Saturday, November 14, 2009
Can you spot who did what in a play?
guardian.co.uk: "It might seem like a stupid question, but when you watch a piece of theatre, do you ever wonder who has done what? There's no real reason why you should. You liked so-and-so's performance, the set looked nice, theatre is a collaborative effort and you enjoyed the show. End of story."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
This is an extremely relevant blog post. I think that most of the credit of a show should the artistic team. It takes the whole team to pull off a good show. And if an aspect is especially good or bad and it needs mention in a review, then the designer and director should be credited. The designer did the design guided by the director's artistic vision. They are both geniuses or both failures.
As for the writer director debate, The director has not say over the script, jut how its interpreted. And with new works, usually the director and writer are working together, so again they should be credited together.
The critics need to pull their heads from their a****. They are supposed to be professionals who know all of this...
This is a really interesting article. It always amazes me how much of a mystery our jobs are to the public. Also I feel like maybe critics should write a first draft of their reviews, have an interview with the director, and then go back and edit. On the other hand of course that opens a whole new can of worms and is probably a horrible idea.
When we wrote reviews for Joe Pino we had to assume that everything we saw onstage was just as the director had wanted. This is wholely optimistic obviously but sometimes its best to just state this was good for X reason, this was ineffective for Y reason. These were the designers and director. Divy the blame as you will.
Director? Writer? Designer? Heck, as an "inside" person in this business I don't always know who to credit/blame for various aspects of a production. Of course, as Cody says the whole artistic team should receive all the credit/blame for a show, but we all know this isn't always the case. The critics like the point their review at one particular person, although they should know better.
I think the article closes with an interesting line about the "conversation" that's to be had between an audience and the production. No aspect of a show should ever be taken for granted--it is the the collaborative nature of theatre that makes it what it is. This conversation is vital.
It is understandable that most people who just watch theatre do not ask these sort of questions. They in general do not know a lot about how theatre is created and who does what. To them it is either all done by the director or by magical elves in the night. So I'm a little curious about who is asking this question. You won't find theatre professionals asking this question normally. Sometimes you will see a artistic director making a decision about a design element or a directing choice, or even in the rare case management influencing some aspect of the show. Of course you could always just ask if you really wanted to know who did what.
I think it would be interesting to learn about the interactions between the director/writer/aristic team/etc after seeing a production, but I don't think it's really necessary to know who did what, or who made the decision to do this or that. With every different production team the interactions between all these people are different and shouldn't adhere to any specifically set rules on how a production team should operate.
Like many who have commented on this article, I think that the distinction that the writer is making is somewhat irrelevant. The creation of a show should be a collaborative process and even a single idea, no matter how small, is not the brainchild of one person. Their ideas were influenced and changed by the ideas and input of others on the team. Everyone, from director to designers, actors, and production personnel is responsible for the integrity of the production, and as such, everyone should get credit and blame. Now, of course this rarely happens, and it does matter a little bit who was responsible for what especially for those industry insiders. Why? Hiring. If someone followed through with a bad idea of theirs and was unable to fix it, people would probably consider hiring them again.
This is really true. Where and how can you tell who did what?
I think it is interesting in conservatory hour alot of the blame (although not much is ever said) is asked of the director as opposed to the designers. The lack of writers, a lot of blame on the directors to in these cases. Again it all seems to go back to directors, and why decisions were made and changes from the script. IT is hard to place blame but after discussing with the teams in conservatory hour it is easy to see who contributed what, how much and the effect they had on the production.
This is definitely the biggest problem with theater criticism. I feel like the best solution would be to simply state the problem with a show without attaching a name to the blame. For example, instead of saying "So-and-so's directing is super lame," one could say, "The presentation of this production is flawed because..." Or, the reviewer could simply admit that he or she is not sure whose choice he or she is criticizing, because even the most astute reviewers are not psychic.
What a great way to bring up something that is so true in today's literature about plays and productions. It is extremely difficult to give credit where credit is due sometimes. Another example that was not brought up was the relationship between the actor and the director. The actor may have a lot of talent, but with the wrong direction can serve a miserable performance. On the other hand, the actor may need to be shaped in just the right way in order to pull off a stunning performance, which can in part be directed towards the director.
What's tough for a theatre critic is that they cannot see who's weight is being pulled where. Did the director change the lighting because he hated the color scheme or did the produce change that tone of a scene because it did not suit him or her? In the arts people with the power, whether it's money or just creative pull, can truly affect the reputation of those around them. For example, a director can have his hands all over the set design that even the designer does not recognize it or even just agree with it. However, I believe that if the final production is good somebody knew what they were doing and got it right or it was truly a collaborative process where people listened to one another because they understand some people are more developed it certain fields than others. If a production is bad you want to point your fingers at somebody to save reputations but who do you point at?
If a critic isn't sure who did something, they should ASK. Not to say they shouldn't have a pretty good guess, but if they are really stumped they should be able to write a quick email and find something out. In some of today's new and inventive productions, the lines between departments are becoming blurred and sometimes can lead to confusion between who's idea it was. Something as simple as a box set is pretty obvious...but a set with an array of tv's that display different relevant media to the specific scene going on can involve a whole group of people.
It’s very interesting to look at the fact that most people don’t’ know exactly who does what in some productions that are put on. I think if the theater community informed audiences about who does what in a performance it would give them a better idea about how we create things on stage. While I agree with Cody that an artistic team should be credit for the success/failure or a production, there are certain aspects that different parts of team know better, and are more responsible for. I think if a conversation began between the audiences and theater community began, it would provide a greater insight to the public at large as to what we as a community do behind the scenes.
I agree with Cody, it is important to note that the director's job is to interpret the script and the critics should be mindful of that when reviewing a show. Was the script itself good/bad - or was it the way in which it was represented. I think that knowing who did what in a show is the critics responsibility to know, they should not be doling out praises or negative comments to people who do not deserve them.
I think this is a really interesting concept. The question of how much information does the audience need to know about the creative process. I think in the example of the article, the critic should have done a little bit of research where he would have found out that the playwright did not write that scene. However, if you turn the tables a bit and look from a design standpoint, I do not think that it is necessary for everyone to know every decision that was made. Yes, there are times when another designer or production team member will make a suggestion that becomes a choice in another department, but at the end of the day, its not important for the audience to know that. For the same reason that we don't sign pieces of scenery with our names, it is all a part of the show.
There have often been cases just in the short time that I've been working on shows that I've been snubbed in a review for a design choice that wasn't my own. I don't mean to place blame, but it's frustrating when critics pin a show's fault on a given member of the team. It may not be a collaborative process all the time, but it is often a consensus. It's very frustrating when critics just decide to call out one person, if for no other reason besides hiring of that given person in the future.
We all hear those horror stories of actors, directors, and designers suddenly not getting work because they got snubbed in a review. While that faulty decision may be one person's fault, decisions on shows are often group ones. Directors do hold a heavy hand, but designers can always rally for a change.
Why can't critics just say "a problem with the show is this visual element," rather than "So-and-so did a horrible job on this particular visual element." Unless they were sitting in every meeting and rehearsal, I don't think the critic has all the power to say such a thing. However, it is the job of a designer to make sure their aspect of the show is executed to a degree of professionalism and artistic worth that it should.
While this question makes sense in the scope of our work, it almost seems a little ridiculous to be bringing fault to anyone in this situation. Part A sucked, and I blame John Smith. If John Smith had nothing to do with Part A, well that's too bad. Obviously there are artistic representations on the line here, but at the same time, I would venture a guess that few and far between are positions hired based on what one critic said about a particular production.
The double standards revealed here in our creative community are kind of amazing. As artists, we bristle against the constraints placed upon us by the copyright holders of the texts we adapt, but, as the article points out, often our successes and failures are attributed to the writer instead of the theater company. It's like the Academy Award for best Director: most of the general movie audience has only a vague understanding of how a Director affects a film. It's easy to look at a movie and say "the costumes were great" or "that actor's performance was weak" but the influence of a Director is more subtle and difficult to define. A good script with bad directing often has the guise of a bad script.
In Foundations, we talked about the responsibility of the critic to researching the play before hand in order to understand the play versus the performance. This is all very well and good, but our creativity and art is so intermixed with everyone else, it's nigh impossible to communicate ownership of ideas.
What a complicated problem.
While members of the theatre community who are "in the business" might look at a production and pull out the various aspects that might be more or less successful, this is not the case for most audience members.
Most theatre viewers will evaluate a piece of theatre as a whole (or maybe separate the technical elements from the acting). Therefore, while you can pass credit/blame on a certain person, in most situations that is fruitless.
Part of the joy of theatre is the collaborative nature, and while someone may be the originator of the idea... it has probably (and hopefully) had input from other members of the creative team.
As a member of a show's crew you are always particularly proud of successful pieces you've had a hand in and credit given where credit due is always appreciated. In my opinion however theater is a collaborative process and picking apart the play name by name fails to address the magic of theater in which a story put together by many hard workers becomes one seamless reality. Even in pieces which allow the seams to be shown theater is all about suspension of disbelief, not wondering who wrote, sew, or painted what. The critic must examine shortcomings and successes, but my hope would be that on any show I work that the audience saves such examinations until after the curtain closes
I am always interested in who was in charge of certain aspects of a play, simply to see how their work has expanded from their previous shows, or how their techniques are working. This may not be the case for audience members who view theater simply for the entertainment, but I'm positive that people in the field pay much closer attention. Everyone seems to have a favorite designer or actor, and look forward to seeing how they approach a production. I agree that a good piece of theater brings all aspects of the artistic team's work into one, successful piece, but that does not mean that people's work is not examined indivually.
I still believe that in some ways the final result that an audience and critics experience is the result of a collaborative effort and it should not be essential to know who is responsible for what. When the members of a creative process sign on to a production, wether they be actors, directors, designers or managers they are all agreeing to come together to produce a single vision. Wether some of the team's voices come through more than others they are still all responsible for what is put onstage, as the audience will assume that all the members of a team came to a consensus about all the choices made and made contributions that supported those decisions. In the end everyone should take credit for every part of a production.
Oh goodness. I'm so sorry, I'm not going to read any of the above comments. Sorry if I repeat anyone's comment, but this is what I think:
I think having a collaborative atmosphere is both a blessing and a curse, because the people in charge usually have to man up and take the blame for things going awol, even when someone else screwed up. For example, I was involved in a play in high school where the lighting designer was criticized because the cues seemed really random and would come in out of nowhere. However, the stage manager would always call the cues incorrectly, so the cues appeared to be random, when really it was the stage manager's fault. So basically, it sucks, but there's little critics can do about that. They just judge what they see...and really, that's just their job.
Post a Comment