Convener: Gerard bell
Participants: Liza, Laura, Robert, Tilly and one or two others.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The enquiry could be, equally, in inverted commas so that it becomes a direct question: “Which job should I do?”
How can I make it, this question, this choice, Iess angsty?
What is the angst about?
Does it lie within – juggling ‘the needs of life’ against the artistic pursuit ?
How you project (or justify ) what you do (decide) to others is an important part of the ‘problem’.
Is it…about Balance in your life? Or is it about prioritizing?
It (could be ) about following your gut.
But it is difficult to hear your gut.
It is possible sometimes to do both, or can you negotiate to do both?
There can (may) be regret afterwards.
“I went to two weddings on the same day to be at both friends weddings, and felt I was at neither properly.”
Why do things come along at once? ….. It is a law of nature, perhaps.
(So the question is how to live with this law)
The Meslow Heirarchy – a hierarchy of needs – was suggested, which may be seen as a pyramid. You resolve the ones lower down the pyramid and this enables you to address the ones, fewer, nearer the top.
As artists we reverse the pyramid, and take it that the ones that need to be supported, that are higher up, as the basic.
Some off the ones lower down the pyramid, nearer the base( finding the means to live, and others) might ‘provide’ for you to be creative.
But possibly one might feel trapped by the pyramid of need. You have accepted the need to earn a living, for example, and now you are “trapped” by that.
[“ Wanna Fight?” intervened here]
Perhaps I shouldn’t be doing this one….or I “should” – that this (whatever) is the most important thing to do; the proper thing to do, the right thing to do.
There are psychoanalytic tests (questions) that can reveal if you had done the right thing, or gone on your path.
Can you ease that? (The angst, ..see above) Put that dilemma in a place to make it more easy?
[ This is a problem in life, - this problem of choice, of ‘which one?’ – and a consistent (perhaps) condition for performers. There is a distinction to be made or rather different formulations of the question – an occasional one as to which job or career I should embark on as opposed to free-lancers when it is about which piece of work and this may happen many times. Is there help with this question?]
You can use cards, write the alternatives on them and set them beside each other – if you have that one then you can’t have that other one – and see what that means; what doing “this” means doing without; or “which makes you feel better”.
Doing this you might find the hidden depths, which lie beneath your choices that you may not recognize (or have discredited – they are wants, too, but you are so used to them).
The hidden depths of your priorities.
Or which are your rules?
Rules can give order and they can also set you up for failure, (by not meeting them).
You regret the things you did not do, rather, generally, than the things you did (not always valued)
“Am I too old?” … is this related? There is a link. This is the last phase of my life. Where am I in my life now?
What is my plan for the year? To know what my plans are by the end of this year.
[ The question and the way it is phrased clearly acknowledge an ethical dimension, which may or may not be appropriate. To the original questioner, at least, this sets against the simple and robust solution – “what do I want?” , another question “but, which is right?”.
There is another question inherent in the question concerning jobs that one should or should not do; which jobs one would never do. This discussion was not opened]
Showing posts with label roles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label roles. Show all posts
Friday, 5 February 2010
Thursday, 4 February 2010
082 Should actors (and other artists) be running companies and buildings?
Convener: Annie Fitzmaurice
Participants: Lauren, Sophie, Louise, Dee Evans, Paul Hunter - others please add your names…………
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We opened the discussion by talking about the history of groups of actors led by the actor manager and the current situation where actors are sometimes on the periphery of a company or producing theatre…..the last to be hired and the least to be considered.
Points made….
Actors running or who have run buildings…..including Mark Rylance….
While acting/performing rehearsing how can you do anything else?
Taking on the responsibility of running a building stops you being an actor
Examples of running a building include a chief executive plus an artistic producer (who was an actor) – this didn’t work in this instance
Examples of actors running companies included two actors and a director setting up a company and touring theatres, managing the “other” jobs between them until they had a producer, but they still ran the company and successful combined both roles by having a trusted team to hand over responsibility to others.
One participant explained that she had stopped being an actor because she was frustrated with working in badly run theatres and had now returned to theatre to run a building.
Suspicion of artistic directors running buildings for egotistical reasons and surrounding themselves with non-threatening associates.
We talked about training at certain drama schools (Lamda!) where there was a stigma about actors creating their own work – as though the only reason to do this was lack of commercial success!
The reverse attitude at Le Coq – why are you jobbing in a Shakespeare tour instead of making your own work!?
We discussed whether there is greater egalitarianism in a company set up by actors or whether the important thing is to have an appropriate leader.
Training – teachers who value and encourage creativity – actors making their own work and setting up companies and drama schools who focus on the actor for hire model. Simon McBurney visiting Lamda to talk about work – status of his company rather than understanding and valuing the work he does.
An actor could suffer running a building or a company, if the infrastructure didn’t allow the actors to hand over responsibilities during creative work.
Starting a small company involves loads of responsibilities – doing all the jobs, (but being clear when in each role), there is more of an investment in the work – being multi faceted can be part of sustainability.
Should everyone have performed in front of an audience prior to running a building, so that they truly know that edge of it?
Personality is crucial to the success of running a building whether or not that is an actor - Mark Rylance did an extraordinary job.
In Romania the Minister or Culture is an actor.
In Helsinki an actor is the artistic director of the national theatre.
Could this happen in this country?
Is the training process responsibility for the lack of actors running buildings?
Or is it the expectation?
Or why not a designer, lighting designer etc?
Does the infrastructure of a building affect how work can be made there? Making outdoor performance necessitates the involvement of the designer from an early stage (issues including health and safety affect this work). This is no different to making truly collaborative work in a building.
Who runs buildings?
Directors who run buildings (well) are not necessarily the best directors. Many directors are put off running buildings because they may become limited creatively.
Running a company is very different to running a building. A company working collaboratively with a building can be a good model. It’s a different skill to run a building – and it can compromise creative work.
Relationships between artists and buildings can be particularly productive/important.
Important factors are personality, respect and freedom with the relationship to genuinely collaborate.
It’s possible to be trapped by running a building.
Participants: Lauren, Sophie, Louise, Dee Evans, Paul Hunter - others please add your names…………
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We opened the discussion by talking about the history of groups of actors led by the actor manager and the current situation where actors are sometimes on the periphery of a company or producing theatre…..the last to be hired and the least to be considered.
Points made….
Actors running or who have run buildings…..including Mark Rylance….
While acting/performing rehearsing how can you do anything else?
Taking on the responsibility of running a building stops you being an actor
Examples of running a building include a chief executive plus an artistic producer (who was an actor) – this didn’t work in this instance
Examples of actors running companies included two actors and a director setting up a company and touring theatres, managing the “other” jobs between them until they had a producer, but they still ran the company and successful combined both roles by having a trusted team to hand over responsibility to others.
One participant explained that she had stopped being an actor because she was frustrated with working in badly run theatres and had now returned to theatre to run a building.
Suspicion of artistic directors running buildings for egotistical reasons and surrounding themselves with non-threatening associates.
We talked about training at certain drama schools (Lamda!) where there was a stigma about actors creating their own work – as though the only reason to do this was lack of commercial success!
The reverse attitude at Le Coq – why are you jobbing in a Shakespeare tour instead of making your own work!?
We discussed whether there is greater egalitarianism in a company set up by actors or whether the important thing is to have an appropriate leader.
Training – teachers who value and encourage creativity – actors making their own work and setting up companies and drama schools who focus on the actor for hire model. Simon McBurney visiting Lamda to talk about work – status of his company rather than understanding and valuing the work he does.
An actor could suffer running a building or a company, if the infrastructure didn’t allow the actors to hand over responsibilities during creative work.
Starting a small company involves loads of responsibilities – doing all the jobs, (but being clear when in each role), there is more of an investment in the work – being multi faceted can be part of sustainability.
Should everyone have performed in front of an audience prior to running a building, so that they truly know that edge of it?
Personality is crucial to the success of running a building whether or not that is an actor - Mark Rylance did an extraordinary job.
In Romania the Minister or Culture is an actor.
In Helsinki an actor is the artistic director of the national theatre.
Could this happen in this country?
Is the training process responsibility for the lack of actors running buildings?
Or is it the expectation?
Or why not a designer, lighting designer etc?
Does the infrastructure of a building affect how work can be made there? Making outdoor performance necessitates the involvement of the designer from an early stage (issues including health and safety affect this work). This is no different to making truly collaborative work in a building.
Who runs buildings?
Directors who run buildings (well) are not necessarily the best directors. Many directors are put off running buildings because they may become limited creatively.
Running a company is very different to running a building. A company working collaboratively with a building can be a good model. It’s a different skill to run a building – and it can compromise creative work.
Relationships between artists and buildings can be particularly productive/important.
Important factors are personality, respect and freedom with the relationship to genuinely collaborate.
It’s possible to be trapped by running a building.
067 Why are playwrights discouraged from acting in or directing their own plays?
Convener: Suzy Almond
Participants: Anon + 1
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
If a playwright would like to participate in their play once it is completed, this is not always encouraged and sometimes actively discouraged. Why is this?
Play-Right? Not always. A new objectivity needed once rehearsal process begins.
If a playwright can cut the umbilical cord that connects her to a play, and is able to wear a different hat and be objective about her own work, it should be entirely possible for her to adopt other roles within a production. This would involve understanding that her pre-conceived ideas about the production were not necessarily right. Throughout the rehearsal period, blind spots would emerge and new insights would be embraced.
This understanding would involve her being a flexible actor who approaches the job as objectively as possible and is committed to taking direction enthusiastically and being flexible about any pre-conceived notions of how the play should be performed.
Likewise, as a director, she should be willing to embrace input from other members of the rehearsal process.
All of the above are possible as long as the new roles are clearly defined with the rest of a team.
Steven Berkoff, Terry Johnson and Anthony Neilson were cited as examples of successful playwright/actor/director hybrids.
There was a perception from some theatre companies that a writer was not expected to be involved in rehearsal and production issues, and was over-stepping the mark if they wanted to.
There was anecdotal evidence of a playwright who was not allowed to audition to act in their own play, and of a writer who was cautioned for making a suggestion to a crew member.
It was agreed that if the playwright wasn’t able to ‘let go’ of a play then it was definitely better that others directed and acted in it.
It was agreed that writer/performer packages were considered the most acceptable way to combine skills. One man/woman shows were the most suitable format for a writer who wanted to get involved beyond the writing. Daniel Kitson and Ursula Martinez were examples.
But what about straight plays? The above are comedy performers.
There was an anecdote about a writer who went in disguise to an audition for a piece she wrote and was given the part.
Is this the way forward?
Probably not.
There was a suspicion about multi-disciplinary artists sometimes. Producing one’s own work was a possible way forward, but not ideal.
Participants: Anon + 1
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
If a playwright would like to participate in their play once it is completed, this is not always encouraged and sometimes actively discouraged. Why is this?
Play-Right? Not always. A new objectivity needed once rehearsal process begins.
If a playwright can cut the umbilical cord that connects her to a play, and is able to wear a different hat and be objective about her own work, it should be entirely possible for her to adopt other roles within a production. This would involve understanding that her pre-conceived ideas about the production were not necessarily right. Throughout the rehearsal period, blind spots would emerge and new insights would be embraced.
This understanding would involve her being a flexible actor who approaches the job as objectively as possible and is committed to taking direction enthusiastically and being flexible about any pre-conceived notions of how the play should be performed.
Likewise, as a director, she should be willing to embrace input from other members of the rehearsal process.
All of the above are possible as long as the new roles are clearly defined with the rest of a team.
Steven Berkoff, Terry Johnson and Anthony Neilson were cited as examples of successful playwright/actor/director hybrids.
There was a perception from some theatre companies that a writer was not expected to be involved in rehearsal and production issues, and was over-stepping the mark if they wanted to.
There was anecdotal evidence of a playwright who was not allowed to audition to act in their own play, and of a writer who was cautioned for making a suggestion to a crew member.
It was agreed that if the playwright wasn’t able to ‘let go’ of a play then it was definitely better that others directed and acted in it.
It was agreed that writer/performer packages were considered the most acceptable way to combine skills. One man/woman shows were the most suitable format for a writer who wanted to get involved beyond the writing. Daniel Kitson and Ursula Martinez were examples.
But what about straight plays? The above are comedy performers.
There was an anecdote about a writer who went in disguise to an audition for a piece she wrote and was given the part.
Is this the way forward?
Probably not.
There was a suspicion about multi-disciplinary artists sometimes. Producing one’s own work was a possible way forward, but not ideal.
063 Producers
Convener: Sam Howey Nunn
Participants: About 20 people- didn’t get names, sorry everyone!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- Why did people come to this session? Lack of producers in one place so producers came wanting to see each other. Directors looking for producers. Various artists wanting to know what producers do.
- Discussion of how collaborations are begun and sustained, with discussion about what stage producers come on board and how long they sustain. Lots of producers want to work with the same artist from project to project.
- What makes producers tick? Lots of people wanted to know why producers do what they do. Answers:
o To build new models of the way theatre can be
o To connect people and ideas and opportunities- that’s the buzz
o To make things happen
- Commercial vs. fringe vs. subsidised. Different routes and working systems in each.
- The fashionable term of the Creative Producer. General agreement that this term undermines the validity of the Producer in general and their inherent creative role. An Administrative Producer from a subsidised theatre company (building based) pointed out that her role was very creative.
- Discussion of more independent producing and good models. Akram Khan and Farouq Chaudry. Akram is the artist, Farouq the innovator. Theirs is a respected model of collaboration- very close- Farouq with a huge creative input. But we have to remember that not all artists want this. We must have the conversations and set the boundaries early on in the collaboration.
- Discussion about when growing companies and artists take on a producer. When’s the right time? It may be later than you think. Often you need an administrator not a producer. So, useful to note what a producer does that an administrator doesn’t:
o Translator. A speaker of many languages: that of the audience, the artistic team, and venues and funders.
o Building development structures for the work. Helping to position the work and provide a framework and opportunities for its development
o Critical dialogue
o Sustaining a network around the artist and opening up opportunities for them
- Some people referred to the Producer as the first audience member/uber audience, or having the creative overview etc. This might be a controversial stance- Dramaturges often do this but are less and less visible
- Some people have experience of producers having too much power- coming into the Dress rehearsal and making changes for example, or sacking the Director at a late stage! Agreement that this would be a sign of a very bad working relationship to begin with and also more common in very commercial theatre.
- What to do about the imbalance of producers and artists needing producers? I related my experience of mentor’s advice that I should work with a venue or a very reputable company to develop as a producer, rather than staying very independent and able to take on artists at the beginning of their work. If the understanding is that for a producer to develop they need to move into a venue then no wonder there’s an imbalance. However its also very hard for a freelance producer to make a living since the bulk of the work is speculative, trying to raise money. No-one can pay London rent on that kind of work! What kind of help is there for producers to develop? Battersea Arts Centre, Stage One. Not much!
- General frustration from artists that they didn’t know where to find producers. We named:
o Stellar Network (plug for my own organisation!- we hold a large mailing list of all kinds of producers)
o Recent graduates off the Birkbeck Creative Producing strand. Also the Central strand.
o Old Vic New Voices
o Young Vic – they hold a producers list much like their directors list
- Useful to talk about how producers find artists they want to work with. Firstly producers can only usually take on artists that are already a little established, as the unpaid work involved in establishing them can be impossible to take on. Producers try and see as much stuff as possible and keep in touch with artists to see how they develop so as to come on board at the right time.
- Good examples are Fuel, Arts Admin, Your Imagination when it existed. We need more of these! But companies like that can’t start up and sustain without subsidy and they often don’t have the capacity to take on half the artists they’d like to.
- More frustration voiced at how artists get their work seen and a call for producers to get involved in seeing as many readings/workshops etc as possible. I mentioned Stellar Network and our aim to get producers, directors, artists, writers and actors in the same room on a regular basis. The responsibility is then on you to network and get yourself talking to people.
- Actions:
o Unlimited Theatre will run a panel on giving basic ‘producing’ tools to those artists and companies that need it but can’t find a producer. A stopgap. Stellar Network will run the event.
o Stellar Network will look at running a ‘Lonely Hearts’ monthly mailout detailing companies work and where it can be seen, and send out to list of Producers so that we are facilitating as much matchmaking as possible. We may also run a salon and speed networking type event that gets producers and artists together. But how successful can this be if there are always more artists than producers? Can people attached to venues help companies and artists out in their spare time (much like people work on the fringe)?
Participants: About 20 people- didn’t get names, sorry everyone!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- Why did people come to this session? Lack of producers in one place so producers came wanting to see each other. Directors looking for producers. Various artists wanting to know what producers do.
- Discussion of how collaborations are begun and sustained, with discussion about what stage producers come on board and how long they sustain. Lots of producers want to work with the same artist from project to project.
- What makes producers tick? Lots of people wanted to know why producers do what they do. Answers:
o To build new models of the way theatre can be
o To connect people and ideas and opportunities- that’s the buzz
o To make things happen
- Commercial vs. fringe vs. subsidised. Different routes and working systems in each.
- The fashionable term of the Creative Producer. General agreement that this term undermines the validity of the Producer in general and their inherent creative role. An Administrative Producer from a subsidised theatre company (building based) pointed out that her role was very creative.
- Discussion of more independent producing and good models. Akram Khan and Farouq Chaudry. Akram is the artist, Farouq the innovator. Theirs is a respected model of collaboration- very close- Farouq with a huge creative input. But we have to remember that not all artists want this. We must have the conversations and set the boundaries early on in the collaboration.
- Discussion about when growing companies and artists take on a producer. When’s the right time? It may be later than you think. Often you need an administrator not a producer. So, useful to note what a producer does that an administrator doesn’t:
o Translator. A speaker of many languages: that of the audience, the artistic team, and venues and funders.
o Building development structures for the work. Helping to position the work and provide a framework and opportunities for its development
o Critical dialogue
o Sustaining a network around the artist and opening up opportunities for them
- Some people referred to the Producer as the first audience member/uber audience, or having the creative overview etc. This might be a controversial stance- Dramaturges often do this but are less and less visible
- Some people have experience of producers having too much power- coming into the Dress rehearsal and making changes for example, or sacking the Director at a late stage! Agreement that this would be a sign of a very bad working relationship to begin with and also more common in very commercial theatre.
- What to do about the imbalance of producers and artists needing producers? I related my experience of mentor’s advice that I should work with a venue or a very reputable company to develop as a producer, rather than staying very independent and able to take on artists at the beginning of their work. If the understanding is that for a producer to develop they need to move into a venue then no wonder there’s an imbalance. However its also very hard for a freelance producer to make a living since the bulk of the work is speculative, trying to raise money. No-one can pay London rent on that kind of work! What kind of help is there for producers to develop? Battersea Arts Centre, Stage One. Not much!
- General frustration from artists that they didn’t know where to find producers. We named:
o Stellar Network (plug for my own organisation!- we hold a large mailing list of all kinds of producers)
o Recent graduates off the Birkbeck Creative Producing strand. Also the Central strand.
o Old Vic New Voices
o Young Vic – they hold a producers list much like their directors list
- Useful to talk about how producers find artists they want to work with. Firstly producers can only usually take on artists that are already a little established, as the unpaid work involved in establishing them can be impossible to take on. Producers try and see as much stuff as possible and keep in touch with artists to see how they develop so as to come on board at the right time.
- Good examples are Fuel, Arts Admin, Your Imagination when it existed. We need more of these! But companies like that can’t start up and sustain without subsidy and they often don’t have the capacity to take on half the artists they’d like to.
- More frustration voiced at how artists get their work seen and a call for producers to get involved in seeing as many readings/workshops etc as possible. I mentioned Stellar Network and our aim to get producers, directors, artists, writers and actors in the same room on a regular basis. The responsibility is then on you to network and get yourself talking to people.
- Actions:
o Unlimited Theatre will run a panel on giving basic ‘producing’ tools to those artists and companies that need it but can’t find a producer. A stopgap. Stellar Network will run the event.
o Stellar Network will look at running a ‘Lonely Hearts’ monthly mailout detailing companies work and where it can be seen, and send out to list of Producers so that we are facilitating as much matchmaking as possible. We may also run a salon and speed networking type event that gets producers and artists together. But how successful can this be if there are always more artists than producers? Can people attached to venues help companies and artists out in their spare time (much like people work on the fringe)?
049 We devised, but I directed? After devising a piece as a group, giving freedom to the actors.. the question of ownership and ‘did you really direct
Conveners: Myro, Samal
Participants: Steve, Phelim,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- The Problem is very common (you are not alone),
- only happens when a piece is successful
- this is a normal process for good devised work
Can be avoided by:
- CLARITY
- Explaining style of directing. Sometimes ‘alternative’ style (less dictatorial, more about creating an environment for actors to explore), causes confusion as if this is directing.
- having clear roles from the beginning (i.e. contracts)
- be sure of your roles/inhabit the role completely
- people seem to need safety given by roles
- fixed roles become especially important when the devising system starts to
interact with outside systems.
Possible ways to help ensuring/ finding out who the director is:
- ask yourself if the show would have been shit, who would have been blamed?
- Who would have taken responsibility?
- Who sat down and started the process (also applies for company founding)
For Help go to:
ITC – independent theatre company
Directors guild (join)
Participants: Steve, Phelim,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- The Problem is very common (you are not alone),
- only happens when a piece is successful
- this is a normal process for good devised work
Can be avoided by:
- CLARITY
- Explaining style of directing. Sometimes ‘alternative’ style (less dictatorial, more about creating an environment for actors to explore), causes confusion as if this is directing.
- having clear roles from the beginning (i.e. contracts)
- be sure of your roles/inhabit the role completely
- people seem to need safety given by roles
- fixed roles become especially important when the devising system starts to
interact with outside systems.
Possible ways to help ensuring/ finding out who the director is:
- ask yourself if the show would have been shit, who would have been blamed?
- Who would have taken responsibility?
- Who sat down and started the process (also applies for company founding)
For Help go to:
ITC – independent theatre company
Directors guild (join)
048 Stage Management – What’s the point?
Convener: Helen Mugridge
Participants: Helen and Simon
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• SM/DM – invaluable to designers both LX and set
• How do you create more of a network between SM’s, as it is quite a solitary profession. Could the much talked about forums be a place for this??
• A show without a DSM is often not a coherent one
• An SM is c central point of contact before and during a production period for both artists, directors and designers. Meaning there is one central cog to ensure the performance runs smoothly.
• Artists often don’t understand the value of a good SM until they have been without, or had a bad experience.
• D&D this year feels like it is lacking in ‘techies’ to discuss the issues that effect us. How do we improve this for next year?? More word of mouth??
• Do SM’s need to talk about their work more?
Participants: Helen and Simon
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• SM/DM – invaluable to designers both LX and set
• How do you create more of a network between SM’s, as it is quite a solitary profession. Could the much talked about forums be a place for this??
• A show without a DSM is often not a coherent one
• An SM is c central point of contact before and during a production period for both artists, directors and designers. Meaning there is one central cog to ensure the performance runs smoothly.
• Artists often don’t understand the value of a good SM until they have been without, or had a bad experience.
• D&D this year feels like it is lacking in ‘techies’ to discuss the issues that effect us. How do we improve this for next year?? More word of mouth??
• Do SM’s need to talk about their work more?
047 If I’m a Jack of all Trades, Why do People think I am a Master at none?
Convener: Zoë Cobb
Participants: Sharon Seager, Jack Kloff, Hugo Chapman, Annie Rigby, Tyne Rafaeli, Andy Rogers, Mary O’Connor, Kirsty Lothaian, Morven, Paschale Straiton, Beccy Owen, Stuart Tagett, Jo Faith, Suzy Almond, Sara, Dan Copeland, Amy Ip, Andy Harmon, Steven Wainnery, Simon Wilkinson, Lee Simpson, Lucy Foster, Shakera Laise Ahad, Lee Simpson, Nadine Ishani, Angela Klirkin, Anna O’Brian
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• A few more positive ways to look at it: Polymath, Renaissance woman/man, fluidity
• From the perspective of someone who does one thing, he doesn’t like that others do more than one because of Envy, and thinks they spread themselves too thin.
• If you are an actor who has directed, then don’t put it on your card, or CV keep it separate
• Is this polymath behavior a necessity in the beginning of a career? Lee commented that he is well into his career and still does it.
• If you want to be famous, then do one thing, and keep doing it and only it
• Conversely, if you don’t want to become famous, do many things.
• Is it a model for the future, moving away from the Industrial Revolution
• We feel pressured to specialize. Why? On paper, for grants, for forms, for simplicity in organizations, we need to have a role.
• In the publishing world the wealth, and variety of Stella’s life is really embraced and considered of value, however that is not the case in the theatre world
• Perhaps it is a problem because we don’t specifically produce a product
• One person expressed that she is never going to be good enough at any of the one thing she does. Is this the reason we do so many things? ‘You are not successful at that one thing because you are not always doing it.’
• We see the creation process a chaotic one, but in the institutions there is an idea of clock work that is applied to the process. Where each person does their job and the final product is resulting. This is still at the heart of how most theatre works. In Britain’s rep system, that is how the system still works.
• So do we need to silence all the other voices in hopes of following just one?
• Could we get the satisfaction of all the different things we do in one profession, like directing, if we gave it a chance? Might we learn just as much and find just as many rewarding pieces of information if we just stuck to it, and got deeper into it?
• Do we need to change? Are we just on the wrong path, and need to learn how to keep doing one thing? Is it a matter or changing or just embracing what we do and valuing it, so at some point others will too?
• Do we need the trumpets and the ceremony, the recognition to say that we are brilliant at what we do?
• People who have a medal, and certificate make the theatre
• Newtonian thinking breeds the non-polymath
• There is lots of non-medaled work is not heard about and doesn’t enter the main stream’s thinking.
• It is not monetarily sustainable to be a polymath
• Even though a collaborative theatre company is well established, they are still thought of as crooks, or suspected of being low in moral character.
• For the show at the National, Lee and Phelim proposed to co-direct and the National looked confused and worried, however when they came back and said, Lee would write and Phelim would direct, the response was a massive smile and sigh of relief
• Perhaps it is more of a British way of being and European theatre is less ‘container’ and ‘label orientated
• In South Africa they didn’t have the luxury to do one thing. It felt like it was a Colonial idea to have so much division of labour, and this director who went down felt threatened by the lack of division. When she had experienced it a little more she felt an artistic poverty in relationship to all these people who could do so much
• In the American system people are unionized and really only allowed to do one thing.
• Be aware of why you are doing many jobs
• There will be someone who is more equipped to do the work, because you are too tired, to busy to be there when you need to
• Perhaps you are a control freak and cannot trust others to do the work you need to be done
• Get a team around you who you trust with artistic integrity
• In some cases we need to set boundaries and not do everything. People are very willing to accept us being a ‘jack of all trades’ if you are going down the ladder. The doors start closing when you start multi-tasking up the ladder.
• ‘Whoever paints the wall, chooses the colour’ – Amber Films
• All of the other forms of art and practice are very nourishing to the theatre work
• It is a balancing act where you need to keep your options open.
• If you present yourself so that someone can look at your body of work and find some through line, some method to your madness
• You can use the different skills as a way to almost spiral up in your value, where you get a good credit in one area, it then gives you some sense of credence and then another area will be able to possibly also have a little bit of levity
• The question of ‘What do you do?’ makes me feel defensive or uncertain, and think ‘which one should I answer? Actually, the person you are speaking with just wants interact and is asking quite a simple question. So choose something you are happy with saying.
• Perhaps step away from the CV and went with the work biographies
• The stitching is very important, what I do in a conceptual way
• Portfolio careers, a more modern way to recession proof
• It is self propagating; as soon as people know you do a lot of different things, they will start asking you to do all kinds of things. One suggestion of a design company was to show up in a shirt and slacks, and don’t lift a thing, this way you are not expected or asked to do the menial tasks. Doing it all can be lowering status
• What part of us feels like what we are doing has less value that we are willing to let this judgment mean so much? Does it matter if other people think this if we don’t?
• Representation is a game, learn how to do it
• In this talk there is a sense of ‘they’ think and they do, well who are they?
• I started in the military, and the Royal Shakespeare company is very similar. You should start your own think, do your own work, and ‘they’ will take notice.
• Stick with your particular skills and there will be a strange arrangement that only you could fit. But this will not happen unless you value the things you do. Trust.
• These are the kinds of jobs that you can’t advertise, this fit into the discussion about why there are no job advertisements, because often they are not certain of all the things that they want until you turn up.
• Was there anything else that we needed to say?
Participants: Sharon Seager, Jack Kloff, Hugo Chapman, Annie Rigby, Tyne Rafaeli, Andy Rogers, Mary O’Connor, Kirsty Lothaian, Morven, Paschale Straiton, Beccy Owen, Stuart Tagett, Jo Faith, Suzy Almond, Sara, Dan Copeland, Amy Ip, Andy Harmon, Steven Wainnery, Simon Wilkinson, Lee Simpson, Lucy Foster, Shakera Laise Ahad, Lee Simpson, Nadine Ishani, Angela Klirkin, Anna O’Brian
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• A few more positive ways to look at it: Polymath, Renaissance woman/man, fluidity
• From the perspective of someone who does one thing, he doesn’t like that others do more than one because of Envy, and thinks they spread themselves too thin.
• If you are an actor who has directed, then don’t put it on your card, or CV keep it separate
• Is this polymath behavior a necessity in the beginning of a career? Lee commented that he is well into his career and still does it.
• If you want to be famous, then do one thing, and keep doing it and only it
• Conversely, if you don’t want to become famous, do many things.
• Is it a model for the future, moving away from the Industrial Revolution
• We feel pressured to specialize. Why? On paper, for grants, for forms, for simplicity in organizations, we need to have a role.
• In the publishing world the wealth, and variety of Stella’s life is really embraced and considered of value, however that is not the case in the theatre world
• Perhaps it is a problem because we don’t specifically produce a product
• One person expressed that she is never going to be good enough at any of the one thing she does. Is this the reason we do so many things? ‘You are not successful at that one thing because you are not always doing it.’
• We see the creation process a chaotic one, but in the institutions there is an idea of clock work that is applied to the process. Where each person does their job and the final product is resulting. This is still at the heart of how most theatre works. In Britain’s rep system, that is how the system still works.
• So do we need to silence all the other voices in hopes of following just one?
• Could we get the satisfaction of all the different things we do in one profession, like directing, if we gave it a chance? Might we learn just as much and find just as many rewarding pieces of information if we just stuck to it, and got deeper into it?
• Do we need to change? Are we just on the wrong path, and need to learn how to keep doing one thing? Is it a matter or changing or just embracing what we do and valuing it, so at some point others will too?
• Do we need the trumpets and the ceremony, the recognition to say that we are brilliant at what we do?
• People who have a medal, and certificate make the theatre
• Newtonian thinking breeds the non-polymath
• There is lots of non-medaled work is not heard about and doesn’t enter the main stream’s thinking.
• It is not monetarily sustainable to be a polymath
• Even though a collaborative theatre company is well established, they are still thought of as crooks, or suspected of being low in moral character.
• For the show at the National, Lee and Phelim proposed to co-direct and the National looked confused and worried, however when they came back and said, Lee would write and Phelim would direct, the response was a massive smile and sigh of relief
• Perhaps it is more of a British way of being and European theatre is less ‘container’ and ‘label orientated
• In South Africa they didn’t have the luxury to do one thing. It felt like it was a Colonial idea to have so much division of labour, and this director who went down felt threatened by the lack of division. When she had experienced it a little more she felt an artistic poverty in relationship to all these people who could do so much
• In the American system people are unionized and really only allowed to do one thing.
• Be aware of why you are doing many jobs
• There will be someone who is more equipped to do the work, because you are too tired, to busy to be there when you need to
• Perhaps you are a control freak and cannot trust others to do the work you need to be done
• Get a team around you who you trust with artistic integrity
• In some cases we need to set boundaries and not do everything. People are very willing to accept us being a ‘jack of all trades’ if you are going down the ladder. The doors start closing when you start multi-tasking up the ladder.
• ‘Whoever paints the wall, chooses the colour’ – Amber Films
• All of the other forms of art and practice are very nourishing to the theatre work
• It is a balancing act where you need to keep your options open.
• If you present yourself so that someone can look at your body of work and find some through line, some method to your madness
• You can use the different skills as a way to almost spiral up in your value, where you get a good credit in one area, it then gives you some sense of credence and then another area will be able to possibly also have a little bit of levity
• The question of ‘What do you do?’ makes me feel defensive or uncertain, and think ‘which one should I answer? Actually, the person you are speaking with just wants interact and is asking quite a simple question. So choose something you are happy with saying.
• Perhaps step away from the CV and went with the work biographies
• The stitching is very important, what I do in a conceptual way
• Portfolio careers, a more modern way to recession proof
• It is self propagating; as soon as people know you do a lot of different things, they will start asking you to do all kinds of things. One suggestion of a design company was to show up in a shirt and slacks, and don’t lift a thing, this way you are not expected or asked to do the menial tasks. Doing it all can be lowering status
• What part of us feels like what we are doing has less value that we are willing to let this judgment mean so much? Does it matter if other people think this if we don’t?
• Representation is a game, learn how to do it
• In this talk there is a sense of ‘they’ think and they do, well who are they?
• I started in the military, and the Royal Shakespeare company is very similar. You should start your own think, do your own work, and ‘they’ will take notice.
• Stick with your particular skills and there will be a strange arrangement that only you could fit. But this will not happen unless you value the things you do. Trust.
• These are the kinds of jobs that you can’t advertise, this fit into the discussion about why there are no job advertisements, because often they are not certain of all the things that they want until you turn up.
• Was there anything else that we needed to say?
030 I’m starting to direct stuff, would you like to work with me?
Convener: Stella Duffy
Participants: Martyn Duffy, Tom Brocklehurst, Kas Darley, Jeni Toksvig, Rupert Jones, Shakera Louise Ahad, Will Heather, Gail Sawyer, Gigi, Mark Price, Mary O’Connor, Jen Lunn, Sarah Ball
And others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Stella : I’ve only just started calling myself a director and am issuing an invitation to make work with people who think they would LIKE to work with me. Probably sort of scripted/made/devised/improvised work. Probably.
The issue expanded to how it is for many directors, to make work, how we make work, how we share, support, how we need support and that it would be great to support each other.
Some questions :
- what do we think about co-directing? (good, scary, works with some people!)
- some are intimidated by ‘devising’
- beautifully directed theatre is about knowing where to look
- ideas are (unfortunately) often more lauded than heart
- FEELINGS
- A conversation about Beckett – how the name becomes too hard to work with, everyone else’s expectations
- How do you use the word? Is there a quota of plays you have to direct every year before you are a ‘director’?
Lots of those present gave their names and email addresses to me, and maybe we’ll come together to do something, over a day/weekend in a little while. I’ll stay in touch with those who came and see if me (or any of them) want to suggest coming together to play/work on/work at/play/make … something.
If anyone else would like to be added to this list of people email me :
stell at clara.co.uk
Participants: Martyn Duffy, Tom Brocklehurst, Kas Darley, Jeni Toksvig, Rupert Jones, Shakera Louise Ahad, Will Heather, Gail Sawyer, Gigi, Mark Price, Mary O’Connor, Jen Lunn, Sarah Ball
And others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Stella : I’ve only just started calling myself a director and am issuing an invitation to make work with people who think they would LIKE to work with me. Probably sort of scripted/made/devised/improvised work. Probably.
The issue expanded to how it is for many directors, to make work, how we make work, how we share, support, how we need support and that it would be great to support each other.
Some questions :
- what do we think about co-directing? (good, scary, works with some people!)
- some are intimidated by ‘devising’
- beautifully directed theatre is about knowing where to look
- ideas are (unfortunately) often more lauded than heart
- FEELINGS
- A conversation about Beckett – how the name becomes too hard to work with, everyone else’s expectations
- How do you use the word? Is there a quota of plays you have to direct every year before you are a ‘director’?
Lots of those present gave their names and email addresses to me, and maybe we’ll come together to do something, over a day/weekend in a little while. I’ll stay in touch with those who came and see if me (or any of them) want to suggest coming together to play/work on/work at/play/make … something.
If anyone else would like to be added to this list of people email me :
stell at clara.co.uk
026 What Are Directors For?
Convener: Sarah
Participants:
Nick Coupe, Regina, Rod, Sophia, Backi Hainis, Dave Johnston, Emily Kempson, Tom Creed, Anouk Kishti, Annette, Gail Sawyer, Jackkla, Thomas Hescott, Will Heather, Nick Moran, Paul trussel, Jen Lunn, Rajha Shakiry, Mark Rhow, Sophia Lersmon, Lucy Pw, Binoya Solanki, Tom Brocklehurst
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Here are some of the answers I was given:
People Management
Creating a warm room
Outside eye
Stimulation
Reassurance
Giving notes
Pushing people further
Admin and publicity
Creating a space, creating goalposts
Cultivating an atmosphere of trust
Creating a safe space
Creating a dialogue
Finding a common language
Asking why
Liberating the story
Communicating
We pondered whether it’s possible to make theatre without directors. A lot of directors thought it wasn’t, but there are examples of groups achieving this. If people are good enough collaborators, a director’s job becomes less important or possibly completely redundant.
We thought bad directors have a failure to communicate with their team, or concentrate only on actors. Is it bad to nurture the neediness of actors? Some actors want to be told what to do – is this ok?
A playwright had lots of useful things to say about working with a director who did not take the time to understand what he had written, and there was criticism of directors who have closed rehearsals when working with new writers; the writer/director relationship is a difficult one, it seems.
We also talked about the relationship between directors and designers/othe members of the creative team. This is often neglected in training and in ‘real life’.
We discovered that in Holland, directors are usually trained with designers rather than actors, which leads to a better ability to collaborate and to the theatre practice having a much more holistic process/result.
We talked about continental companies who work without directors. If anyone can remember the names of a couple that were mentioned, please write them down for me! (Tegestan?)
Two phrases that I will take away with me:
“What are you trying to achieve?”
“Conjuring meaning from within.”
Thank you for all your contributions.
Participants:
Nick Coupe, Regina, Rod, Sophia, Backi Hainis, Dave Johnston, Emily Kempson, Tom Creed, Anouk Kishti, Annette, Gail Sawyer, Jackkla, Thomas Hescott, Will Heather, Nick Moran, Paul trussel, Jen Lunn, Rajha Shakiry, Mark Rhow, Sophia Lersmon, Lucy Pw, Binoya Solanki, Tom Brocklehurst
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Here are some of the answers I was given:
People Management
Creating a warm room
Outside eye
Stimulation
Reassurance
Giving notes
Pushing people further
Admin and publicity
Creating a space, creating goalposts
Cultivating an atmosphere of trust
Creating a safe space
Creating a dialogue
Finding a common language
Asking why
Liberating the story
Communicating
We pondered whether it’s possible to make theatre without directors. A lot of directors thought it wasn’t, but there are examples of groups achieving this. If people are good enough collaborators, a director’s job becomes less important or possibly completely redundant.
We thought bad directors have a failure to communicate with their team, or concentrate only on actors. Is it bad to nurture the neediness of actors? Some actors want to be told what to do – is this ok?
A playwright had lots of useful things to say about working with a director who did not take the time to understand what he had written, and there was criticism of directors who have closed rehearsals when working with new writers; the writer/director relationship is a difficult one, it seems.
We also talked about the relationship between directors and designers/othe members of the creative team. This is often neglected in training and in ‘real life’.
We discovered that in Holland, directors are usually trained with designers rather than actors, which leads to a better ability to collaborate and to the theatre practice having a much more holistic process/result.
We talked about continental companies who work without directors. If anyone can remember the names of a couple that were mentioned, please write them down for me! (Tegestan?)
Two phrases that I will take away with me:
“What are you trying to achieve?”
“Conjuring meaning from within.”
Thank you for all your contributions.
014 Response Ability
Convener: Jen Toksvig
Participants: Andy Harmon, Suzy Almond, Jen Toksvig, Kerry Andrews, Adam Brace, Oliver Townsend
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I called this discussion because Phelim suggested that if we feel a passion about something, we could take responsibility for that passion and open a space to discuss it. The word ‘responsible’ made me want to avoid doing that, as it always does, which is why I like to split it into two words: being responsible, for me, means opening out to other people so that I can have a look at the thing in their hands, and am therefore able to respond to it because I’m not in control of it.
I wanted to see how other people felt about the idea of responsibility. Here are some of the ideas we discussed.
Responsibility is about making something happen.
+
Being responsible is being at the base of the triangle, where anything is possible.
Being responsible can feel like huge pressure.
Ultimately, there must be a goal if it’s intended to be a finished work. (What is the goal?)
Being responsible is not necessarily about control. It’s a different thing.
We tend not to want to be changed, but in an open space, anything can happen, so you could be changed.
Taking responsibility is acknowledging and celebrating fear.
Breathing creates a space.
Being responsible is active.
Responsibility and fear are very closely related.
When you’re responsible, you are creating something.
The dark side of responsibility is trying to take responsibility for how other people will behave.
Groups need a point of authority.
Being responsible tends to move from facilitation to direction in order to produce a final goal.
Being responsible means opening a space for something.
What to take responsibility for? The work? The group? Yourself? Your voice?
Paradox: taking responsibility by letting go. In fact, not a paradox, but balance.
There’s a risk that comes with being the one who is responsible. You open yourself up.
It means going in to the arena and maybe getting eaten alive.
Boredom / laziness are aspects of fear.
Fear drives you to be safe, but fear can also act as a pilot light.
All creativity is fear because it’s about transgression. (Fear and hunger)
Being responsible is having an awareness of opportunities.
The director is the audience’s advocate.
Maintaining – inspiring, to keep the flame alive.
Participants: Andy Harmon, Suzy Almond, Jen Toksvig, Kerry Andrews, Adam Brace, Oliver Townsend
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I called this discussion because Phelim suggested that if we feel a passion about something, we could take responsibility for that passion and open a space to discuss it. The word ‘responsible’ made me want to avoid doing that, as it always does, which is why I like to split it into two words: being responsible, for me, means opening out to other people so that I can have a look at the thing in their hands, and am therefore able to respond to it because I’m not in control of it.
I wanted to see how other people felt about the idea of responsibility. Here are some of the ideas we discussed.
Responsibility is about making something happen.
+
Being responsible is being at the base of the triangle, where anything is possible.
Being responsible can feel like huge pressure.
Ultimately, there must be a goal if it’s intended to be a finished work. (What is the goal?)
Being responsible is not necessarily about control. It’s a different thing.
We tend not to want to be changed, but in an open space, anything can happen, so you could be changed.
Taking responsibility is acknowledging and celebrating fear.
Breathing creates a space.
Being responsible is active.
Responsibility and fear are very closely related.
When you’re responsible, you are creating something.
The dark side of responsibility is trying to take responsibility for how other people will behave.
Groups need a point of authority.
Being responsible tends to move from facilitation to direction in order to produce a final goal.
Being responsible means opening a space for something.
What to take responsibility for? The work? The group? Yourself? Your voice?
Paradox: taking responsibility by letting go. In fact, not a paradox, but balance.
There’s a risk that comes with being the one who is responsible. You open yourself up.
It means going in to the arena and maybe getting eaten alive.
Boredom / laziness are aspects of fear.
Fear drives you to be safe, but fear can also act as a pilot light.
All creativity is fear because it’s about transgression. (Fear and hunger)
Being responsible is having an awareness of opportunities.
The director is the audience’s advocate.
Maintaining – inspiring, to keep the flame alive.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
002 How do I explain the value of what I do to my Grandad and other people?
Convener: Anne Langford
Participants:
Helen Mugridge
Sharon Seager
Jack Klaff
Nick Coope
Ben Luke
Ellen Groves
Greg Wohead
Paul Trossell
Becki haines
Philipa Wilkinson
Dodger Phillips
And some lovely bees!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The following things were discussed;
• The challenges of describing what we do to people who maybe haven’t experienced if without sounding flaky or esoteric.
• How do you actually explain what it is you do when you are jack of all trades, without sounding like a joker? I’m an editor, producer, performer – just watch people glaze over.
• The semantics of ‘this is what I do’. Why not play a game – try out a description of what you do and then guage the responses until you find a set of responses to your description that you like. For example, “I’m an aerialist”- you must have to train hard, how many times have you fallen?, aren’t you scared of heights?. “I’m an actor” – have you been on the Bill?. “I’m a performer” - ????[confused face]. “I’m a writer” –quiet reverence.
• Maybe brand yourself and say it with confidence – the need to value what you do yourself. Sometimes we project our own uncertainty and embarrassment onto other people. “I’m a theatre maker” – some people ask more some people are just happy with that answer.
• Theatre makers have a profound knowledge of life – role as witness – distiller. The word essence came up a lot.
• Ask people for their stories, that’s what I do. I tell stories.
• In the labour camps in Russia people would swap stories for bread. Someone went to see Death of a Salesman and changed his companies pension policy.
• What turned you onto theatre – doing it. Therefore find ways to make people do it? Kidnap and enforced theatre making / going?
• People are valuing theatre – they are still paying to go in a recession – they want stories.
• Theatre and revolution – wanting truth from the stage.
• Are we too English and polite, well it’s good because – see kidnap option. Just do it, make it shout about it.
• Connect through stories – ask questions about their world. Share appropriate stories – the right story for the right person.
• I tell people that I’m really interested in the process of human existence – and then they tell me all kinds of things – I get fed.
• Do we need evidence? Is passion and conviction enough.
• What happens when the other people have resources we need? The role of theatre in civic society – playing a part, contributing. Legitimacy?
• How does the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to you become a great story? The process of turning shame, pain and fear into stories.
SOME SUGGESTIONS:
• Have a range of stories to tell, don’t explain what you do. Do it. [Kidnap option at own risk]. Borrow / steal stories, plant stories and let them grow in other people.
• Say what you do with confidence [even if you don’t always have it, might become self fulfilling]
• Enforced experience? Don’t be so bloody English, tell stories [kidnap optional]
• Evidence – is just saying something is important enough?
• Essence – what we do is essential.
Participants:
Helen Mugridge
Sharon Seager
Jack Klaff
Nick Coope
Ben Luke
Ellen Groves
Greg Wohead
Paul Trossell
Becki haines
Philipa Wilkinson
Dodger Phillips
And some lovely bees!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The following things were discussed;
• The challenges of describing what we do to people who maybe haven’t experienced if without sounding flaky or esoteric.
• How do you actually explain what it is you do when you are jack of all trades, without sounding like a joker? I’m an editor, producer, performer – just watch people glaze over.
• The semantics of ‘this is what I do’. Why not play a game – try out a description of what you do and then guage the responses until you find a set of responses to your description that you like. For example, “I’m an aerialist”- you must have to train hard, how many times have you fallen?, aren’t you scared of heights?. “I’m an actor” – have you been on the Bill?. “I’m a performer” - ????[confused face]. “I’m a writer” –quiet reverence.
• Maybe brand yourself and say it with confidence – the need to value what you do yourself. Sometimes we project our own uncertainty and embarrassment onto other people. “I’m a theatre maker” – some people ask more some people are just happy with that answer.
• Theatre makers have a profound knowledge of life – role as witness – distiller. The word essence came up a lot.
• Ask people for their stories, that’s what I do. I tell stories.
• In the labour camps in Russia people would swap stories for bread. Someone went to see Death of a Salesman and changed his companies pension policy.
• What turned you onto theatre – doing it. Therefore find ways to make people do it? Kidnap and enforced theatre making / going?
• People are valuing theatre – they are still paying to go in a recession – they want stories.
• Theatre and revolution – wanting truth from the stage.
• Are we too English and polite, well it’s good because – see kidnap option. Just do it, make it shout about it.
• Connect through stories – ask questions about their world. Share appropriate stories – the right story for the right person.
• I tell people that I’m really interested in the process of human existence – and then they tell me all kinds of things – I get fed.
• Do we need evidence? Is passion and conviction enough.
• What happens when the other people have resources we need? The role of theatre in civic society – playing a part, contributing. Legitimacy?
• How does the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to you become a great story? The process of turning shame, pain and fear into stories.
SOME SUGGESTIONS:
• Have a range of stories to tell, don’t explain what you do. Do it. [Kidnap option at own risk]. Borrow / steal stories, plant stories and let them grow in other people.
• Say what you do with confidence [even if you don’t always have it, might become self fulfilling]
• Enforced experience? Don’t be so bloody English, tell stories [kidnap optional]
• Evidence – is just saying something is important enough?
• Essence – what we do is essential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)