will change. Like any revolution, there needs to be an inciting incident, and just as broadway money making was part of what fueled Ms. Fichandler, regional theatre money making is part of what will fuel the next generation.

By Danny Park | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

The Dialogue Festival

November 13, 2011 at 11:28 pm

A recent article in the Guardian highlighted The Dialogue Festival, a 4 day event in London that incorporated 3 different venues and addressed 5 specific themes, under the umbrella topic of a celebration of the spoken word. The five themes of dialogue included debate, technobabble, lyrical, chatterbox, and banter. Each themed unit was curated by a separate director, who organized a series of arts events, including theatrical endeavors, performance art, moderated conversations, and visual art exhibits as well as film screenings. The venues included St. Peter's, a converted 1845 Anglican church, Under the Westway, an intimate event space accompanied by a courtyard, a bar, and a restaurant, all within the confines of the Westbourne Studios, and The Earl of Portobello, a Victorian pub.

The Guardian article focuses specifically on the theme of banter, and its place in contemporary British society - and contemporary society in general. Much of this component of the festival centered around the idiom of live comedy and the act of audience participation and how that live energy and constant feedback from the spectators crafts a performance. Also discussed are the specifics of the unspoken contract between audience and performer and how both have to enter into the event as if entering into combat. "[It's] a bit like a boxing match because both individuals have agreed to participate in what might be quite a bruising experience. It's a constructive fight. It's a battle of wits. A colourful exchange that relies on the quick-wittedness and ingenuity of both parties. But obviously it should all end in a shake of the hand," comedian Mark Dolan.

The article ends with a discussion of the meaning of banter, when it becomes too brutal, and what classifying it in such terms does to it. Does using the word rob the action of the easy, off the cuff manner in which it was originally intended, does it formalize, corporatize, or introduce a level of contrivedness?

All of these questions and investigations open up illuminating aspects of the usage of banter in the theatre. How it should be executed - with word-perfect precision or room for improvisation and what it means to use such a specific type of conversational dialogue in scripted drama. Banter has been used successfully in drama for a long time - Oscar Wilde was omnipresent in my mind while reading the article, and fittingly earned a footnoote at the close.

This at times pedantic, but nevertheless intriguing article really hit home for me, having been working on the one-man-show, House, for the past few weeks, and seeing the evolution of the performance as more and different audience members enter the space to join in dialogue or banter (sometimes literally) with the main character.

For your reading pleasure, you can find the article here, and The Dialogue Festival website here.

By joelandrewcote | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

marvel at a new world

November 13, 2011 at 10:44 pm

emmafrost

So we are all about to go home for thanksgiving break and I'm realizing how close winter  break is coming along.  I forgot that over the summer I talked to my cousin about writing a  play over this semester and how we could produce it over winter break.  My cousin has spinal  muscular atrophy, which is a disease that detoriated the muscles in his spine, making it  incapable for him to walk, or have fullmotion of his spine, upper arms and neck.  So he loves  theatre.  He LOVES it.  And he wanted to write a play that he could be in, so he decided that    we would tackle the world of X-men.  Casting himself at Professor Xavier, I couldn't think of  a better role for him.  We started to work on the script at his house one day and he was  confused about how to even start.  So we made a new storyline between Jean, Cyclops, and  Emma Frost (his favorite character).  I was trying to explain to him about all the things we  had to think about, like how many people he wanted in the cast, what he wanted it to be  about, and who the audience was going to be.  My cousin is a freshman at Crestwood high  school and he loves the world of teen titans, x-men, and avatar: the last Airbender so his  imagination is vivid and huge.  He wanted the play to be full of death and curse words in it  and I realized that we had to stop writing and talk about who our audience was.  Was he  hoping to write a play that all of his friends and other kids could come see?  Or was he writing  it for his older cousins and family to be impressed with?  Or did he not even care.  So I began telling him what he could and couldn't say, strictly because of his age, trying to figure out what he could do so that people would take him seriously.  So now I'm thinking, how ignorant of me to think that because Brandon as a human being, and that alone grants him the utmost respect in an artistic setting, and no doubt should people take him seriously if he came onstage as Charles Xavier.  I began questioning whether or not I was worried about people taking him seriously because of his age, or because of his confinement to a mechanical wheelchair.  I had to think about it.

This is still uncomfortable for me because I haven't figured out the right wording for it yet, but I began to think about the role that those who are considered "different" play in the world of art, and not just my cousin.  I thought about the men in mabou mines' Dollhouse, and the actresses on Glee, Robin Trocki and Lauren Potter.  I thought it was amazing that they had found a hole in the fabric of this theatrical universe created and that they tore their way through it.  Because theatre should embrace all and every aspect of life; the beautiful, the different and the unknown or misunderstood.  This topic is so sensitive for me because I don't have my head wrapped around it yet.  So I present myself with a question...How can we start to build a world where not only the sane and able-bodied actors and actresses can take the stage?  How can we introduce the reality of my cousin, Robin Trocki, Lauren Potter, and the actors of Dollhouse as way to spearhead a new age of theatre, an age full of understanding and new vantage points, an age absent of any pity for those who are different, but rather a celebration of it.  Also, what will the bridge look like that carries over our acceptance of our world into the world of theatre and who will lead it?

My cousin Brandon's About Me on Facebook says, "I am an actor, artist, and a singer. I love american idol and I wish to be on it one day.I also love Glee!".  Theatre created for everyone. How about, theatre created by everyone.  Maybe Brandon James, newly initiated X-Men, can show us the way.

By ofine | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (1)

Hitler in a Tracksuit (or, the Half-Formed Thoughts Post)

November 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm

A disclaimer: Honestly, I have no clue what my own feelings on the Der Spiegel article I'm about to tell you about are. It has something to do with a topic I've already posted in this blog several times about: the role of comedy in culture and art. But I have so very many multitudinous confusing feelings about the comedy discussed in this article, that this posting is less of me taking a stand and more of me working through some artistic and personal muck. So heeeeeeeere we go -

A question or two: Is it okay to laugh about the Holocaust? Was it okay? IS it okay? Is it EVER okay? And the sixty-four thousand dollar question: Is it okay if you're a non-Jewish German?

Well, we're all pretty liberal and open people here on this DramaLit blog, so I'm going to guess that more than a few people would answer "yes" to these questions. 35-year-old Jewish German and stand-up comedian Oliver Polak would agree with you. He's one of several noteworthy "young German artists" (profiled in this Der Spiegel article I recently found through ArtsJournal.com) who are, as the article's title says, "boldly defining the 'new Jew'." Though it feels as if a bit of it is lost in its translation from German, the article is a fascinating cultural and philosophical read. The artists featured, Polak included, are all German Jews who have been seeking to define themselves as Jews without use of the past (specifically, WWII and the Holocaust). Or, if the young artists ARE using the Holocaust to define themselves, they're doing so in a way that engages German Gentiles through laughter and open discussion rather than fear and embarassment. Comedian Oliver Polak falls into this latter category of artist. The parts of this article about his standup are, personally, bewildering: Polak playing Adolf Hitler in an Adidas tracksuit, Polak "making fun of his mother, his foreskin, and the Central Council of Jews in Germany," and his German audiences erupting into terrified laughter.

Oliver Polak's website is definitely worth a look, if only for the spectacularly jarring (for me, anyhow) first picture of him you'll find when you click through with this link. Talk about symbolism...

My confusion at the previous questions - Oliver Polak's standup comedy aside - is that I have always vehemently answered them with "no." No, it is not okay for non-Jewish Germans to laugh at Jews, at WWII, at the Holocaust, at ANY of that! Well, when I say non-Jewish Germans, I'm almost exclusively referring to myself. This is a rule that I, a German Gentile, have always vehemently stuck to. For a bunch of reasons having to do with my deep-seated guilt complex (which we could talk about FOREVER, but that's a story for another day). I've spent my entire life running away from that part of me that is German. I've spent my entire life ashamed of it.

So now I've been completely thrown off balance by Oliver Polak and this Der Spiegel article! Because as an artist-in-training, I think it's f*cking awesome that these people are taking their culture identities into their own hands and redefining those identities through art. But as a cosmically guilty German, I feel like running away from this artistic trailblazing because I should still feel awful about the stuff these young Jewish artists are now laughing at.

I know, I know, I've not got any reason to feel the German guilt I do. I know, I know, I shouldn't worry about it the way I do, and should join in Oliver Polak's self-deprication and reclaiming of the past. I think it'll take a while longer for me to put this cultural shame behind me. But for now, I want to know what other people think about these questions. Is Oliver Polak doing a good thing? A thing that needs to happen? And is it okay for non-Jewish Germans to laugh at him while he does? No matter what, for now, as a young artist, I'm somehow thankful for the confusion this article has caused me.

By obarresi | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (2)

Water is Rising!

November 13, 2011 at 8:07 pm

This is a little bit of a continuation of my last post. I was reading the Globe this morning and found an article about the "Water is Rising" project from the Pacific islands. The project weaves together the traditional song and dance from the cultures of three Pacific islands: Kiribati, Tokelau and Tuvalu. These groups created this production and brought it to the US with a clear purpose. They come on a diplomatic mission, pleading for a more active initiative in combating climate change. These islands are, at their highest point, only 3 meters above sea level, and, as sea levels rise around the world, these people's lives and culture are threatened. The delegation of performers hopes to spread their message around America, especially to skeptics of climate change. It mentioned in the article how many of them were horrified that it was a subject of dispute at the recent republican debates. How could something they see every day with their own eyes be under discussion? They hope to serve as an inspiration to Americans before it is too late. One of the performers is quoted saying, "I'd like them to see that even though we are so small and we are vulnerable, we don't give up. I'd like them to start realizing that and do something." It's not as though the islanders are expecting us to do all the work; they have converted to entirely renewable energy, and are in the process of building a sea wall, a bulwark against rising tides.

The "Water is Rising" dance group will be performing at the Saunders Theatre in Cambridge this Saturday at eight. If I wasn't working I would be there! It sounds like a powerful experience.

Here's a link to the project's website:

http://www.waterisrising.com/

By sophiegr | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Hey Dudes, Let’s Talk About Music

November 13, 2011 at 6:07 pm

tenacious-d-in-the-pick-of-destiny-2

I was inspired by Caroline's post last week to explore what it is about the music I like that causes me to become attached to it. Ever since I picked up my first pair of drumsticks at age 9 (and recently, bought my first guitar), musical performance has been an integral part of my life, and will likely remain so as long as I have the physical ability to hold an instrument. So it was interesting for me to take a look at musical taste from the perspective of someone who doesn't have experience playing anything at all. My personal journey through genres and artists has been a short yet complex one, and I hope to continue to be challenged the more I delve into my favorite performers.

1. Rush - Limelight

I suppose it would make sense to start from the beginning. I'm not sure I had a sense of musical "taste" until the summer of 2000. That's the summer I heard this song on WDVE (FM 102.5 if you're ever near Pittsburgh), and I realized I wanted to play music, too. It's strange to be fan of a band like Rush. They're polarizing - it seems people only love them or hate them, with no room in between for compromise. It isn't hard to see why, either. Their songs, even their radio hits, are complicated and rarely give listeners time to catch up. With fluid ease, the band (only three people, at that) switches back and forth between time signatures and keys, with Neil Peart's lyrics overlapping throughout. On that note, NEIL PEART, whom I have a man-crush on likely the greatest drummer in the history of classic rock, is the reason I play. There were famous drummers before Neil Peart, but he is one of the first drummers to not only be known, but to become an integral part of the band's composing process.

2. Streetlight Manifesto - Point/Counterpoint

And now for something completely different! I suppose what draws me to ska/punk is the raw energy the music has. Nothing about it feels forced or overdone, it's loud and powerful and makes you want to run around and break things. But the great part is the camaraderie the music promotes that goes beyond the boundaries that separate us from complete strangers. I went to one of their concerts a couple years ago, and every single person in the audience knew the lyrics to every song. The dancing was wild and practically out of control, and I'm fairly certain I participated in a mosh that lasted for over half an hour. Any time a person was knocked to the ground, however, everything stopped and three others were there to pick them back up again. The audience looked out for each other; no fights, no injuries, just a general feeling of awesomeness. I went to the show alone and I felt like I made 2,000 friends that night.

3. Red Hot Chili Peppers - Suck My Kiss

I'm discovering by doing this piece that the bands I enjoy listening to are ones which tend to blend several genres of music together, rather than playing towards one specific audience. I like music that pushes boundaries and isn't afraid to mix and match a variety of influences together, and RHCP fits the bill perfectly. The RHCP I grew up listening to isn't the RHCP of today, and that says something about their ability to evolve in and of itself. I was introduced to this album in middle school by a friend who had become obsessed with Flea's slap-bass technique, and I fell in love immediately. Everyone should give Blood Sugar Sex Magik a complete listen at some point; it's violent, sexy, and beautiful, and has a sense of humor that can't be matched. I read Anthony Kiedis' autobiography, Scar Tissue, this summer. It told a tale which was already too evident within the themes of RHCP's music, that of addiction, uncontrollable lust, and a desire to bring joy to every human being on the planet. RHCP is one of the few bands which was able to confront the lifestyle of the "rockstar" and emerge even stronger than before, and that alone warrants a listen.

4. Porcupine Tree - Anesthetize

I also like music that tells a story. Whether it be Pink Floyd's The Wall or Dream Theater's Scenes from a Memory, I have a soft spot for artists who attempt to paint a complete thematic picture through their albums. Porcupine Tree is no exception, and they are a band that I've been giving a great deal of attention to lately. Many of their songs - including this one - are in excess of ten minutes long. They are constructions weaving in and out of electronica, metal, acoustic rock, and pop. I can't help but become drawn into the sonic worlds that they create. It says something that in an era of music more suited for persons with severe ADHD (I'm looking at you, dubstep),  someone is still creating music that takes patience and a careful ear. One cannot simply put on their 'phones and listen to a few minutes of Porcupine Tree.

5. Dredg - Bug Eyes

These guys give me hope for the future. I often worry about where the state of music will be in ten years or more. I worry that all I'll have to listen to in the years to come are albums which have been created long before, and that nothing new will be able to spark my interest in the same way that the music of past generations has been able to. But at least I know I won't have to worry about Dredg. They are a strange combination of Rush, The Police, Panic at the Disco, Tool, and Coldplay. And at the same time, they don't sound like anything I've heard before. There's something in the atmosphere their sound creates that sucks me in, however, and is plain addicting, to be honest. I like groups that are well-rounded. Anyone can become good at performing in a niche, but bands that transcend their limitations and can switch freely between styles truly impress me.

I guess that's all I have to share, for now. Give these artists a listen, and most importantly, share your own! I want to hear what you're all listening to. I want to hear where your influences come from. Use that comment section and tell me, and everyone else on the blog, what music is currently flowing through your life. 😀

By atsiegel | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (1)

Dramaturgy and Marketing

November 13, 2011 at 5:58 pm

After reading through "The Process of Dramaturgy" over the last couple weeks, I've been thinking about the important component of marketing. In everything we've learned about what it takes to be a dramaturg, this is an area that I find really exciting. I'm pursuing a concentration in Communications and Media, tailoring my liberal arts credits each semester to get my brain working in a completely different way then how we work in our studio classes. Last year I took a course called Computers in Communications and we essential acted as a mock marketing consultant for a local business. I choose the ever popular Allston frozen yogurt place, Mixx. We had to create radio segments, commerical segments, billboard ads, magazine ads, and eventually a full blown website to market this establishment. I found it incredibly rewarding and found a lot more links in what I was doing at COM with what we do at CFA. They are both very creative fields and so I was able to exercise that muscle in a new manner - with computers, digital materials, sound, color scheme, etc. It's also became really important because I'm realizing more and more that as actors we are constantly marketing ourselves to the world of theatre and art. Learning these skills are not only a great way to boost your resume but also to understand the ways of marketing something or someone.

So relating this directing to "The Process of Dramaturgy", there was a section within the outreach and education chapter titled "Public Relations and Marketing Materials" (pg 115). The one page (..only one page?) section discusses writing blurbs for the shows, getting articles in newspapers, press releases, and most importantly, the website.  How does one effectively drawn in audience members through the use of the web? How powerful can an article or video or interview become when put on a website? In what ways can the marketing of this show be enhanced through the popular medium of the internet? I started to make great connections with my work at COM with this area of dramaturgy. It excites and encourages me that the work I'm doing in my liberal arts credits can serve and compliment my work as a theatre artist. I then start to make connections with the wonderful marketing that our senior theatre arts major's created to promote Prom this year. They were very smart, clear, and consistent with their marketing and I do believe it got the event the needed attention of our students. I'm also reminded that this area of dramaturgy, the marketing and PR, lends itself to a world of creative and artistic choices  - a necessary skill that I know I sometimes forget to include in my perception of what it takes to be a dramaturg.

By dkeohane | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (1)

Mining Mabou Mines

November 11, 2011 at 12:27 am

So it's been a little while now since I saw the Mabou Mines production of "Dollhouse". I am still trying to parse through what I felt. It breaks down, I think, into two sections.

Visceral: Loved it. I was consistently surprised in a way that I rarely have been in the theatre. The set, the use of the run crew, the acting choices, the bits of physical business - everything felt brave, creative, and effectively discomforting. I remember especially the first moment of the production - the choice to start with a bare set and then to lower in the beautiful red curtains with such ominous lethargy. Before my eyes I saw the illusion of the dollhouse created. Had I walked in to see the set already constructed, a massive amount of the nuance and message of the play would have been lost. This attention to every aspect of the production, from casting through to the wonderful interaction with the pianist was lavished with remarkable attention and discretion. The production disturbed me, moved me, shocked me. I laughed for a lot of it, not quite out of humor, but out of gleeful surprise.

Having Processed: Now, a while later, I have some slightly different thoughts. Thinking back on the production I realize that a lot of what I remember is the production. What is the story of "A Doll's House"? I honestly couldn't tell you. I had never read it before, and lots of details in the story and characters were lost to me. I was still able to basically follow the action, but my focus was rarely on the story itself. Having said that, doing a version of a well-known text rather than an original work did give the production the ability to focus on other things since the content is widely enough known.

Also, while the physical life of the play was very vibrant, many times I had no clue why characters were doing what they did. Often the physical interludes would serve to confound me more, because I couldn't tell what was motivating them. But again, is this the point?

I find that everything potentially negative I could find to say about this production traps me into the question "but what if that's the point?" Sure I couldn't find the justification of the physicality in the performances. But what if that's the point? I didn't understand a lot of the story, just the visceral effect of the imagery. But what if that's the point?

I now find, having gone through that odd paragraph, that the production in fact was great. Great in terms of my response, that is, BECAUSE it has forced me to ask "but what it that's the point?" And in asking that I am thinking deeply about the point of theatre - a worthy discussion which this piece of art managed to effectively stimulate.

Maybe, for me, that's the point. Whether or not I "liked" the show, I wish that more theatre would challenge me as thoroughly.

By Joseph | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments (0)

Opera Advancing Media

November 10, 2011 at 11:14 am

While browsing Facebook the other day, I saw that Adam McLean posted a link from NPR about opera being an earlier adaptor of modern media. The article then goes on to explain how the Met recently opened a production (the third out of four) where the background projects 3-D images. Even thought theatre in all of it forms taking leaps and bounds in order to advance technologically makes a ton of sense, - how else would we be able to accomplish all of the things we need to? - I don't think I ever coherently thought about just how much of an impact theatre can have on the world in a form other than artistically. For some reason, my thought has mostly been that theatre takes the technology out there and repurposes it in a way that is more useful in order to accomplish whatever the goal is. This article made me re-evaluate that thought, and think more about how we really do make innovations because it is the best way we can think of to advance the story that we are trying to tell on the stage.

The article goes on to talk about how operas have been a starting place for advancing modern technology for decades, something I never realized. Ten years before the first radion station, a full opera was radio broadcasted. Opera had been brought into houses using telephone wires before then. Mark Schubin, a historian, also makes mention of how the original patents for movies were in order to broadcast opera.

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/06/142018443/how-opera-helped-create-the-modern-media-world

By jswolf | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

The Playwrights Playwrights Admire

November 9, 2011 at 11:58 am

Excerpts from a recent piece in the Village Voice asking playwrights who the greatest living playwright is. Go read the whole thing!

Quiara Alegria Hudes
Wole Soyinka. His plays have their own cosmology—an entire universe within one piece of writing. And they're urgent and primal and sophisticated while turning traditional notions of sophistication on their head. Death and the King's Horseman is one of those plays I aspire to—I'll always be chasing after it, grappling with it, trying to reach half as high.

David Henry Hwang
This is a very difficult one, but I guess I'll vote for Tom Stoppard. I think he has maintained a high level of innovation and craft, and continues to challenge himself to this day. Over the course of his career, he has written several works that stand a good chance of passing the test of time.

Heidi Schreck
Isn't Maria Irene Fornes up there at the top of the list?! To her goes my vote.

Erin Courtney
Mac Wellman is my favorite living playwright, because each play he writes is a fantastic surprise that makes me laugh and sometimes cry, even when I have no idea why I am laughing or crying. Wellman continually makes the impossible seem quite doable: He creates theater that cannot be fully understood but can be fully felt.

Sheila Callaghan
Caryl Churchill: She is innovative, relevant, poetic, theatrical, and massively committed to the form. I feel most connected to theater as a calling when I see her work done well, in accordance with its own irreverent and essential nature.

Eduardo Machado
Edward Albee. Since the first time, at 17, when I read The Zoo Story until today at 58, he has kept me on my toes, daring me to think outside the box or prisons we keep ourselves. In Zoo Story he made me see that God "was a woman who cried behind her locked doors." Later on he proved to me that love can happen between any living things, including a man and a goat.

Lisa D’Amour
After spending a few minutes contemplating the genius of Mac Wellman, Stephen Adly Guirgis, and Caryl Churchill, I've decided to go out on a limb and say Erik Ehn. In pretty much every waking moment, Erik is working to evaluate and redefine what it means to be a playwright.

Mac Wellman
I'd have to say Len Jenkin (with Peter Handke a close second). Jenkin's plays are deeper, darker, and simply better written than almost anyone else's. He is never the pompous moralist, and he never ever takes what happens at face value. Handke is remarkable as the most inventive of theater formalists, and a political thinker of incredible depth and persistence.

Paula Vogel
Caryl Churchill: A brilliant, brave, boundary breaking writer and theatrical explorer.

By Ilana Brownstein | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (1)

A Refurbished Dollhouse

November 9, 2011 at 10:02 am

Like many of us, I went to see Mabou Mines' version of A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen. It was stunning, in the literal sense. I found that most of the time my mouth was ajar. The visual images in the show were incredibly striking. The fact that Nora quite literally did not fit the set, she was too tall for the dollhouse, left no question that Nora does not fit into the world of gender roles and performativity in which she lives. She is stuck, bound, forced to be smaller than she is. All the men in the cast were little people in our world, but in the world of the play they were the norm, they fit the set, this was clearly their world. Interestingly there were times when characters existed outside of these constraints. A very tall woman on stilts, so tall that she could literally step over the walls of the (doll)house, appeared as death (as far as I could interpret it at least). She as a woman in the play is tall as the convention proposes, but she is so tall that the walls of the dollhouse do not hold her in, she transcends them and therefore is not stuck. She does not have to put on any other shape but what she is. Also, the run crew was a part of the show, and came out dressed in their black techie apparel at certain moments. They were not little people, and many (all?) of them were men. But they, like mother death, existed outside of the (doll)house, literally remaining outside of it's walls.
Something that was very poignant to me was that all the men were little people. I intellectually understood that they were 'normal sized' people in the world of the play because the furniture, house, etc. was fit to their size, but viscerally I knew that they are a minority in our world. This contrast of minority in our world and norm/ oppressor in the world of the play was a very interesting one to me which was present in my gut throughout the performance. It made me remember that even oppressors are oppressed.
The performativity of the piece was astounding. The physicality was large, loud, and often literal. Nora's voice was eerily high and so altered that it was difficult to understand at times. I found that I was very affected by the performativity, viscerally and intellectually, but not so much emotionally. My moment of good old fashioned catharsis came at the very end. After Nora has left the house, after a huge opera scene in which Nora is naked and hundreds of puppets sit woman and man next to each other in hundreds of audience theatre boxes all over the stage (calling attention to the fact that the reality onstage is our reality), When Torvald realizes his loss and shouts "Nora!". He begins to call for her onstage but then goes offstage and wanders through the house and out an exit shouting "Nora!". Nora, meanwhile, is naked, looking taller than ever elevated above the audience in a theatre box. Torvald is looking the smallest he ever has as he left the world onstage created to fit him (indeed the house has already been taken down by this point but there is still a small bed onstage) and comes out into the audience, a world in which he is very small. In this moment I identified with his vulnerability more than Nora's new-found power and freedom.
Overall, I was very struck by the visual and physicalized theatricality of the piece, but because of that I did not develop strong emotional connections to the characters, everything remained at a distance and a bit of a shocking or funny joke or novelty. I am aware that this kind of theatre wants the audience to be aware of its performativity and not to enter completely emotionally into the world of the play, so as not to forget the outside world. It's a bit Brechtian in that sense. So I respect what they did and I was affected by it, but when I left the theatre I did not feel moved to change something socially or politically about our world. I instead left the theatre thinking intellectually about what art is and can be. There were moments in the play where my emotions were stirred or where my breath was literally taken away, but overall I felt like a spectator to a performative world where I didn't understand half of what was being said, but instead was seeing/experiencing themes, ideas, and physicalities. I enjoyed the use of Commedia and terentella immensely. I enjoyed the entire performance. I was moved by it in a very different way than I am usually moved by theatre that I enjoy. Should we keep the audience at an analytical distance, or involve them emotionally? Or both? Or neither? Mabou Mines' 'A Doll's house' was definitely an interesting experience that I am glad I had. I admire their creativity to go in and refurbish a classic, and I understand that in many ways they were updating it to our times. We are a visual culture, it was very visual. it was shocking to us just as it would have been to Ibsen's audiences. I am now left pondering whether or not this level of performativity, to me, is the most effective means of making art. Which is not a bad thing to be left with.

By sdecker | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments (1)

Writing Time

November 9, 2011 at 4:01 am

I don't know what I feel like a "real post" should be, but that last one didn't seem like it ought to count. So let me give you what's on my mind, as of the zipping by of 3:00 AM and my realization that - again - I wrote ZERO WORDS today. Writing challenge of the month; so far, not a raging success. I imagine quite a few of you will also relate to this poem I'm thinking of...

Writing Time

I stop writing
to make a cup of coffee
to read the mail
to put a load of wash in
to play a game of solitaire
to water the African violet
to straighten out the piles on my desk
to pluck my eyebrows
to call my mother
to shorten a pair of slacks
to pay a bill
to look for a lost phone number
to check my email
to get another CD to play
to file my nails
to scan a picture of my cousin
to make lunch
to watch the news
to read a magazine
to put the wash in the dryer
to make a cup of tea
to take a nap
to put the laundry away
to shut off the computer
and wonder where
I will find time
to write great things.

~ Jane Schneeloch

LIFE. It gets in the way of creating. But then, with no life, I might run out of things to create. QUANDARY. Since we can't all be Emily Dickinson...

How do you make time to make art? (Tell me!)

By kmjiang | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Dear Ilana – I’m so glad…

November 8, 2011 at 11:57 pm

...that I saw Dollhouse! I almost bailed! (of course) but I'm SO glad I didn't!

But I didn't plan to blog, because - well, first, I think we thought we weren't ALL supposed to blog about it? haha, but also - I STILL don't feel like I have a "whole," "thoughtful" post! I just have a lot of feelings, and they're quiet and they're not quiet but either way they don't have words yet? I could probably be all, production value! choices! zomg curtain and I counted the light fixtures! but - it wasn't about that? Even coming home, considering a post on my personal blog (which is even less coherent than here, if that's possible, so it'd've been okay if it was just all - BLURRY BRIMMY ~FEELINGS), the only thing I really wanted to say was, "If you like Art-with-a-capital-A, go see this now."

Or maybe not even. Maybe just, "GO SEE THIS NOW!!"

It was an experience. Something to be experienced and not described. Even if it DIDN'T speak to your heart - and I'm still not sure in a way if it spoke to mine - it was so, SO interesting. I'm incredibly sorry we saw the second-to-last production ever; I would have liked to encourage others to go.

By kmjiang | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments (0)

If You’re in NYC on Sun, Nov 13….

November 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm

Here's an announcement about an exciting sounding panel of all-star playwrights and directors who are in the trenches, making work. My colleague Randy Gener notes that ANY STUDENT with an ID can get the $5 ticket. Well worth it!

FYI, Dan Knechtges & Douglas Carter Beane from Lysistrata Jones (featuring SOT alum Alex Wyse on B'way) and Kenny Leon (directing Lydia's Stick Fly) will be there.   Oh, and Samuel L. Jackson. Of course.

...........

THE DRAMA DESK and THE FORDHAM UNIVERSITY THEATRE PROGRAM
ANNOUNCE A FALL 2011 PANEL DISCUSSION,
“ANATOMY OF A BREAKOUT”
TO BE HELD AT FORDHAM’S LINCOLN CENTER CAMPUS
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 13, FROM 6:30 PM TO 8:00 PM

Panelists Include
Douglas Carter Beane, Lewis Flinn, David Henry Hwang, David Ives,
Samuel L. Jackson, Dan Knechtges, Kenny Leon, Jennifer Lim, and Leigh Silverman

New York, NY, October 26, 2011 -- The Drama Desk and the Fordham University Theatre Program will present a special panel discussion at 6:30 PM on Sunday, November 13th, titled “Anatomy of a Breakout,” reflecting the remarkable trend of breakthrough productions and breakout performances on the New York stage.

The panelists include (in alphabetical order): Douglas Carter Beane (book writer, LYSISTRATA JONES), Lewis Flinn (composer/lyricist, LYSISTRATA JONES), David Henry Hwang (playwright, CHINGLISH), David Ives (playwright, VENUS IN FUR), Samuel L. Jackson (actor, THE MOUNTAINTOP), Dan Knechtges (director/choreographer, LYSISTRATA JONES), Kenny Leon (director, THE MOUNTAINTOP and STICK FLY), Jennifer Lim (actor, CHINGLISH), and Leigh Silverman (director, CHINGLISH).

This special panel discussion will be moderated by Randy Gener, the George Jean Nathan Award winning editor and writer. It will be held at Fordham University’s Lincoln Center campus (Pope Auditorium, 113 W. 60th Street, corner of Columbus Avenue).

Ticket prices:
General Admission: $20
Students* & Senior Citizens: $5 (*from any school with valid ID)
Reservations are requested.
Send RSVPs with first and last names plus number of guests to DramaDeskRSVP@gmail.com

A surprising bulk of the Fall 2011 New York theater season consists of new plays and new musicals that have received great critical acclaim, major awards and successful productions at major venues across the country prior to their emergence on Broadway. To wit:
· CHINGLISH, the new comedy by Tony Award winner and two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist David Henry Hwang, is making its Broadway premiere, starring Jennifer Lim and directed by Leigh Silverman, following its run at the Goodman Theatre of Chicago;
· David Ives’s comedy VENUS IN FUR had a critically acclaimed life Off-Broadway at Classic Stage Company prior to its Broadway premiere at Manhattan Theatre Club;
· THE MOUNTAINTOP, directed by Kenny Leon, written by Katori Hall and starring Samuel L. Jackson, was awarded the coveted 2010 Olivier Award for Best Play after it received critical acclaim in a three-week premiere at Theatre 503 in June 2009, followed by a West End transfer in London;
· Lydia R. Diamond’s STICK FLY, staged by Leon, was developed in a co-production last year between Huntington Theatre Company inBoston and Arena Stage in Washington, D.C. The play had its world premiere at Chicago’s Congo Square Theatre Company in 2006 and was performed at theatres including McCarter Theatre in 2007 and Matrix Theatre Company in L.A. in 2009.
· LYSISTRATA JONES opened to rave reviews in a Transport Group production at the Gym at Judson in Greenwich Village; this critically acclaimed musical comedy show will transfer to Broadway’s Walter Kerr Theatre in December.

By Ilana Brownstein | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

The Fuzzy Line of Responsibility

November 8, 2011 at 11:42 am

corporalPunishment_en-chocoBoy-1I don't have an answer, but I can share my confusion. Check out the link I have provided after you read the post. Inevitably, it raises more questions:

"To give up the use of the rod is to give up our views of human nature, God, eternity." -- To Train up a Child by Michael Pearl.

The man who wrote these words is currently at the center of a conflict (surprising, right?) but that conflict is more serious than you might think. Pearl's words are central to a philosophy that advocates  severe corporal punishment in the rearing of children. Although the book was self-published, it has been brought into the public eye after several parents, convicted of killing their children, were found in possession of the book.

The problem (among many) is that Pearl's words, already radical, are being interpreted in the extreme. Children's deaths that have been linked to the case show signs of Pearl's punishment methods, methods derived from training used for "stubborn mules."

So, how is this news anything but alarming or sad? How is it dramaturgical or theatrical?

Well, I was thinking of this explosion both in terms of translation and playwriting. It is a prime example of how the interpretation of words is crucial. How one interprets or renders the words of an author can lead to the heightening and positive influence of the work in the world, or, as seen above an absolute disaster.

Pearl claims no responsibility in the deaths of the children, nor is he being charged with anything. In a sense, despite the cruel and radical implications of his work, he is not to blame for how it was interpreted. Here I come to the fuzzy line that I feel like I'll be staring at for the rest of my life. It is the point where a work of art, a compilation of words, passes from creator to viewer. It is in the liminal space of responsibility. In that moment, who is responsible for the effects of the work in society? Artist or absorber? Both? Neither?

Is Pearl completely absolved of these deaths despite him being the author of the language that drove them? It is a hard line to scrutinize, as an artist, as anybody. And when God and faith are called in to question, as in this case, the spheres of responsibility only become further blurred.

By geawill | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

asking more of myself

November 8, 2011 at 8:30 am

Yesterday I was involved with a mandatory study about the Exploration of Adults' Reasoning about Other People  for my General Psychology class.  So went to the Cognition Lab, and they put me in a small room where I had to go through a slide show of sentences and passages and rate how "friendly" or "competitive" they were.  Then I had to fill out three questionnaires and watch two videos and fill out two more questionnaires in regards to the clips that I watched.  The whole time I was reading all of the sentecnes that were like "John believes that Sarah knows that Edward thinks that Betty wants to marry him", and I was straight up confused.  I tried to think of ways I could make it easier to understand for myself, so I started to approach it as a script and started to read everything out loud.  Things became clearer as I developed visuals for each character, but then as the study continued, my mind kept wondering to questions like, "How could they have worded this differently?  How could they have made what they wanted clearer? What are they observing in this study?  Is this really going to help them at all?  Is this necessary?  Is this the most effective way to try to gain a better understanding of their newfound theories?"

I was surprised by how much I was questioning the questionnaire, where I know in the past I would have circled my answers blindly.  It was interesting but I realized how the work I've been doing in dramaturgy and directing was slowly seeping into other aspects of my life.  Asking questions.  I was so excited by how much I was challenging this study and not being absentminded about it.  It also reminded me of how many different ways their are for us to obtain knowledge and that I have to remember this as a theatre artist.  It was brought to light these completely different learning styles and how I'm so used to a specific learning style that I have developed in the CFA.  But that as a theatre artist, I have to understand all of the other options in the world in order to grow as that artist and as a human being.  They asked questions about if I talked about politics a lot, or if there was an electrical fire in my house if I could manage to re-work the interior wiring, or if I was interested in stocks.  I disagreed with most of them, but now I want to go back and start to explore all the things I said no to, to get a better understanding of life in general and how things work.  Then I will able to bring that rich knowledge back to my work, which I am so excited about.

By ofine | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Mabou Mines’ “A Doll’s House”

November 8, 2011 at 1:23 am

I found Mabou Mines' production of Ibsen's "A Doll's House" visually stunning, hilarious and horrific. What I am most interested in exploring is how the production fits into the "avant garde" canon.

What makes this production avant garde? Well...it's cutting edge in it's representation of a "classic." What makes it cutting edge then? The fact that it's not a living room drama as imagined? I think it would be wise to quote Charles Mee, who, like many others, has recognized that "There is no such thing as an original play." The same applies to this particular Doll's House production.

All of these forms of movement, puppetry, design and stylization are not new. What is new and cutting edge is how the forms are used and arranged to create effective story-telling. When "A Doll's House" originally premiered in Norway, Realism was shocking. Well...today realism is the status quo. Dare I say that we believe that it is a representation of our reality, and so then often we don't question it as a specific choice.

The Mabou Mines' production stays very true to the playwright's original intent by asking questions like how can sexed inequalities be made painstakingly obvious? The size of the actors forces the audience to ask, "why?" where if Helmer were four inches shorter than Nora, the question would not be so obvious. Also, what is in the Russian, blue-dress doll motif including Nora, her daughter, the rag doll, and the paper dolls and how does this choice overall relate to the DollHouse set? I believed that the distorted, hyper-performativity in the piece mirrored the gendered performances we all play in life.

By screwing with our expectations, yet telling the story in full, the audience is able to interact with "A Doll's House" in a way that transcends the comfortability of a cushy "classic." The audience is then forced to ask, how does this story relate to my world today? And this, I believe, is the unsettling question that leads to new investigations and musings on life that immortalizes the art itself.

By sbmeyers | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments (0)

Last Night a Football Flew into the Audience…I mean Crowd

November 8, 2011 at 1:00 am

Meredith Forlenza as the daughter of a former pro quarterback who follows in the footsteps of her father, portrayed by C. J. Wilson, in “All-American.”

Meredith Forlenza as the daughter of a former pro quarterback who follows in the footsteps of her father, portrayed by C. J. Wilson, in “All-American.”

I write this post as I watch the Bears/Eagles Sunday night face off. Neither of these teams are MY team, but my roommate Jackie has a fantasy team and so it seems that football is always on here these days. I've always been a huge football fan, or rather, a massively crazy New England Patriots fan. I am loyal to all my Boston sports teams through and through. But last night, as I watched the New York Giants?!?! beat my beloved Pats, I experienced a catharsis similar to any experience I've had in the theatre. Live sports games are unpredictable, exciting, and incredibly moving. I don't feel like this is a surprise to anyone, the comparison is made quite often. Paolo throws around hundreds of "theatre is like baseball/football/basketball" references by the week. But last night, as Tom Brady threw his third interception of the night and the ball was tipped up and into the crowd, I found myself shouting "Really!? Right into the audience?! I mean the crowd, not the audience, the crowd." But there was a reason for the slip up.

As three of us (including the fabulous David Keohane) watched this game we were losing in horror, Brady made an end zone pass to Rob Gronkowski and pulled us ahead by four points with a minute and fifteen seconds to spare. The three of us jumped high into the air, screamed, and took steps in different directions. We let ourselves feel exactly what was moving through us on both voice and movement. We don't give ourselves this freedom when watching theatre. But why not? It's not what is practiced in our culture, but how great would it be if the actor's on stage knew exactly what they were doing to their audiences in the moment? Football teams are motivated by the vigor of their crowds. Shouldn't performers be too? Or rather, why do we put these social restrictions on our audiences when there is no other activity on this earth that requires a large group of people to sit and be silent for 2 plus hours?

Going through the NY Times today, I came across this review of a new workshop play at LCT3 (this is the third time I've posted about shows at the Lincoln Center lab and I cannot advocate for this new initiative enough!) about a girl who plays quarterback for her high school football team. The play, "All-American" by Julia Brownell, focuses on Katie Slattery and her family (including a former pro-football quarterback of a father) as they struggle to make Katie fit in to this peculiar position and as they struggle against each other. I was happy to read about this play given my current enamor with football, and happy to see the bridge between sports and art being bridged in any capacity. There is not such a difference between sports fans and theatre goers, and honestly, I think there is a lot to be learned from one another.

By mcherzog | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Dramaturgy Behind the Camera

November 7, 2011 at 8:38 pm

To my mind, it's always the work of dramaturgs to help theatres articulate the importance of the work to the public -- potential audiences, members/subscribers, community, etc. Lately, I've been deeply interested in how video can be used in this effort (with a shout-out to Raphael Martin at SoHo Rep, whose dramaturgical FEED video blog is an inspiration)

Here's an example of a kind of video work that can seem like it's more akin to marketing, but is spearheaded entirely by the dramaturgy team. We had to strategize about what kinds of questions to ask, how to engage the interviewees and artists, and how to get people to think beyond "I liked it, you should see it too."   The following was created by SOT alums (and Company One team dramaturgs) Phil Berman & Corianna Moffatt, Emerson grad (and C1 team dramaturg / Literary Director of Fresh Ink Theatre) Jessie Baxter, current CFA theatre minor Alex Schneps, and me.

By Ilana Brownstein | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Good question…what DID we just watch?

November 7, 2011 at 7:33 pm

I could definitely sit at my computer and write a blog response to Mabou Mines "Dollhouse" about the theory behind the production. You know, the societal implications, what it's trying to SAY, the comment it's making on gender in western culture, how that relates to Ibsen's original commenting on that in his earliest stagings of "A Doll's House," yadda yadda yadda and so on and so forth. You know, that magical intellectualism midterm papers are made of - the stuff I, as a theatre artist, often default to approaching plays with. But I WON'T be doing that here.

That's because, I'm more-than-a-little-bit relieved to say, Mabou Mines' "Dollhouse" was the first piece of theatre I've seen in a long time that I just FELT. It asked that I EXPERIENCE it, and nothing more. That experiencing, though, that letting the waves of it break and wash over me, was more than enough. I feel like that was all I could really even TRY to do during and after the show; my attempts to intellectualize and analyze the production were alltogether futile. It's not that I couldn't/can't write you a critical essay about the socio-politicism of "Dollhouse" or whatever - it's just that something in me is saying that I don't want to or that I shouldn't have to.

So I owe a gigantic thank you to Mabou Mines "Dollhouse" for assaulting me with their otherworldly production and holding me in that strange emotional place. I certainly wasn't allowed to retreat to my maze-like mind during the show, what with the miniature furniture and masked nightmare people (who literally terrified me) and everything else. And, to put it out there, the show made me feel, among many things: frightened, nauseous, frustrated, melancholy, and conflicted as all hell. Not conflicted as a theatre artists, but as a person, for a ton of reasons. The motherhood question in the play being one of them...and that's a conflict inside myself that I didn't even realize I HAD until I saw this production!

This isn't to say that Mabou Mines' "Dollhouse" was my favorite play on planet earth - sure, there were things that put me off in a person-of-the-theatre way. There were elements that made me raise my eyebrow in question. But all in all, in this jumble of crazy thoughts and feelings I have in reaction to the production, I know for certain that "Dollhouse" was somehow just the piece of theatre I needed to see now. As the theatre artist looking to leave her head and get to back to the basics of her gut and her heart, and as the person.

By obarresi | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments (0)