Batman Stunt shows and "The Word that changed Theater forever"

A few revelations already about what I've been saying.

As I was talking about development and audience involvement, I realized that was actually a key part of Accessibility.

I am going to need to revisit that principle later because I think what I'm ultimately looking for is a way to build theater that is a part of the community--accessibility not just economically but throughout the life of the theater.

The next item on the list is what I originally termed "authenticity."

I have a problem with using this word for several reasons.

1. It's part of the catch phrase for WMC. "Authentic. Original. Theater."

Which is an awesome catchphrase. But it's WMC's catchphrase.

I'd rather not start a new venture using part of the old terminology.

2. What does it actually mean?

The dirty little secret about that catchphrase and WMC is that everyone had a different idea about what it meant.

The phrase actually came from Brenda a friend of WMC that worked in Nonprofit fundraising/marketing.

That's why it has such a great ring. Original simply meant New Works--everyone agreed on that. But "Authentic?"

It meant different things to different people in WMC. I tried to nail down what Authentic meant to us but I got so tired of hearing everyone else turn it towards to what they liked or wanted it to mean--whenever someone asked me what it meant I just found ways of avoiding any definitive answer.

(One thing I really like about the direction WMC is heading now is that I think as a group they have a clearer more singular vision of the type of work WMC should do is. They can probably all agree on what "authentic" means to them now)

3. Authentic is a buzzword now.

Of course it is. People take classes in how to be on reality TV shows. Even worse, we all know this. So now, any Reality TV, Documentaries, Youtube videos--are all under immediate suspicion and scrutiny. It's fake until proven real these days.

And everywhere around us the word authentic is popping up and is used as high praise.

Which means over saturation and diffusion of meaning for the word "authentic" is just a short while away. Remember when every book/movie/tv special/article was about

"The ____ that changed _____ forever"?

Whatever that means.

So what does Authentic mean to me?

So part of what authentic theater always meant to me was, as a friend of mine recently said, "theater from the gut."

Visceral.

As in not solely reliant on intellectual ideas.

It also meant that to be visceral it required emotionally honest, organic acting.

Part of what it meant to me was, problematic. That is, not a neatly tied up story that serves as a lesson.

But rather a story that is viciously honest with the audience and deals with a honest, human problem and does not give predigested answers designed to "better" the audience.

So let's combine those two ideas and see what we come up with.

We put emotionally honest actors in problematic stories that wrestle with difficult issues.

I suppose what I meant by authentic is "honest"

But "honest theater" is a bit of an oxymoron if you think about it.

And you can't really escape the fact that any storyteller or group of storytellers are going to have a point of view that will color their narrative.

But I don't think that that means we can't have a real struggle. But it can't be too finely choreographed.

When I was in highschool I went to Six Flags Theme Park and saw a "Batman Stunt Spectacular."

Spectacular isn't the word I used to describe it then.

It was a mildy entertaining live show that featured a few stunts that I'm sure were very dangerous to attempt in a time sensitive manner in a live show twice a day, but compared to what we see on tv and in film everyday--not very exciting or impressive. Definitely not spectacular.

Even worse, some of the stunts were obviously faked. Physically different actors doubling each other, smoke and mirror tricks that weren't very tricky, and some BAD stage combat.

Now I don't advocate dangerous physical situations for actors, but I do want to see actors take emotional journeys onstage. Ones with high stakes. In stories that have fair fights--not fixed outcomes.

I'm not talking about improvised endings, but honest stories about real issues. No propaganda.

If everyone walks out of play with the exact same experience and feeling about what they just experienced--I'd rather just skip it.

I believe that if everyone working on a play actually investigates the story that they're telling--writer, director, actor, designer--that they will find an honest way to tell the story each time.

To be sure this requires a vigilant commitment to honesty and self awareness. We must be objective investigators and careful creators; we cannot make ourselves into wise prophets and glamorous heroes.

Authentic Theater:

A theater where genuine conflicts and real human problems are honestly and sincerely wrestled and struggled with by all the artists involved.

Or as Sandy said about acting: Living truthfully in imaginary circumstances.

That's (in my opinion) the most perfect definition of acting and damn close to what I'm getting at...okay...round 2...

Authentic Theater:

A place where imaginary circumstances are both created and lived out truthfully.

Oof.

That's as close as I'm going to get today.

Any feedback or suggestions are welcome.

"I hear a blue heaven crying

Some folks just call it a bird

Call it what you will, I'm heartbroken still

Words are just words

Some call an end a beginning

For right now they'll go unheard

Call it what you will, I'm heartbroken still

Words are just words"

Joe Pug, Call it what you will

A Gift.

Reduction #1

So far if we were to boil all these words words words (why am I so damn longwinded??) down to simple sentences what would we have?

1: I want to create non-proscenium theatre productions using both traditional and nontraditional approaces that are designed to give people a full, 3Dimensional experience.

2. I want to create a deeper relationship between artists and their community by relying on a Pay What You Can ticket price to insure accessibility to all people, and a profit sharing approach to compensating the artists.

3. I want to develop new works and new productions with a holistic, integrated approach to all aspects of a production in an artist driven system.

I also talked about training actors. I think that may actually belong in this section.

Authenticity. Or Problematic.

I'm not really sure what the title is yet.

But I know what I'm after.

I think.

But since I've been entirely too long winded I thought I'd just post this short little bit of thought as a gift--a breather--before I return to my normal long windedness.

You're welcome.

If you're in NYC, enjoy the snow.

Isaac

"Brevity is the soul of wit"

Mercenaries, One night stands, the F word, and my kind of army

NOTE: This entry is too damn long. Seriously. Like Lord of the Rings Extended Director's cut Special Edition long. Read it only if you're really hard core.

Otherwise just note that I believe in committing to producing work and then developing it. Not developing work to see if it should be produced. I want to train actors because I believe in a continuity of style and certain aspects of acting are very important to me and integral to what I want to do. Audiences should be part of development but not in charge of it. Invite them to support your work and the artists involved but don't hand the reins over to them.

That's all.

Whew. I just saved you like an hour of reading time.

You're welcome.

Cue the extended director's cut now.


Okay. This is a looong entry. Sorry. I'm thinking out loud here. But I value your feedback so I hope that you talk back to me on this one.

So we've tackled the first two principles of my rough manifesto, Immersive Theater and Accessibility. And in doing so we've addressed two of the major reasons why attendance at performing arts is down all over the country: Price of tickets and competition from Film and Television.

So let's march on to the third principle:

Brave New Voices, I think I called it. Not happy with that "title." Suppose you could just call it development. But I'm not sure that entails what I'm talking about.

The Pay What You Can model should attack the Price problem and hopefully a focus on creating an Experience rather than just a "Show" should help differentiate our "product" from film and tv, but there is a remaining problem....Risk vs. Convenience.

It's still a lot of time and effort to go to a play. AND, there really is nothing worse than going to a bad play. It's like listening to someone sing off key. Just stomach churning. It's a big Risk.

Well how do we attack this problem?

We develop better art and create a reputation for high quality. And we have to give them a sample that let's them know it's worth their time.

I'm not just talking about just script development. I mean complete development of what we are doing.

Direction, design, script, acting, and the audience involved in the reading, workshop, and production of a piece.

First and foremost, there should be goals and questions set up by all the artists involved and agreed upon beforehand, revisited throughout the process, and used as a guide towards reaching culmination.

Design

With design, I think it's crucial that to create an experience the designers are involved from the initial reading on. Let's have a commitment to that. let them experiment in workshops with the lighting, set ideas, and sound. Let's hear what they have to say in the reading process.

Designers are often hired guns and treated as so. They come in late to the process usually after a show is already slated for production. Why? Let's invest in their artistic ideas and experiment with them as we develop the show! If the playwright is struggling with how to address a problem whose to say a designer won't have a technical answer to an artistic problem that will affect the whole show.

It often feels like almost everyone in a show is a "hired gun." The director, the designers, the playwright, and the actors.

Well I don't want mercenaries, however effective they maybe, I want a real army. One that is loyal, patriotic, and dedicated to the cause. It doesn't have to be the same army every time. But it should be the same army throughout that particular war.

Let's give designers the chance to experiment in workshops before they have to gamble on ideas in a full scale production and let's let them be a real part of the growth of a show. Not just someone who comes in to help shape the final product.

Direction. As my personal area of focus I have to say I have come around to a specific belief.

I believe in monogamous relationships that eventually lead to marriage.

Playwrights and directors should agree to develop scripts together early on.

If there is to be a change in directors as the process as it goes on--I think it should come from either the playwright, the director, or the Artistic producer. And the process should start over.

It maybe sped up at that point, but the process should be restarted.

I firmly believe in the "marriage" of playwrights and directors. And I think that artistic marriage should be well defined, understood, utilized, and nurtured. If a marriage doesn't work, then let's not try and replace a marriage with a one-night stand. What a poor sad substitute for a real relationship.

The playwright, the director, and the artistic producer should be in agreement before a step in the process begins as to what the benchmarks or questions are that must be addressed in this new stage. Only when everyone agrees that they have been addressed adequately would the next step begin.

Again, I think that all the artists involved must, MUST be allowed to FAIL during this process. That's right. I'm using the big ugly "F" word.

What we need more of in theater is FAILURE.

But the right kind of failure.

There's is simply too much pressure on theater artists to "NOT FAIL." One step behind the curtain into the world of TV, Film, and Big budget Theater and it becomes easy for anyone with eyes and ears to see that the emphasis is on "not failing" rather than risking a real achievement.
Well personally I'd rather see artists struggle and reach and grow--then just rehash their greatest hits.

But when it's just a bunch of hired guns coming in for a one night stand and there's immense financial pressure on everyone to not tank the show, or the season, or the theater company with a failure...well that's not a good time to fail, is it?

So let's invest in that time to fail! R&D is crucial but you can't experiment with bias and expectations! You need to be able to truly experiment, to fail, and to look at your results with clear eyes. This is where we should encourage failure! True experimentation.

But wait you say, "Isaac, again you're just saying stuff everyone already knows. Almost every theater already does readings and development."

Well this is where I have some experience my friend. WMC did a TON of readings and I was one of three people leading the charge on that. But I made a lot of missteps and mistakes. As did everyone involved I think. We tried to develop directors and plays and actors at the same time. AND we tried to use it to determine what shows WMC produced. (Wait isn't that what I'm talking about now? Read on and see what I'm talking about)

To be honest, I don't think this ever worked how we wanted it to. With the exception of SHE LIKE GIRLS which has some very specific traits that make it a bit different which I'll list in a bit, I'm not sure we ever did this very well.

But let's jump forward just a bit. It's a brisk October 5th morning, 2009. Bekah Brunstetter and I have just finished a really successful reading of MISS LILLY GETS BONED a few days ago as part of Playwright's week at the LARK and are at the Assessment Brunch.

I tell John Eisner, the producer director and one of the founders of the LARK Play Development Center, that we felt incredibly supported there and were able to really focus on certain goals AND that we never felt any pressure at all--and that was a big part of our success.

I knew part of the reason was because at the LARK they really hound you to lay out specific goals, revisit those goals during the process and change them if needed, and they also beat you over the head that the public reading should be viewed as an invited rehearsal. This is crucial. Lark readings are free and are almost always filled to audience capacity--they are also very high profile in the theater world. But they have a vast and loyal audience that expects to see unfinished work. The audience and the LARK themselves would be disappointed if they saw a finished product or a "show." And while audience members are free to leave comments (on a guided questionnaire), or go up to the playwright or director after the reading, they don't usually hold talk backs at the LARK--saving the writer and the director from hearing about everything they "should" be doing or defending the play.

When I said I thought this was really helpful, John Eisner said:

"There are three types of readings and all of them are fine things to do but they can become deadly when you try to mix them together. There is the reading that is an audition for a production, the reading that is there as cheap season filler (cheap for producers and audience members) for theater companies, and there is the reading that is solely focused on helping the writer develop the script. At the LARK we do the third and because we don't produce plays, there is almost no way for the reading to be anything else."

So basically what I tried to do with WMC is combine ALL three of those things AND also in the beginning we also threw in the idea of using readings to develop actors and directors. Which led directly to some rather disastrous experiences. Throw in the obligatory "attack and defend the play" talkback and no wonder those readings were often drudgery.

There were readings that were often vague auditions for directors--the scripts the weren't the focus of those readings!!! The director was putting on a show for WMC! Not fixing problems with the playwright in the script!

There were readings we did just to try and help build audience--those were usually fine but why did we pretend like they were developmental readings???

All of our biggest successes--To Nineveh, Men Eat Mars Bars, Penetrator, Fresh Kills--we decided to produce because we liked the script before we did any readings!!

All of those shows went through some kind of change or development during rehearsals, some not as much as they needed, but they all were chosen for production before any reading was planned. Like SHE LIKE GIRLS.

That script was actually developed at the LARK first!!

Our reading of the script was an audition, but really more for us as a company for Chisa than for the merits of the script. We had to win her over so we could produce it. The workshop was an audition for her agent and for investors--although there was some refinement on the script during that time, but nothing more than you expect from a new work being rehearsed.

So what was developed during all of this? Excitement about the production on both WMC's side and Chisa's side. Momentum. Jared's directorial vision about the script, the actors, and the design. His relationship with Chisa. The cast. Both in WMC's casting choices and the actors that were involved in more then one part of the process got to develop their handle on the material. Audiences came to the reading, the workshop, and then excitedly told people about the upcoming production of this awesome play they had seen developed!

No wonder She Like Girls is so successful both artistically and commercially!

Can a producing company develop a script?

I think so.

But I think that there has to be a commitment there on both sides. I think the script audition part of the process has to go out the window. That should be handled in a submission process.

I don't to create another "development hell" (definition: a process where scripts go with the promise of an eventual production and end up stuck in a cycle of readings and workshops never quite satisfying the producing powers that be) but I think there is a smarter way to handle this.

Just make the commitment for a small scale workshop production from the get go.

The director and the playwright should be in charge of when the play is ready to move from readings and private workshops to that small workshop production.

They will have deadlines and commitments to live up to in the development process beforehand (because those things actually help spur progress) but they won't "audition" for a full production until they're ready. That "audition" will be actually be a small scale production so the playwright and director have no reason to rush into a large production before it's ready. If the producer doesn't want to go all in--the work was still produced the playwright can use that production as means of attracting other possible producers.

You don't usually cast people off of cold readings. You usually hold callbacks. Imperfect method, but certainly better than just a cold read. Because hopefully people are prepared and rehearsed. Hopefully, you've been clear and open with them and they know what you're looking for by that final callback.

I believe that this process could work because it still has the pressure of an audience watching it at certain stages which I do believe is crucial, but I feel like letting the director and the playwright choose when to move to that "audition" stage helps relieve the pressure. I also think that by the time that audition stage arrives all the parties involved will already know what the fate of the show is going to be.

Also, this process would put the playwright in charge of the development, but also make them really seek out and develop a relationship with a director. It makes the director really create a complete vision/mission statement for the show. It forces the producers to either choose material that is already developed or to commit to or commission work from artists they know, admire, trust, and want to support.


Actors.

I, of course, now look back with great embarrassment on my idealistic intention of using script developmental readings to also help actors develop. What a disastrous attempt that was!

But there is something else that I do believe needs to be addressed.

I think it is important that there be a cohesive style among the actors, a common artistic language between the actors and the director, and an artistic standard that is expected of the actors.

It's a delicate subject, I know.

I'm not saying that I think my preferred approach to acting or that any specific type of acting is better than any other. But I do think it is important to make a some specific choices here.

I like to watch a lot of different styes of theater. I enjoy watching all different styles of actors too.

But I'd be lying if I said that plays that had organic, unforced, emotionally charged performances didn't do a heck of a lot more for me than plays that don't have that.

Faking it just leaves me cold. Even if you fake it well enough that I buy it enough to be moved by it--it's just not a substitute for the real thing.

We have to train actors. That's all there is to it.

If an actor comes in and is able to organically, honestly, give an emotionally charged performance and they have different training--no one will care as long as they doesn't disrupt other people's process--and the workshops will let us know if someone is a disruptive presence.

I'm not saying we only use actors that we have trained, but I think that there are two reasons to train actors.

One: you are helping make sure that there actors who work how you want to work and can achieve what you're looking for. Meisner, Kazan, Strasberg, Clurman, Grotowski, Brook, Bogart, and Stanislavski all did or do it. Why shouldn't we?

I don't believe I am God's gift to teaching but I do believe I can teach people a lot about acting and that I (like everyone listed above did) can grow and refine myself as a teacher. I know what I like in an actor, who's to say I shouldn't start cultivating those traits? Am I able to teach actors everything they need to know? No. But I know that I can help them learn what I need them to know.

Two: very few things are more commonly detrimental to a production than fundamentally different styles in acting onstage. Nothing hurts like watching actors with vastly different acting styles try to get through a scene onstage.

They must be trained. But not just by "doing the work." Nope. That as I explained above must be a seperate operation.

Audience.

Let them be a part of everything--but don't give them control over the process.
Let them be a voice. Let them come and see the work in various stages. But only when appropriate. Don't let mob rule dictate your work. But don't ignore it either.

Don't build a long list of subscribers that run the theater instead of you.

We are not there to be the servants of the audience, to obey their every whim.

Let them be part of the family. Encourage them to adopt your company, take care of the individuals in it. Get to know them. Invite them to become a patron who is connected to the people behind the art. Who doesn't want to help artists?

Let there be food and wine. People who eat and drink together become friends. The LARK offers free coffee and cupcakes at their readings--it's brilliant. You don't eat and drink among strangers or enemies. You eat and drink among friends. As a good friend of mine said a while a long time ago, "I just don't believe in theatre without cocktails." You know what? I don't either.

Let's make friends--real true friends--with our audience. That type of friendship that supercedes family because it's based on love and respect instead of fate and duty.

Friends like that may argue and fight, but they tell each other the truth and they support and love each other. And they listen to each other.

If the audience feels like they are part of the art--they will support it. They will hardly have a choice but to support it.

However, while I think the audience should be used to help development--I think it needs to be clear that this about appropriately participating in something--not an extra thing we do for our audience or certain patrons.

We invite them to be a part of the process, but we don't do the process for their benefit. That's fake.

Let the watching the process of the art be a part of supporting the art.

Which would you rather have on your side?

A group of mercenaries gathered for a one night stand afraid of both of failure and or doing anything that would offend their far off masters?

Or an army trained together, working cohesively together in concert to achieve something wonderful for their family and friends?

I know what I choose.

"Our legacy is our friends.

We write our history onto them and they walk with us through our days like time capsules, filled with our mutual past, the fragments of our hearts and minds.

Our friends get our uncensored questions and our yet-to-be reasoned opinions...they get the very best and they are stuck with the absolute worst we have to offer.

Our friends get our rough drafts. Over time, they both open our eyes and break our hearts" Steven Dietz

A House of Prayer for all People

About 2 years ago I saw "my theatre."

It was a big building around 2nd ave and 23rd st. Empty. Some construction permits on the boarded up windows. Peeked inside through a tiny crack in one of the boards. Big empty space inside. Graffiti. High ceilings.

I actually tracked down the owner. He didn't really want to talk to me at all. Said they were turning it into apartments.


Would have been a good space for a theatre.


But the weird thing was that it wasn't the empty unused space that caught my attention.


It was a big engraving on the side of the building that caught my attention.


"A House of Prayer for all People"


Of course my religious upbringing responded to this.


But beyond that resonance, what a beautiful sentiment. A place where everyone could come and pray.


The building used to be a synagogue, turns out they moved downtown about 6 blocks to a new facility.


What I liked most about that verse was that it didn't mention God or a specific religion. Rather it was religiously unspecific completely except that it was specifically open and welcome to all.


That's what made me take a close look at that building. That idea. A holy place for everyone.


I've always been partial to churches converted into theaters.


SO.....


That's part why the idea of making theatre accessible to everyone is so important to me.


Unlike movies, music, and fine art, theater just doesn't have the same level of access to everyone.


Movies can be rented for far insanely cheap prices these days, downloaded for even less, and checked out from the public library. There are free screenings and plenty of cable and non-cable channels on TV that show recent movies. Fine art is seen not just in public museums, but in photographs, prints, re-prints, and shows open to the public. And even online in virtual tours.


Music is virtually free online or at the very least economically accessible to nearly everyone.


These art forms are vastly more accessible to more people in every way to theater.


As I said two posts ago, I lamented all of this to Dan in MY AWESOME CONVERSATION WITH DAN KITROSSER (all caps used again to indicate the high level of awesomeness), and I said I was afraid that this fact was going to further weaken theatre or turn it into another pastime for the rich and upper middle class.

That's Dan brought up an idea so simple and obvious it dropped my jaw.



Pay What You Want.



His friend Rebecca Wallace-Segall runs a writing lab for young writers. They operate on a sliding pay scale that operates on the honor system. It works.


Fast forward through 3 days of furious internet research by yours truly, and now I believe that this is direction that things are headed.

I think that this is a big key to making theatre accessible.


It's not the whole solution, and it's a non-profit solution in many ways--this model doesn't work for expensive products, like Broadway shows--but I think it's part of what I want to do.


Again, just like doing non-proscenium theater, it's not new. It's being done in a lot of places, in theaters and in other business (even regular for profit business) and it's making money. In fact it's helping people make more money than they were. In the restaurant business it's actually proving to be an effective way to expand and improve profits.


People respond to the fairness of it. While the average price paid goes down a little bit, the amount of people buying goes way up. And no one wants to be the asshole who doesn't pay what it's worth.


Would this work for theater that costs a lot to produce? No.


But can this work for theater with non-extraordinary costs? Theater that doesn't rely on spectacle or big salary film/tv stars to succeed?


I think so.


This only part of making theater accessible to everyone.


It also requires actually reaching out to non-typical audience members.

It also means artistically creating art that is not just an inside joke for the in-crowd.

It means that we must hold ourselves again to the idea that people must connect to and experience what we are trying to communicate.

Last night I was talking to my good friend Alex Smith in LA--by the way Pay What You Want is being done more and more by theaters on the west coast--He reminded me that everything I am saying now was said by Brook, Grotowski, and countless others in the 60's and earlier. They too decried competing with film and tv. They created experiences.

I think what I am talking about is a convergence of all these qualities.

I want to take what works--what is effective--from experimental theater and use it to empower more traditional--more accessible--theater to become something new and wonderful.

Not new in its individual parts, but new in the convergence of these qualities.

Some questions I'd like to pose:

What's the difference between a grand scale Opera, a Las Vegas Show, the Circus and so called "real" theater?

Who is theater produced for?

Why does theater cost so much?

Is that cost fixed?

Since Broadway makes and loses millions of dollars in a high risk environment, and it succeeds most often with big spectacles, broad comedies, and star vehicles, why should we expect it to change?

Here's a final question that pertains to the basis of the Pay What You Want model:

If we want audiences to entrust us with 2 hours of their time, a chunk of their hard earned money, their respectful patronage, their focus and interest in what we're doing--why shouldn't we trust them to do right by us?

We ask that they give us money, the results of their best efforts as workers, in exchange for the results of our best efforts as artists. What are we afraid of? That they won't appreciate it for what it costs? That they won't value it as it should be valued? That they won't appreciate the so-called "higher" nature of our art?

Well why would that happen?

Is that because our values are better than theirs?

(get ready for the cheesy metaphor moment)

Our "gods" and our "religions" are better then theirs? Our "people" are "better"--more educated, refined, aware--then those people that would not appreciate our art fully?

Why can't we trust them in the way that we ask them to trust us?

This idea must be right, because it scares the hell out of me. And it makes me absolutely giddy with hope and fear.

But it relies on trust, community, accessibility, and an equal understanding and exchange of value between artists and their audience.

It cuts right to the heart of what is different about non-profit and for profit theater.

It relies on the same idea that a church, a synagogue, or a temple would.

A temple for everyone to pray at.

Cue the inspirational quote.

"And I've come to meet the legendary takers

I've only come to ask them for a lot

Oh they say I come with less

Than I should rightfully possess

I say the more I buy the more I am bought

And the more I'm bought the less I cost"

Joe Pug, HYMN #101

READ ME FIRST!

Hi!

If this is your first time here you should start with with either the first post, NEW BEGINNING, or really you can start with the second post, ROUGH DRAFT MANIFESTO.

Then work your way up.

If you like what I'm talking about--comment on it.

If you don't like it--go ahead and argue with me.

If you want to hear more--follow the blog and check back regularly.

I've got a lot on my mind and I've decided to investigate, argue, and clarify what I'm thinking about here.

The fact that I think best outloud is why I've chosen to make this a public conversation--so, converse with me! Argue, decry, question, or maybe even confirm what I'm saying.

So, Follow! Comment! Converse!

(and thanks!)

Daniel's Problem/ no more tears

I feel like Becket. Not Beckett. Becket, the guy Richard Burton played in BECKET. The sudden convert whose values flip. A man committed to no values only to having the ability to accomplish whatever task is at hand at any cost, he suddenly finds himself a true blue believer in something and gives everything to that cause.

So many things I railed against are coming back to me know as the right path--or at least part of the answer to these burning questions.

I'm really excited about a possible answer to one of these questions

But first:


MY AWESOME CONVERSATION WITH DAN KITROSSER.

It's gets all caps, because Dan is awesome.

I have to go into this because it's too important to me. So my next post ,which may also go up today, will have to address this possible "answer" separately.

For those of you that don't know Dan, Dan is a wonderful playwright, composer, lyricist, and actor. He works a lot in children's theater and with Rabbit Hole Ensemble. He is a wonderful playwright--he writes plays/stories for children as well as "adult" plays.

Dan was just as fired up as I am about what I am trying to define as important in theatre. He's all in.

He also introduced me to a wonderful new word: asymptote.

You'll just have to forgive my lack of tech savvy and follow this link to see a visual representation of what I am I talking about: http://www.richwidows.com/art/asymptote.jpg

Here's my imperfect recital of Dan's layman's definition: It's a curve that approaches the zero line of an axis, getting closer and closer to it, but never hits that zero line. It doesn't ever touch it. No intersection.

Look at the link again.

You can see in those links that those colored lines get closer and closer but never touch. They become almost parallel.

That's what most theater is or tries to be. Get close, but do not touch.

What I want, what Dan wants--is not to throw out storytelling or narrative--but to embrace the problems within the story and in the telling of the story. Intersect.

He gave a wonderful example of when he saw the Normal Heart. In a crucial scene, one character threw a milk carton down and it exploded all over the stage and for the rest of the play everything was covered in spilt milk. They didn't clean it up--there really wasn't anyway for them to without stopping the play for an hour. Everyone just had to deal with it. If you know the play, then you understand what a simple but powerful metaphor this is.

That's an example of a beginning of a moment where the lines of an asymptote touched. At least within the performance. That's a good place to start.

Because they embraced the problem. They didn't try to contain it. They didn't clean it up. Or ignore it. They didn't dump milk all over the audience in some sort of childish and cruel attack--but they embraced the problem of the play. In a way that film and television would have a hard time doing, by the way.

I remember working on a scene where an actress did something similar breaking a plastic glass on the floor instead of the trash can where she was supposed to.

The rest of the scene became about me picking up the (plastic) glass pieces while trying to deal with her. It was fantastic. Far superior to anything we'd rehearsed, because we embraced the problem instead of trying to ignore it. I learned more about what was happening in that scene than I had in a month of working on it because I had a real problem to deal with.

Hell I have million examples like this. We all do. "I was there the night the set/costume/prop/lights didn't work...so and so stopped the show because...an audience member did this and then..."

Reality intruded upon the unreality.

The lines intersected.

My friend Erin McCarson also said something about this to me recently--create a problem onstage and then deal with it.

Well goddam. Isn't that what theater is supposed to be?

What's the problem? Embrace it. Now honestly try and deal with it. Not in a completely predetermined way, but in an honest living way. I suppose Meisner would call this living truthfully under imaginary circumstances. But I think sometimes we back away from the problem part.

Well, unless God hands me a new stone tablet with fresh set of rules/answers to preach to the masses, I think it's time we stopped trying to preach and teach to one another and embraced real problems onstage honestly and with respect to different points of views and values and then try to deal with these problems.

Otherwise, what are we saying?

Come see this play because it will make you cry? Laugh? Angry?

Well, only one of those options is really attractive isn't it?

And stand-up, sketch comedy, sitcoms--those are all easier, cheaper options than spending 2 hours in a theater.

Maybe when I said "authentic" what I really meant was "problematic."

I think maybe that's closer to what I'm searching for.

Maybe it's time for us to stop giving pat answers or just crying out.

I don't want to watch sad stories because they're sad. I don't watch things just so I can get mad about something.

I'm not interested in sadism or masochism as guiding principles or methods in art.

I read/watch/investigate stories because I'm interested in the problems that effect my world/life and because there is an empathy/common bond/resonance there that I relate to.

I want empathy and understanding. Not screeds.

No more crying for the sake of crying. Let's get to the problem. Isn't that what we're really interested in?

(Get ready for overreaching, incredibly cheesy metaphor...)

I want to spill the milk, and then force both performers and audience to deal with the spilt milk, and not just sit there and cry over it.

(oof. That was cheesy...)

Then Dan kinda blew my mind when he told me something I hadn't really thought of.

Children's theater usually has most of the things I am talking about in it. It's much freer, it freely interacts with it's audience in all kinds of ways. It's always about dealing with a problem.

He told me about the preshow of his one man Sleepy Hollow/Ichabod Crane show. Before the show he went through the audience changing from character to character telling people in the audience in first person what each character knew about the Headless Horseman and whether that character thought the Horseman existed. Then before the show started he asked the audience as whole whether they believed the Headless Horseman existed. The audience would answer. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Then Ichabod begins the show proclaiming he doesn't believe in him.

After the show the kids would ask Dan if he believed in the Headless Horseman, and then explain--often struggling with their answers and their reasoning--why they did or didn't believe in him. They had to defend their answer.

Well done sir. Problem embraced by the performer and problem experienced by the audience. And while the path of the story was laid out beforehand--after all Ichabod's point of view doesn't change--there was an uncharted, unscripted element to the show. One that wasn't just a fun flourish or something forced upon the audience, but was actually getting to the heart of the matter. It didn't add to the show--it made the show about what Sleepy Hollow is really about--do you believe? and if not, how do you explain what happens? Take out that and what is sleepy hollow is about? A spooky story? Colorful characters? So what? Who cares?

Children's theater. It gets a bad rap I think because it tends to embrace silliness and overacting. Shortcuts.

But I've seen performances where the actors actually embraced the values and circumstances of the play--and it was beautiful and moving. And thought provoking.

It's easy to get away with a lot of shortcuts artistically because children are accepting and easy critics--but that's our fault for not giving them what they deserve.

But maybe that's where we should start looking. Why is normal for someone in a children's musical to do certain things and accept certain things and not okay or normal to do those things in adult theater?

Look at any Shakespeare play in it's original day.

Closer to our traditional theater or to children's theater?

If you got to experience International WOW's production of SURRENDER last fall you know how powerful "playing" can be.

To describe that production would take too long--you can read about it elsewhere. Just google International WOW and Surrender.

Suffice to say it was an immersive, playful, interactive, and powerful experience.

They had you leave everything you brought in behind, dressed you, trained you, played war with you, played Hero comes home with you, Hero dies with you. Mourn the Hero. Struggle with what the Hero has lost. All the time putting you into the experience. Literally. In very smart and non attacking ways.

This is the type of theater that when described to me sounded awful and invasive. If I had read about it beforehand, I might not have gone.

But I loved it.

I am learning like dear old Becket to find a new faith.

An imperfect production ultimately--because at the end they tried to revert to standard "look at this this story/image" theater way too late in game--but a wonderful production nevertheless.

And a production that could NEVER have happened in a proscenium theater.

To go back to MY AWESOME CONVERSATION WITH DAN, it was incredibly inspiring and helpful on many fronts.

But then I brought up the problem of making theater Accessible to everyone--

Well that's when Dan really blew my mind...

BUT I'm going to have to leave you here for a bit.

And since I've been ending these posts with incredibly cheesy quotes/sentences, I think I'll just make that a tradition.

I'm sure you've seen those Levi commercials with voice over quoting Walt Whitman's Pioneers! O Pioneers! poem?

Yep. Looked it up because of a commercial. For blue jeans.

Poem.

Commercial.

Cheese-or-ific!

(Somewhere my father is crying)

Here's part of it, I'll put a link to the whole poem at the end.

Pioneers! O Pioneers!

Come my tan - faced children,

Follow well in order, get your weapons ready,

Have you your pistol? have you your sharp - edged axes?

Pioneers! O pioneers!

For we cannot tarry here,

We must march my darlings, we must bear the brunt of danger,

We the youthful sinewy races, all the rest on us depend,

Pioneers! O pioneers!

O you youths, Western youths,

So impatient, full of action, full of manly pride and friendship,

Plain I see you Western youths, see you tramping with the foremost,

Pioneers! O pioneers!

Have the elder races halted? Do they droop and end their lesson, wearied over there beyond the seas?

We take up the task eternal, and the burden and the lesson,

Pioneers! O pioneers!

All the past we leave behind,

We debouch upon a newer mightier world, varied world,

Fresh and strong the world we seize, world of labor and the march,

Pioneers! O pioneers!

We detachments steady throwing,

Down the edges, through the passes, up the mountains steep,

Conquering, holding, daring, venturing as we go the unknown ways, Pioneers! O pioneers!

Here's the link the entire poem: http://whitman.classicauthors.net/PoemsOfWaltWhitman/PoemsOfWaltWhitman3.html

With Apologies to Brecht, the gloves are coming off

Alright.

First let me say from the bottom of my heart, thanks to all who read and/or responded to the previous posts.

Thank you.

Your support and investment in this "moment of clarity" is wonderful--I am moved more than I would normally care to admit.

Thanks.

So I want to think out loud a bit more and start refining exactly what I believe in here. I think best out loud and in conversation so feel free to talk back, argue, push, and question what I am saying.

I've never done anything in my life right the first time so read on with forgiveness and a keen eye for my missteps.

So,

Immersive Theatre

First off, there has to be a better title or term for that. I don't know what that is yet, but Immersive just doesn't have quite the ring I'm looking for. Feel free to throw out some suggestions.

Secondly, I'm not talking about just wholeheartedly committing to doing theatre in the round and/or environmental theatre. Or blowing up theatre as we know it and only doing crazy ass experimental theatre.

I'm talking about both.

I've always been big believer in doing theatre in non-proscenium forms because it forces the audience to PAY ATTENTION.

Brecht--who I admire even though his principles and artistic goals are essentially contrary to mine--believed that we should prevent people forgetting they are at a play. He wanted them to judge, argue, and confront things in the theatre. Not just sit and watch something happen far away from them.

So far so good.

He also believed a bunch of other things that I will self-righteously call garbage because I think that they exemplify the worst impulses in art. He thought that art should be intellectual, purposeful, and political.

In my book, my personal taste, in what I believe this is so close...and so far from what art needs to be doing. As someone who grew up in a southern pentecostal church with a long line of ministers and missionaries behind me--I hate preaching. And I hate arguments where the outcome is already decided or is only dependent on personal beliefs. Hate it.

If you like that sort of thing, good for you. Variety is the spice of life I suppose.

To get real nerdy/artsy fartsy (brace yourself) and quote Keats:

Truth is Beauty and Beauty is Truth.

If the outcome is already determined then why are we doing this? Isn't an honest investigation better than a debate of lopsided rhetoric?

Maybe things were different when Brecht was doing his thing. But in this age of claustrophobic information where we would rather text message then email someone, email rather then call, call rather then sit down face to face with someone--distance and information is not what we need.

I don't know a damn thing about Arnold Bennett but I heard a quote by him years ago that resonated so deeply within me it that it became part of the foundation of everything I do and everything I think about art.

There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.”

Add to that this from Carl Jung:

“There can be no transforming of darkness into light and of apathy into movement without emotion"

So...NO, I do not want to just go off the edge into intellectual experiments in theatre.

I don't want to chain myself or theatre to a cold objective eye or purpose.

I want to take everything we have learned and are learning from the experimental and the avant garde and mix it back up with traditional theatre. Not in a deconstructionist way, but in a construction of a total experience.

I love theatre in the round because it's limitations and it's nearness force a creation of a total experience. If Hamlet has his back to us as he as he says "To be or not to be" it can no longer just be a 2 dimensional moving image. It can not just be about the exclamation of those words.

We have to create a 3 dimensional Hamlet.

It requires two things I love in art: a personal investment in the art and behavior.

If Juliet has her back to us when Romeo proclaims his love, her reaction must LIVE in her body for us to sense it. And we as the audience must INVEST in what is happening. We have to care. And that care will carry the weight of Juliet's plight at the end when she puts that dagger in her chest. And that empathy is what will affect our lives.

Sorry Mr. Brecht.

But I do want to take somethings from Brecht.

I want do want to confront the audience. Not necessarily in a jarring, attacking way, but in an inviting, effective way.

I don't want to just do DEATH OF A SALEMAN in the round or in a real house, I want to use all the power of live performance, design, and experience to make the audience Live both the illusion that Willy creates and chases after and the crash of reality that destroys that illusion in Biff.

And yes, I also want to experience and create new pieces as well, that are not just altered or expounded on in this approach but are created to take full advantage of it.

I don't want to attack or abuse the audience or that play, but I want people to feel like they have lived that play. When they come to that play it should just be something that is watched. It should be experienced. Experienced because it was too close, too unpredictable, too enveloping, and too focused on--maybe this is the key verb I'm looking for--giving them the experience of that play.

I believe in not underestimating your audience. But I also think that intellectual ideas without empathy and emotion just turn into gobbledygook to those not involved in the creation of those ideas.

I want to communicate with everyone. I despise elitism. I don't care about theatre for theatre people. Or art for other artists. Or critics.

So what I am talking about--and this is not anything entirely new or original--is bridging the gap between the traditional and the experimental.

But what is new, for me at least, is that I don't want this sometimes. I want to do this all the time, every time.

And I don't want to do it as an afterthought or part of a package--like an extra detail that comes off more as cute then as part and parcel of the experience.

I want it to be a goal and a guiding perimeter from the start. I want everything I create to be immersed in the principle of creating an experience for the audience.

I don't see why anyone making the effort to come to a theatre, with all of the planning that requires, and all of the sacrifice of easier pleasures--should get any less.

And if I'm going to give any less than that, then I don't see why I shouldn't just go to film school and work in television and movies. It would feel more honest then creating something easily outmatched by something cheaper and more effective--and then pressuring people to come to it because they "should."

Theatre should be more then just another "should" in peoples' lives.

I just can't help feel like sometimes theatre feels a charity. That or a vegas show. That's unfair and sweeping generalization, perhaps, but sometimes it feels true. It should never feel true. Never.

It should be necessary.

The only things in life that we get to control are our perspective and our behavior. Everything else is left to fate.

But perspective and behavior are powerful, powerful tools.

Immersive theatre will require a commitment to creating, discovering, living, and guiding both of those things.

An expansion of our powers as artists.

It's time to take the gloves off of theatre.

Not to fight, but to touch, to give.

Oof.

Well, it can't get much cornier then that last sentence. Let's try and butch it up a little with some Jay-Z.

"Thank God for granting me this moment of clarity

This moment of honesty
The world'll feel my truths
Through my Hard Knock Life time
My Gift and The Curse
I gave you volume after volume of my work
So you can feel my truths"

Rough Draft Manifesto

I realized on friday that there were some very specific things in theatre that I really care deeply about and I want to dedicate my life to the creation, improvement, proliferation, and the service of these things. A lot of hard work ahead of me.

The good news? I am not the only one interested in these things individually, but I am the only I know of that is passionate about putting all of them together.

The best news? I believe that I am also at my best as a director, a producer, and a leader when I am working on these achieving these things.

So what are these things, you ask?

First, let's stop here for just a second and ask ourselves a very big WHY?

WHY should people go to the theatre today?

People don't go to theatre anymore just to see a story unfold before their eyes.

They go because there is the thrilling chance of failure. We know all about out takes, special effects, and stunt doubles. But is live theatre then any better than watching broadcasts of live sports? Live concerts? Reality tv? We may be hungry for stories where the outcome and the execution is uncertain, but documentary films and reality tv are filling that void.

Higher quality stories? More intelligent, in depth, literate storytelling? Maybe once upon a time. There have been a whole spate of high quality TV dramas (and a few comedies) that have superb acting, writing, and direction. Some of them are on basic cable. Essentially free. Certainly cheaper then tickets to LEGALLY BLONDE. Meanwhile plays are getting shorter in general (90 minutes is the standard now), and, aside from AUGUST OSAGE COUNTY, what's the last grand ambitious three act drama you saw? The combination of the economy limiting what people will spend on entertainment and rising production costs are pressing producers and audiences to choose shows focused more on entertainment than substance. From Broadway's jukebox musicals, to cult movie remakes on Off Broadway, to the Off-Off Broadway Bad Play festival, there is a glut of silly, shocking, guilty pleasure theatre.

As a producer of fuckplays, I've certainly been a part of this. I don't mind it. I like this. There is something about live performance that helps both performers and audiences accept a broader range of silliness. Nothing wrong with that. But this new, altered form of vaudeville is not what I am passionate about. And these various variations on the variety show and sketch comedy maybe worthwhile but they are not exclusive to theater's capabilities. TV and film can do that too, and they are doing that more and more.

Spectacle? Don't get me started. Rare is the spectacle that truly moves people and resonates in them beyond the moment. Impressive does not necessarily equal great. It's how perfectly the "spectacle" communicates something to the audience. As simple as a single light on an object on stage or as grand as a giant moving set piece--how well does it help communicate that core idea? And again, how are you going to compete with the spectacle of Lawrence of Arabia, Fight Club, Saving Private Ryan, Lord of the Rings, The Godfather, The Dark Knight, Star Wars, The Life Aquatic, any movie made by the Cohen Brothers, or even with just a close up shot of a beautiful movie star?

I think people go to be a part of something.

And I think that a lot of the theatre we are doing today does not do enough to fulfill that need.

I want to fulfill it.

The things I believe in:

1) Immersive theatre.

That is, theatre in the round, thrust, runway, environmental, site specific, interactive, or any other type of theatre that creates an overall experience that the audience enters into. I am no longer confident in the ability of traditional proscenium theatre to consistently compete with film, television, and online media without burdening itself with bigger and bigger artistic design spectacles that crowds out the story, real creativity, and overwhelms budgets.

I'm not talking about throwing away straightforward stories and plays. But I want create a complete immersion in the play that begins as soon as possible--hopefully as soon as you enter the lobby. I've been apart of many productions that did this or some of this and I've seen plenty of productions that did some or all of this--but I want to strive for all of this--every single time. I'm tired of dipping a toe in or splashing my feet in the water--I want to dive all the way in every time. I want approach every aspect of every show with the goal of "How can this strengthen and complete the experience of this production?" Instead of adding in those moments that break the fourth wall or conventional staging as embellishments to a production--I want those moments, those ideas, to be the production.

And I do think the first step is throwing away the proscenium. Difficult? Yes. But the challenges that this creates require an innovative and kinetic approach that elevates the work to a special height.

Furthermore, there have been a lot of theatre artists and innovators that believed in Brecht's edict that conventional theatre lulled audiences into blithely accepting what they saw instead of questioning it and challenging it. They were not changed because they knew it was just a story. He wanted them to be forced to remember they were watching a play.

Well, when you experience theatre in the round or in an environmental or site specific performance you are always aware of being part of an audience. When the performance happens all around you, you are intently aware of everything that is happening. Your fellow patron's reactions is part of the show. You are not watching something. You are part of something.

Designers are forced to only use what is absolutely necessary. Actors have no place to hide what is really happening. If their performance is not completely honest, the audience will know. Directors must be make sure the events are not just seen--not everyone will be able to see it--the events must be felt and realized by the whole audience, not just shown to them.

I don't want to compete with what film and television can do. I want to give theatergoers something that they can't get anywhere else. I don't just want to tell them a story, I want to give them an experience.

2) Brave New Voices.

I want to focus on new works and new takes on established works.

I want to help actors, directors, and designers grow and stretch and push themselves in new ways. I want to push them to create that immersive experience with me. It will require innovation, courageous honesty, and tremendous determination.

People are hungry for something more than jukebox musicals, cult movies onstage, formula musicals, and B-list TV/Film actors and celebrities in lackluster productions that have feel of an old rock band on a reunion tour--coasting to the bank on their previous reputations on not their current talents and present efforts.

There is renaissance of new playwrights happening in NYC and there is a wealth of new directors, actors, and designers that are hungry for the chance to excel. I want to be a part of helping them excel.

3) Accessibility.

I'm tired of theatre that costs too much.

I'm tired of art that costs too much.

I hate the fact that art and culture in this country are doled out like extra prizes to the rich and well connected. Art should be for everyone. Everyone needs it.

When pop music videos are your culture's most viewed and discussed popular art form--that's an imbalance that needs to be addressed.

As someone who didn't grow up with money and doesn't have money now--I'm tired of theatre being out of reach for me and those who would benefit the most with real access to it. Who needs their horizons broadened more? The Wall St. investment banker or the single mom living on Section 8? I say both.

I don't want to take theater away from people with money, but I want to take away the monopoly that people with money have on theater. I want a non-profit theatre that actually serves the entire community it belongs to.

4) Authentic.

I want to work on shows I believe in. Shows that are grounded in something true. Shows that have been properly developed, have a clear, focused experience to communicate to the audience. It does not have to be linear or even "finished" or even logical, but it has to be communicable and the focus of the entire theatrical experience has to be about making that communication as effective as possible.

It cannot be a lesson, a message, or agitprop. I work in theatre, not in the creation of after school specials, the church, and I am not a lobbyist for political/social action. I love politics and I am passionate about social issues. But I am an artist, not a politician, and I believe that is an important difference. While an audience should experience the author's intended point of view, great art should ask courageous, unsettling questions of the audience and themselves instead of just doling out easy answers or trading in shocks for honesty.

When a truth is revealed to us in or through a work of art, it is something self evident that the artist and the audience should discover together.

Discoveries, struggles, revelations--that's what I'm looking for. Not an allegory that teaches me how to live my life.

The communication of an idea, a feeling, or a state of mind that can be either understood or experienced emotionally by its audience. If it is truly great art then the full, specific understanding of the scope of the artist's idea/feeling/state of mind could only be communicated in this specific way. I know this isn't how everyone understands, defines, and critiques art. But it is how I see, understand, and judge art.

5) Courageous.

Not reckless or foolish, but unrestrained by fear. I believe that the main difference between an artist and an entertainer is courage. An entertainer prefers magic tricks and jokes to revealing troubling, difficult problems that do not have easy solutions. I believe in good taste and I believe that a scalpel is often more effective than a sledgehammer. But I will stake my life and my career on the vitalness of unrestrained free speech in the theatre. I believe that today there is no excuse for anything but absolute commitment and absolute courage in the choices we make in the theatre today. If you are going to say something do not mumble, undercut, edit, or soften it. Say it clearly and loudly. Besides, you're not going to say or do anything in the theatre that you can't watch every night on cable television. Our need for honesty has surpassed any need for prudish modesty.

Let's see film and television compete with that.

That's it. That's the rough draft of my manifesto.

Don't have all the details ironed out yet. Don't have the message finely honed yet. Don't even have a name for this new venture yet.

But I have a goal, a destination. I have my north star. And I know what I want, I have begun to ask where, when, why, how--soon I will begin to work on the where, when, why, and how. I am confident that I will discover the answers along the way.