www.theatreartlife.com: With all of the forward motion in the entertainment industry over the past few years, I just can’t believe that we still live in a culture of “Us vs. Them.” I’m talking about actors, musicians, “the talent,” vs. technicians. Even in my list, I’ve used a term I’m used to hearing: The Talent. Here’s the thing, I am also the talent. The spot ops are also “the talent.” The stage manager is also “the talent.” The deck crew, the A2, the board ops, the wardrobe techs, etc. are all “the talent.”
6 comments:
I would like for technicians to receive the same respect as those who perform but at the same time, I don't expect a lot to change. I think about going into the technical field as becoming a street artist compared to the painters that display their art in a museum. Some people pass you by, refer to your work by general characteristics of your work, and forget to get about it once they pass but it doesn't make my work any less then the work hung in a museum. As an artist we all have differences, our craft is not seen in the same way by everyone. Some people will value your work and others might not notice. I don't believe that there should be a divide between the different art forms but as long as the team is working together and collectively creating art what is the problem? I do think that working alongside rather than divide is a great thing. I agree that it is beneficial for actors to be on a run crew or be involved in a technical element. I, to some extent, believe that it is easier to understand the role that an actor has in a project and I think it is a little harder for an actor to understand the technical elements of a project. I think that both technicians and actors need to empathize more with the work and sacrifices that each other makes to continue making art. You continuously have to work together and listen to one another because in the end both forms of art are hard to accomplish and they need one another to be successful.
This article couldn’t be more right. There is, without a doubt, a culture of divide between performers and technicians. It’s been a culture that has been present for decades and unless we as an industry collectively recognize it and aim to fix it. Theatre is a collaborative effort at its core, and this collaboration most definitely includes that between the techs and actors. I think that carnegie mellon does a fantastic job of encouraging the relationship between these two groups in conservatory and crew calls. Conservatory hour in particular is especially important, because we comment on a show together. The actors are able to hear the technicians’ opinions on the elements of a show, and get to hear all sides of the commentary. The crew calls (though I have had none yet with actors) are going to be fantastic, because it will be a way to get to know the performers on a more personal level, but they get to experience what we do in real life. It’s important to send the performers into the industry appreciating the work that gets done behind the scenes. It is equally as important for us technicians to watch the actors in performances or during tech, so that we may appreciate their craft as well.
Certainly, the language such as “actors on a ten” should change, simply because it is wrong in the context. I also agree that the actor-tech is very beneficial for the industry as a whole. It can cultivate a better understanding of both sides and help all to work more efficiently. I chose to participate in the theatre company as an actor during my university life, because I wanted to work as a crew, although I have not decided what kind of yet, for the theatre in the future. I wanted to know how it feels like to be on stage and directly interact with the audience. This is the reversed situation of the actor-tech. On the other hand, despite the fact that the technicians must be respected, I do not expect technicians to be treated equivalent to the actors. Rather than, it is meaningless to compare how both parts are managed, because it is too different in terms of what kinds of effort to put on, working hours, needed skills, etc. Actors do not work for technicians and technicians do not work for the actors. We work for the show, we work for the audience.
Us vs Them mentality is also super harmful for those of US who have previously been THEM. On the one hand it means we often have to feel like we aren’t “truly” part of the US and have to hide our shame, and—in the case of performer to technician—draws a lot of “oh you couldn’t cut it so you went backstage” talk from performers, technicians, and people outside of the industry entirely. Actually, I’m a manager because I am balls at memorizing and hate being in practice rooms by myself. I function better in a meeting talking about how we’re going to get that set piece flying in the air. My skills are better used backstage, I am happier with Excel then I ever was with Improv, and I’m damn good at making functional paperwork. However, I think my former life as an opera singer has also made me far more intune to my singing-actors needs in a rehearsal room. I don’t waste my time fussing with music stands feet in relation to the chair like I’ve seen some opera stage managers do because I know that I was a “triangle base towards me” singer and my best friend was “triangle points towards me” singer. Instead I waste my time fussing with the thermostat, finding a humidifier, getting a pitcher of water to just slightly below room temperature, the ricolas that make the cough stop and the ricolas that just taste good for dry mouth, and including the current weather and the weather when we leave the building, and so on and so forth. It seems small and stupid, but it’s something that mattered when I was performing, and I have had several people compliment me for it. Finding ways to bridge the gap between the two groups is hugely important, and I think we should invest in doing that.
Last summer I worked at a theatre company where everyone is called an artist. At first I was a little bugged about it, I’m a manager not an Artist. I remember internally rolling my eyes when the Assoc. Artistic Director was explaining that everyone is an artist in their own department, “we are all here to make theatre, theatre is art, we are all artists.” But after a while it stopped being foreign and it helped create an even field. Aside from the actors who believed to be bigger than gods, the air in the company was really amicable. This mindset tore away hierarchies, and fostered a good environment to exchange knowledge, this is a really good example to rising artists. Read: interns. Historically we’ve just called art to what can be seen and felt on stage. But there is art in making it happen. And we are all part of that.
This article is so interesting, and the tone is aggressive and effective, in my opinion. Honestly, I don't see a huge divide, something that makes me cringe every time I hear it. But this is also because, as a Stage Manager, I have honestly never really paid attention to the language surrounding these circumstances and these people. I feel called out, and I'm glad for it. Weidner is right - we defend the breaks for the actors vehemently, and yet we still expect our Designers to cue through the breaks, our Stage Managers to take notes, have discussions, and check backstage during the breaks, etc. I don't think it is any sort of conscious disrespect, but it is underlying and it is there. I agree with Weidner's praise of integrated institutions, and honestly that is one reason why I chose CMU for my grad degree. The fact that everyone here, whether DP or actor/MT, grad or undergrad, is always very much in the same space and experiencing many things together, that the crew is comprised of undergrads who then go on to be actors and MT's, strengths their knowledge and understanding of our jobs, and gives us a way to see them as something beyond the stereotypical "actor" trope they often battle in technicians' eyes.
Post a Comment