Theatre Critics

The playwright Christopher Durang wrote a brief essay that he included at the end of his play Laughing Wild. In this essay he states, “Some days I want to kill Frank Rich, the drama critic of the New York Times. He represents this Great Deaf Ear I must somehow get through to in order to reach a theatre-going public.” Pretty harsh, huh? In The Theater Experience Edwin Wilson writes, “Because critics often speak so confidently and because their opinions appear on television or in print, their words have the ring of authority. But theatergoers should not be intimidated.” Easier stated than done, Durang understands this better than most of us.
In his essay Durang continues to explain the power that critics, and in particular Frank Rich, wields (for the record, Rich is no longer the drama critic for the NYT). He talks about how Rich’s acerbic opinions killed the chance for commercial success for Beyond Therapy, Baby in the Bathwater, The Marriage of Bette and Boo, and Laughing Wild, which if you’ve read any of those plays you should be amazed that a critic didn’t appreciate them. Durang complains, “I’ve twice now had ecstatic receptions to plays on opening nights … that are impossible for me to enjoy because I know I’m waiting for the word from his Lord Chief Executioner. It’s such a stupid system.”
Playwrights like Tennessee Williams, William Inge, and Arthur Miller were tacitly forced to alter their writing from time to time due to the heavy handed influence of critics. For the reader who hears names like Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller and doesn’t understand how playwrights of their stature could have been influenced by critics to the point of altering style and content, take a moment to ask serious theatergoers who live in large theatre markets what are some of the factors that influence their decision to go watch a play or not, I guarantee you that almost all of them will mention their favorite critic’s opinions as an important factor.
I understand the critics function and I’m not the type of actor who gets worked up over reviews, good or bad. The audience needs someone to hold the theatre artists accountable, both artistically and in some cases morally. The problem is that historically the theatre critic holds to much power and there is no one to hold him or her accountable. This is what Durang is complaining about in his essay. The New York Times has been called on numerous times to develop a system of accountability; things like have more than one critic at a time review the same play, but the NYT has consistently rebuffed any suggestions. As Durang puts it, “It makes them feel, well, powerful.”
So what’s the solution? That brings me back to Durang’s statement, “Some days I want to kill Frank Rich …” Just kidding, or am I?

Auditioning

To be honest I stopped reading chapter 5 of Edwin Wilson’s book The Theater Experience after I read this comment in chapter 5, “… there is a difference between the work of an actress at an audition and in rehearsal for the production. In an audition, she must work for results … In the rehearsal period, on the other hand, she will be exploring a character …” I stopped reading because this is the first time in a while that I’ve read something in this book that I whole-heartedly agree with.
This concept of the duality of approach for the actor in audition vs. rehearsal is a concept that a surprising number of actors do not understand. Some actors feel that the casting director should be able to see through the hazy, half-formed choices that are a result of their being at the beginning of their process; they are offended by the casting director asking for specific, strong choices. They believe that it is an insult to their “art” to be asked to show a result before they are ready. My personal belief is that actors like that should wear clothes that are all black and should never be allowed out of their local artistic, dive bar unless they are carrying a easily seen copy of Nietzsche’s The Gay Science, if this is required the rest of us will know to run when we see them.
The other group of actors who don’t get the duality of the approach to auditioning and rehearsing approach the rehearsal process as if the show is opening the day after the first table read. You can recognize by their notebook of copious notes they bring to the first table read. If you still haven’t picked them out wait until the reading starts, they will be the ones projecting as if they are performing at the Greek Delphi and not in the production office located in the basement of the local rec. center. If you are able to watch them without laughing you will notice that they have apparently already blocked the show. The funniest thing is their reaction to the sane members of the cast who understand the purpose of a staged reading. They will roll their eyes, sigh audibly and whisper in the director’s ear, never mind that the director passed out drunk halfway through Act 1 scene 2.
I could vent some more but I need to finish reading the chapter.

Harold Clurman

"There can be a Theatre only where there is a community of desire, interest and understanding on all sides." This is a quote from Clurman's essay "Critique of the American Theatre", an essay that answers the question, "What's wrong with the theatre?" In answer to this question Clurman explains his concept of what collaborative theatre is, a concept that was used in the formation and philosophy of The Group Theatre. He concludes the essay with this, "The artistic will of one must become the artistic will of all. We shall not have a Theatre until this is realized."

It is unfortunate that so many well meaning and talented theatre artists have allowed themselves to become satisfied with the status quo in American theatre. If a conversation guided by Harold Clurman's ideals is attempted, a majority of legitimate theatre artists will smile and shake their heads at your naive idealism. Thankfully there are several theatre artists around me who are beginning to discover the possibilities that exist in Theatre and more importantly are willing to take risks in an attempt to fully realize Theatre.

New Play

It's not often in a stage actor's career that he is allowed the opportunity to be involved in the production of a new play. This January I will have the privilege to play the protagonist in They Hear the Distant Thunder, a new play by David Schwingle. David teaches play writing at Bob Jones University. I have had the opportunity to speak with David one on one several times the last few months and I have been impressed with his desire to learn everything he can about theatre. He is as concerned about finding "truth" in theatre as I am and I am excited to be able to work with him on this play.
The play itself is very good. I'm not going to discuss many details because I don't want to give anything away; one of the beautiful things about a new play is that audiences generally have no idea what the play is about so they do not come to the performance with any prejudices and I don't want to ruin that. I will say that the play reminds me of Tennessee Williams and to further add to the Williams comparison, this role is the most personal role I've had since Tom in The Glass Menagerie.
The play will be performed in the 3,000+ seat Rodeheaver Theatre. In my opinion the house is to big but the opportunity to work with the theatre's tech crew makes up for any and all obstacles a house that size throws in front of you.
We had our first table read this week and this is the best overall cast I've worked with in a while. I guess that's not a fair statement in light of If You give a Mouse a Cookie but there was only one other person in that cast besides myself. Shane Willimon (check out the tv show 7th Street Theatre) is incredibly talented and very fun to work with. So let me rephrase my previous comment, this is the best, larger than two, overall cast I've worked with in a while.
I am super excited about this opportunity and I hope many of you get to see this new, wonderful play.

Heightened Reality

The decision for me to return to school came with a mixed emotional response on my part. I'll be happy to finally have that piece of paper that will allow me to pursue my MFA (George Washington University is #1 on the list) and for the most part I enjoy school work. But while on one hand I was looking forward to getting back into classes I was also apprehensive. I'll just assume that everyone understands the issues that arise with going back to school when you have a wife and a daughter and how the decision to go back affects the whole family but I want to write this post from a purely theatre artist perspective so I'll only address the apprehension I experienced through that perspective.
I am taking two theatre classes: Intro to Theatre and Intro to Dramatic Productions; so far this semester I've learned where stage right and stage left are, I've learned that people die in tragedies, and I've learned that the majority of theatre majors at BJU decided on their major after consulting a magic 8 ball. These things are representative of the very things I was afraid of when I enrolled. I wasn't sure how, or even if, I would be challenged. I am aware that I have a lot to learn when it comes to the design element of theatre but after having been on campus for over half a semester and talking and listening to my fellow majors I have realized that I know more about design than I thought. Now that I have described my time back in college as a seemingly complete waste of time let me counter this paragraph with the flip side.
The last several years I have been fortunate to pretty much control my own destiny as a theatre artist. I did the shows I wanted to do, I directed what I wanted, I taught the classes I wanted to teach, and in those classes I taught how I wanted to teach. Even when I was working purely as an actor in a production the directors allowed me the freedom to explore and gave me a lot of leeway when it came to my performance. Now, there was a point in my career when I would have loved this hands off approach and I'm sure that there are many actors out there who think they would flourish and enjoy this type of freedom. I don't like it but I understand why. I have been living and working in a town that has only a minimal amount of acting talent and since the productions I've been involved with solely as an actor have been ensemble pieces I understand that the directors have to spend the majority of their time and attention on those who need it most. All of this freedom resulted in pushing me into a myopic view of theatre. Since I control ed what was happening around me I established the parameters around me. This wasn't intentional, I see it in other people, and this doesn't mean that I haven't grown as a theatre artist, I have. But my growth has been safe and controlled.
School. Even though the actual classes themselves are not challenging I am surrounded by theatre artists (my professors) who have differing acting philosophies and approaches to theatre than I do and more importantly they are not afraid to go toe to toe with me. This has forced me to reexamine what I believe and to explore contradictory methods. Thankfully I've been able to do this honestly. I've felt like the world of theatre has opened up to me in a way that it never has before and I love what I'm beginning to see around me.
This hasn't happened without a price though; as I've taken risks and explored my views have become less solid and I've increasingly become more and more confused about what I believe. This has been less scary and more frustrating as I've increasingly found it harder and harder to express what I believe. I knew that eventually, if I continued to explore and grow, this would change and I would come out the other side a stronger, better theatre artist. Well, yesterday I took a giant leap forward.
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine and was attempting to explain some of my thoughts concerning acting and theatre but was failing miserably. I could tell that he was becoming increasingly wary of what I was saying and I can understand why. He made a comment that bothered me but at the time I couldn't put my finger on why. I was telling him about how dangerous I think it is to work at line readings from a scene analysis and how I thought that a lot of what is taught in acting classes are nothing more than tricks. I stated that if an actor relies on tricks and techniques than the performance will more than likely end up dishonest. He stopped me and said very emphatically, "Theatre isn't reality, it's heightened reality." I looked at him and stammered something about the importance of being in the moment. I agreed with him but at the same time I disagreed and I wasn't sure how or even why. We parted and I drove home with his statement stuck in my head. As I thought about it I had to acknowledge that I agree with him, theatre is, or should be, heightened reality, but why did I disagree with him? And more importantly, what does heightened reality mean? I'll answer the easiest of those two questions first, why did I disagree with him? Because to achieve heightened reality you have to go through reality. If not then you achieve fake reality or dishonest reality, which if we want to be honest has nothing to do with reality so we can drop the word and just use fake and dishonest. The second question is harder, I'm not sure what heightened reality is. I know I've experienced it on stage and I know that I've seen it happen through the exploration and work of some of my students. I saw it 3 weeks ago when two of my students performed the last scene from A Doll's House. I've seen it almost happen several months ago in a cutting from 'Night Mother two of my students performed in the last Meisner class. I've seen it, I've experienced it but I can't define it yet. I believe that with the right company I can get halfway there, from that halfway point is where our Voyage of the Dawn Treader begins. In 2008 a company of us will be attempting this and we are very excited. I now have a point in theatre to which I am moving, I may never get there but I have no doubt I'll come a lot closer than those who are afraid to take a risk.
I understand that this post is diffuse and not very well written but I have some studying to do and I wanted to get this down. Hopefully it won't be long before I will actually be able to explain what I'm trying to say. If this has piqued your interest at all do a little research on Peter Brook's 1970 production of A Midsummer Night's Dream.
One last thing, I want to make it clear that regardless of what I said about school I am enjoying my time and I have the utmost respect for my professors, not just because they are my teachers but also as theatre artists.

Collaboration

“Performers and directors … do not create theater by themselves; actresses and actors must have something to perform and directors must have material to prepare for presentation.” This factual but dry statement is made by Edwin Wilson as the opening to chapter 7, The Text: Subject, Purpose, and Perspective, in his book The Theater Experience. At first glance this statement seemingly supports the collaborative experience of theatre and in all honesty a careful reading of the text establishes this as a truth. I want to be careful here, I am in no way proposing that the statement actually underlines the lack of collaboration, I simply want to use it as a starting point for a brief comparison and contrast.

I would like to include a brief disclaimer before I jump into the meat of this paper; elements of this topic cut a wide swath through political and sociological landscapes and I will probably wander into those realms just long enough to make this “paragraph” uneven and at least a little bit schizophrenic. As you read this think of it in terms of a possible very rough outline for a potential grad paper. I think that if you read this “paragraph” from that perspective it my help temper your desire to mutter mild oaths under your breath at my lack of coherency.

In the second paragraph of chapter 7, Wilson points out that, “There are times in theatre history when groups of performers create theater pieces.” He gives commedia dell’ arte as an example and he also mentions American Improvisation as well as performance art. I will pretend that he didn’t mention performance art.

At the end of paragraph one Wilson concludes the opening statement by acknowledging that a text or script has “historically” been the missing link in the creative process of actors and directors. I have no argument with this and as I stated previously I would like to compare and contrast the two types, improv and traditional, prewritten text based theatre. In doing so I’d like to illustrate that improv and in particular commedia dell’ arte embraces the collaborative aspect of theatre in a much fuller way that theatre produced from pre-written scripts.

In “traditional” theatre a producer stages a play that he believes, for a variety of reasons, will be successful. A director is hired and in turn actors are hired. The economics of our society and theatre don’t allow the vast majority of directors and actors to be picky about what shows they do. As a result the majority of directors and actors have no other interest in a production outside of their own personal objectives. The rehearsal process then runs the risk of becoming a series of skirmishes involving the various participants who clash over personal objectives. For example: an actor is hoping that his performance will garner him a favorable review in one of the national trade magazines which will raise his level of exposure, ensuring him better offers, translation – more money. The director of the play is under pressure to demonstrate that he can direct a tight, fast paced show that is not burdened by artistic excess. This is the type of play that the producer believes todays increasingly less focused and patient audience wants to see. The director cuts the script down which the actor doesn’t appreciate, not to mention the playwright if he is part of the rehearsal process. The actor, to compensate for losing stage time, is tempted to milk his scenes to make sure that he stands out in the eyes of the theatre critic. This in turn frustrates the director who is trying to keep the show tight. Friction ensues, the cast and crew pick sides and the producer nervous about the seeming lack of progress in rehearsal threatens to pull the funding and produce a revival of The Mousetrap instead.

Now, I am aware that the previous description is an overly cynical generalization and that there are numerous successful plays produced around the country each year that represent an honest collaborative effort on the part of everyone involved. I am also aware that the example is also more prevalent then most people realize and it’s not getting better.

One form of today’s theatre where a lot of the problems like those mentioned above are negated is the improvisational theatres of this country. Ever since Paul Sills founded the first professional improv theatre in the U.S., The Compass in Chicago, improv has enjoyed a healthy growth and interest among the general public. Why is that? I’m sure that is has a lot to do with the fact that people tend to enjoy comedies over tragedies but I could point out many comedic flops in the nations main stage theatres. There is also a voyeuristic element to watching performers run full tilt along improv’s cliff edge and I’m sure this contributes some to improvs increasing popularity but I think that if truth be told most people aren’t completely aware and don’t fully appreciate the level of talent and skill it takes to perform without the safety net of a script. I believe that probably the main reason for improvs growth over the last 50 years is due to the fact that the spectators are being asked to participate in a fully realized collaborative artistic effort. As a result the spectators leave feeling fully engaged and alive, not trying to figure out what was lacking in the nights performance as is the case often in traditional theatre. If you don’t believe me hang outside the entrance of a traditional theatre and then an improv theatre and compare the patron’s comments.

A lot of improv companies perform sketch comedy as well as short form improv games and long form improv. Most people are familiar with sketch comedy through Saturday Night Live and Mad TV. Sketch comedy employs a pre-written script; SNL and Mad TV have writers specifically for the purpose of developing and writing the sketch pieces. Improv theatre companies that include sketch comedy in their repertoire will on occasion have a core group that’s main purpose is that developing and writing of the scripts but the company members play a huge, collaborative role in the scripts development. Theatres like the Groundlings in LA and Second City and Annoyance Theatre, both in Chicago, rely on the performers input and comedic instincts. A positive byproduct of this type of collaboration is the parent/child relationship that the performers have with the material. They have a vested interested, beyond personal objectives, in the success of the show. Once again the spectators leave after having been a part of a truly collaborative, artistic effort. How many people have you heard complain about live sketch comedy? How many people have you heard complain or criticize A Midsummer Nights Dream?

Sketch comedy is really the closest thing we have to commedia dell’ arte, that’s not taking into account actual commedia dell’ arte theatres like the Oval House Theatre and City Lit in London and the famous Intention Commedia Company. Commedia originated in Italy in the 16th century and it didn’t take long for this unique style of theatre to spread to France, Germany, and Spain. Commedia’s popularity waned in the middle of the 17th century and due to an ill advised marketing scheme in France was for all intent and purpose destroyed by Louis XIV. In the early 18th century a couple of commedia companies were formed around Europe but they never came close to the success of their predecessors. Fortunately the 20th century saw a renewed interest in commedia dell’ arte; schools and theatres popped up, first and England then in France. San Francisco is the center for all things commedia here in the states.

Commedia dell’ arte started as the theatrical expression of the common man and was originally pure improv. Commedia is based around stock characters: the Pantalone (a Venetian Merchant of aristocratic family), the Doctor (an old man, usually the foil for the Pantalone), The Captain (a parody of the hated Spanish soldiers who occupied Italy), Arlecchino (the jester, called the Harlequin in England), Brighella (the crafty servant who outwits the nobles, the audience’s favorite), and the lovers the Innamorato and the Innamorata. All the characters wore masks and the audience knew immediately who was who. Playwrights like Moliere and even Shakespeare to a degree drew on the traditions of the commedia characters in their writings. The best way I know to very briefly describe the acting style of commedia is to tell you to go watch a good mime. The skills of a mime were required by the commedia actors, particularly the Brighella and the Arlecchino. The commedia troupes usually performed in the open air in the village markets and the main themes of their performances were love and making fun of the nobles, a theme that the common people ate up. The troupe would have a loose outline for the show and the actors would improvise the rest. Troupes worked together for years and each actor had his “type” and so he was very well acquainted with his “types” mannerisms and objectives. As time went on the performance became less and less pure improv and began to become more structured. The royal courts adapted commedia which helped quicken the forming of a tighter and tighter structure to the performances. I believe that it is no coincidence that the downfall of commedia corresponds with the rise of pre-written texts as opposed to improvised performances. Most people now are exposed to commedia dell’ arte through the plays of Carlo Goldoni, his most popular play is The Servant of Two Masters, and as a result most people have never truly experienced commedia dell’ arte.

Why was commedia dell’ arte so popular and why is it making a comeback? Why do spectators jockey for position to watch talented street performers in cities like Seattle, San Francisco, or New Orleans, even though they have to stand and brave the heat, rain, or cold? Why are improv troupes popping up all over this world? Why are audiences abandoning traditional theatre? I believe that the one contributing answer that’s presence is felt in all other answers to these questions is collaboration. With traditional theatre a company runs the risk of undermining this essential ingredient to effective theatre while improvisational based performances foster collaboration and strengthen the spectators experience.

A National Theatre

The second half of chapter 2, Background and Expectations of the Audience, in Edwin Wilson’s book The Theater Experience categorizes and defines different types of theatre. Wilson has broken them down into: Broadway and Touring Theater, Resident Professional Theaters, Alternative Theaters – Off-Broadway and Elsewhere, College and University Theaters, and Multiethnic, Multicultural, and Gender Theaters. In the section on Alternative Theaters: Off-Broadway and Elsewhere, he includes off-off-Broadway and as an extension, smaller professional theatres that operate as alternatives to the LORT theatres in cities around the country. In the same section he also adds children’s theatre, and dinner theatre. In the section on Multiethnic/cultural and Gender theaters he lists the different types found in this heading including: African American, Hispanic, Feminist, ECT … I don’t have a problem with this list as it is discussed in the context of this book and today’s theatre scene, although he did leave out community theatre and improvisational theatre but that’s just a nitpicky detail; on a personal level I would like to take this opportunity to add my two cents about the current theatre scene.

Gordon Craig once said of theatre, “The theatre is not a bar …Art is not a pick-me-up, but a communion.” The disjointed state of the American Theatre does not lend itself to “communion” in any large sense of the word. Theatre’s fight for audiences and their money, they also fight for actors, directors, and even over the production rights to plays.

Say, for example, two theatres in two different states, The Alabama Shakespeare Festival and Marietta, Georgia’s Theatre in the Square were interested in producing Picnic by William Inge it seems obvious what the problem is, nothing. But there is a problem, since ASF is a LORT theatre than they would control the rights to the play within their Actors Equity district, a district, which despite being a 4 hour drive away, the Theatre in the Square is a part of. So even though for all practical purposes the two theatres are not competing for the same audience, the ASF can block the Theatre in the Square from producing a show that the subscribers in Marietta, GA have been asking for. Unfortunately this type of thing happens more than the average theatergoer is aware of. I could construct similar scenarios dealing with casting, crew, and even the underhanded marketing efforts of theatres that are desperately trying to keep their heads above water.

The waters of a capitalistic, free market are not conducive for art, especially an art form like theatre that can have huge overhead operating costs. Variety, the trade paper for the entertainment industry, said in a front-page headline, “Theatre Is Now a National Invalid.” In recent years the Guthrie Theatre in Minneapolis, the flagship regional theatre and as a result the barometer for the health of American theatre in general, has faced extreme financial difficulties. The battle for audiences, talent, productions, and money have been eroding the American theatre scene since the early 20th century, with a respite during the WPA Federal Theatre Project from 1935-39.

Someone who holds up the capitalistic, free market system as the economic model that will bring success and stability to the American Theatre is ignoring the facts. With theatres closing their doors, laying off production staff, and actors, directors, and playwrights struggling to provide for themselves, it is time for theatres to turn their backs on the free market and demand a true national theatre. No one denies that the Federal Theatre Project was financially successful, it was, (for details reference the Library of Congresses website) but anything that even sniffs of socialism scares politicians on both sides of the aisle.

A national theatre would not only help solve the financial woes of theatres but it would also help provide artistic accountability. Due to the pressure to keep rotating shows onto the boards, which in turn keeps the season subscribers coming back every two months, the rehearsal process has been shortchanged. The current rehearsal model is 4 weeks, 8 hours a day with 10-12 hours a day within 5 days of the shows hard opening. With the financial backing of a national organization, theatres would have the luxury of allowing the rehearsal process to work organically, which requires time. The Group Theatre of the 1930’s would rehearse a show up to 6-8 months on some occasions.

That brings me to the audition process. Most theatres cannot afford to hire enough permanent company members to cast a season’s worth of productions. This is how the current audition process started. Historically, actors would apprentice and train with a theatre company for years, slowly moving up the ladder. This enabled the powers to be to adequately evaluate the actors talents and abilities and cast accordingly. The current audition process forces the director to determine the actors ability based on a 1 to 2 minute reading and then the subsequent nerve-racking callbacks. As a result the actors who are cast are the ones who can read the best, not necessarily the actor who best fits the role. With the permanent funding that a national theatre would provide comes the ability for theatres to once again foster and train in house talent. The subsequent productions would be much stronger which in turn would foster larger audiences.

The stability that a national theatre would provide the actor, director, tech crew, and playwrights is obvious. No more stressing out when your current gig is two weeks away from closing and you still haven’t landed a new part. The playwright would be able to do what it is he or she does, write, not worry about next months rent or the lack of food in the cupboard.

There are three main organizations in existence today that are pursuing a national theatre: the United States Theatre Project, U.S. National Theatre, and the American National Theatre. The American Arts Alliance is an organization that is working for similar goals but in a larger picture. The AAA’s mission statement is a good reflection of what should be the goals for all theatre artists, “…the American Arts Alliance advocates for national policies that recognize, enhance and foster the contributions the performing arts make to America.”

In conclusion I’d like to acknowledge that there are some substantial hurdles and problems to a national theatre that I have not addressed but due to the nature of this “paragraph” and the fact that I don’t have much time to research and plan this paper I am unable to cover the majority of issues both negative and positive that arise from this issue. I don’t wish to be accused of glossing over and oversimplifying the issue but I understand that this paper may solicit that response and I humbly acknowledge that any accusations along those lines are warranted at face value.