Hi Brian
My summer in NYC was a huge eye-opening experience for me. I worked backstage at a dinner theatre just outside the city. I worked mostly in the sound department in the "deck audio" position--I put batteries in the microphones and did the sound check for the actors. I pretty much did anything that needed to be done during the show, as well--costume changes, fog machine, etc. Didn't go see anything though. I became disenchanted with Broadway and the business aspect of the theatre. It makes me appreciate the discussions going on here.

Glad to hear you're doing well.

Jennifer

I'm directing the two Pinter one-acts, "The Lover" and "The Dumbwaiter". Auditions have been this past week - extremely light turn out. I should be able to cast, tho--but I'll probably have to cross-gender cast for the Dumbwaiter. There are also now a costume designer and a sound designer on the production team. I'm handling the design for set and lights (although I believe the lighting design class--which I am auditing--is going to do some conceptual exercises with the scripts and my analyses).
I was surprised that only two UNCA students bothered coming out to audition. It makes me wonder why I wasted my time booking HLH for two consecutive evenings...
Rehearsals will start next Tues, the 2nd. The shows are Thu-Sun, Oct 16-19th at the NC Stage Company's theatre. I certainly hope you all can make it to one of the performances. Especially Brian. I can't wait to find out what the scathing pen of critical justice will write about the show!

I'm in favor of cancelling all my classes and my show to devote 20 hours a week to DDS. I find it to be a better learning model. You all can teach me my requitsite math credit so I can jump my hoops to grad school, right? I'd rather do DDS homework.

Can I start referring to myself as Jess Wells, DDS? Think the ADA would take umbrage?

Brian - You GO, Girl!

Social Darwinism? Ewwwww! Brian -- I only have a little time to read; I'm a college professor -- we only have time to teach, advise, and grade papers; we don't have time to learn things. Why spend what little time I have reading the ideas of fascists using biology as a way to support oppression? What next: "The Bell Curve"? If your teacher is connecting Emerson to Social Darwinism, (s)he has a very clear agenda. Do you agree with it? Remember the DDS motto, Brian (you all didn't know we have a motto, did you?): Question Everything. It seems to me that Emerson was writing at a time when America had no intellectual identity -- we were relying totally on the ideas of Europe. Emerson says we should stop worshipping Europe and instead follow our own original ideas. That doesn't sound like Social Darwinism? But then, I haven't read the article, so how can I comment?

Scott

I think John is right -- we don't have to meet at CBT. Those who DO come to CBT can get a ride, but otherwise just meet. So here's the question: last year we alternated between Urban Burrito and Atlanta Bread Co. Do we wish to continue doing that? Add other sites? Or narrow it to a single site?
As far as 11:00 -- well, I suppose it is doable, and I suppose we could fill the time, but...do we REALLY want to commit 2 hours a week to this?

Scott

P.S. Welcome, Jennifer! I hope this is a sign that you will be sharing your thoughts on a more regular basis this year!

Scott

Along those same lines - is there a reason why we're waiting till 11:30? What about 11:00?

Let it be known far and wide across the land and overseas: DDS will meet for lunch and critical discussion every Mon at 11:30. Be there, or be....shit, I don't know.

Hello All. I think Scott is right, lurking doesn't suit me very well at all. So I am here and I will be there on Mondays.

I got a message from a webmaster saying that he will not be responding to e-mails to that address until the school year starts. That's fine. I have more specific questions I want to ask him now. What I sent earlier was pretty vague and chock full o' hero-worship. I don't think he'd want to read that kind of shit anyway...

Mon at 11 or 11:30 works for me -- I'd prefer 11 for a longer discussion period.

Anyone talked to Jennifer about being in the group this year? I'm probably not the one to do it...

Is the Brustein article online?

Glad we're discussing meeting times, since I haven't been able to find the time to send out an email yet due to the long line of whining ARTS 310 wannabes outside my door every day...

MWF is really good for me, and I could do lunch (or 11:30) on any of them. I think it was 11:30 last semester because both Kate and I had Arts and Ideas at 1:00. That is no longer the case for me.

I am struggling about Lachlan, and I'll tell you why: her deep cynicism. She seems to have hardly any idealism at all, but rather seems to take joy destroying aspirations. Am I wrong about her? The one thing that I think a DDS member needs (and it isn't a sharp tongue OR a thick skin, or Lachlan would be a natural) is a willingness to imagine that things could be different, and that theatre might actually have a serious purpose. You all know Lachlan better than I do -- does she fit in this regard? The laziness regarding reading is not admirable, but perhaps she would be inspired by our discussions to get up to speed. I'm willing to invite Lachlan, if you all think she will be a good addition.

Another goal for the semester should be to get Jennifer to actually speak. No lurkers in DDS!

By the way, this is a public blog. If someone from the department knew about it, and knew the address, they could read (but not post) the blog. So either we need to keep our mouth's shut about the address, or not discuss things openly. I am for the former.

Re: Self Reliance. I don't think that Emerson is saying we shouldn't read other people's ideas, nor receive training -- I don't think he is proposing a bunch of New England noble savages -- but I think he is saying we should avoid slavishly following the intellectual giants of the past. I think he would agree with Goethe's questions that he encouraged everyone to ask: Is this true? Is it true for me? The second question seems the kicker, in that if it isn't true for you, then it should be ignored. I find Emerson's essay bracing and exciting, but also a bit scary. The demands he makes in the essay are stringent, and I am starting to wonder if I have the energy to really follow all the ideas I have. I would love to hear more about what is being discussed about this in your class, Brian.

Scott

Dead on about Lachlan. She's super smart, but lazy. Doesn't read anything (except video game captions) unless it is required for a class. Wait. That's not true. She an I discussed the book she read this summer a couple days ago... I retract my earlier statement. God, I can't say anything good about anyone, can I? I think I'll just stop talking all together.

Brian,
Well, I guess that's why I'm not teaching at NCSU! About half of those rules (and I'll let you all discuss which half) I violate all the time!
Here is my advice to you as a teacher. 1) You don't know everything, and don't pretend you do. If somebody asks something you don't know, say you'll find out. The Key: actually find out and report back to the class. Trust me, this impresses them. 2) Read some books on the discussion approach to teaching. Initially, keep the focus on the work itself (interpretive questions), then move to evaluative questions (questions that are answered out of the students' values and experiences). I.e., text first, opinion next. 3) Lecture only when you feel you have a command of the material. You may think you are more confident when you are working from notes, but lecturing is probably the most demanding form of teaching, and it requires a great deal of prep. 4) I'd give reading quizzes -- students seem to need that extrinsic motivation. 5) Be careful about mnaking students feel stupid. They will say a great deal that is really stupid. Your job is to transform straw into gold. Making people feel stupid only makes them reluctant to contribute to the conversation the next time, and pretty soon you end up with a silent classroom. 6) Find your own classroom style. Teaching is based on your personality. If you'd rather lecture, then lecture.

The hardest thing about grad school is balancing your own learning with your teaching responsibilities. You will have a lot to do, and a lot of prep to do for the classes you are teaching. Like Kate, I think you will do beautifully. Just remember: you are not a perfect teacher, you will make mistakes -- forgive yourself, and learn from them.

Good luck!

Scott

I'm proud of you, Brian. Good luck - you'll do fine. If you need a sounding board (or a chance to rest your bleeding eyes) we're all here for you...

Whatever. Writing is ONLY about getting laid. Also, I don't need icky italics or crummycolors. (read: I don't want ya'll to witness me screwing it all up. when you get to Ass-ille, Kate, maybe you can show me in person how to affect such change.)

Jess (Hogwarts janitor-in-training. That's where the least fun is had. And I don't have a cat, I have a SLUG. named MURKY.)

Brian,
As I get ready to start another semester, I thank you for the idea of education as a permission slip. I think all too often we think of education as a gauntlet, or as a license that is given once the test is passed. But spending four years giving students permission to be themselves, and helping them to discover just who that is -- well, that is a wonderful idea.

Scott

And cornflower blue means that you're kicked out of Dead Dramatists. That color is horrible.

Scott

Oooh! I knew Brian would be Slytherin, I just knew it. (I'm sticking with italics -- I know how to do that real good...)

Scott

Maybe we should have the colors mean something... Like red means we're attacking someone, green means...we're attacking something, yellow means we're attacking some group... And so forth. That's all we do is attack people, right?

Scott

Brian's color didn't change on MY machine... I think you're trying to "Gaslight" me...

Kate, That was cool. I figured each color had its own number, and if you didn't have the list, you were screwed. Now I know better. Be prepared to see multi-colored postings!

Scott

"In human civilization, and in the individual life of every human being, behind every problem to be solved, there is a question of philosophy to be asked -- and not only asked as we usually ask, but to be pondered and lived with as a reminder of something we have forgotten, something essential. Our culture has generally tended to solve its problems without experiencing its questions. That is our genius as a civilization, but it is also our pathology. Now the pathology is overtaking the genius, and people are beginning to sense this everywhere." -- Jacob Needleman, The Heart of Philosophy

That's WAY to complicated for me. All those numbers that don't mean anything... I'll stick with italics, thank you very much.

Scott

Hee Hee!

John,
It is Angie Flynn-McIver, who is the Artistic Director at NC Stage. I have seen her work, and she is terrific. From what I can tell from talking to her, and seeing her work, I think that her approach to a directing class is very similar to my own. I think you will like her, and that you will learn a great deal about directing from her. I will expect you, however, to take Directing II with me next semester, and help put together The Frankenstein Project,!

Scott

Good points, both of you. "My Life in the Theatre" by E G Craig is a great read for the artistic stimulation, but it is also obvious that he felt no one could match up to him artistically. Thus the deal with using puppets. He felt actors ouldn't do their work well enough unless they knew everything about the theatre---there are great anecdotes about some of the screaming matches between Craig and Eleanor Duse, two of the most conceited artists of the past century.

Kate, I think your idealized version of collaborative interp is lucid and insightful. This is a goal worth working towards. And, you're right again, it takes a lot of really hard work.

I know at least a few people that I respect enough to collaborate with on a regular basis...maybe ya'll can guess who they are....

Oh, thanks to everyone for not pointing out that I've been typing "permenant" instead of "permanent".

Kate, I totally agree with your assessment of most group projects. That is the school model of projects, which is random and compulsory. In theatre, the idea, of course, is to find people who are as smart as you are, who you respect, and do theatre with them and them only. Which I guess is an argument for a permanent theatre. Why waste your time with people you don't respect. Now, if I am working with Rob, say, like you I'm not going to tell Rob how to do the lighting, because he does know more about it than I do. BUT I may say something like, "wouldn't it be cool if we played this moment in a harsh downlight, since it is a moment that is stark and might benefit from looking like an interrogation." Then Rob could say, "Well, that won't work because I don't have a lighting position that can give that effect," or he could say, "That is a really cool idea -- let's see how it looks." That interchange is based on the mutual respect of two artists. And Rob might watch a scene and say, "You know what? I'm not understanding why that moment explodes so suddenly. It seems to come out of nowhere." Now I can say, "Well, it explodes out of nowhere because it has been repressed for so long," or I could say, "You're right, it does seem a bit sudden. Maybe we need to show hints of it earlier in the scene." Rob isn't telling me how to fix it, but is telling me what he sees, which can be a cue to me that others might feel the same confusion. In the industrial theatre, Rob would "mind his own business" and never mention the problem he sees, and that's too bad. The greatest directors -- Brecht, Brook -- took input from everybody. Brook takes his productions to an elementary school gym about halfway through rehearsals, because he says you can learn an enormous amount from children's reactions. Brecht used to ask the janitor to watch the show and give him any ideas.

So: 1) work with people you respect; 2) take advantage of all feedback you receive from those people. Doing a play is a lot more like parenting than building a car. Two parents raising a child don't (or shouldn't) do a division of labor -- "You handle the discipline, I'll take care of the nurturing" -- because the child is being affected by both parents regardless of how you divide the labor. Same with a play. A play is a system, and systems theory has shown that every aspect of a system is interconnected, and any change in a system forces everything else to change in order to accomodate that change. Pretending that this isn't the case, which is what we do in traditional theatre, seems deluded. I think it is telling that Edward Gordon Craig, the ultimate top-down director, preferred to work with puppets (I mean actual puppets), so he could control every aspect of the production. If you work with other artists, I think you need to work as a unit.

Hmmmm. I think it is important to explore what is "bad" and "good" about the production line approach to art and how it can be circumvented, if need be, by implementing different approaches.

These are observations/conclusions/inferences based on a polarized version of the system....

Bad:
-Marxist alienation from the process/product?
-propagating the artistic vision of one/few at the expense of input from several artists
-lack of long term artistic continuity through constant replacement of individuals doing different jobs
-restriction of artistic sensibility and perception in the artist (inhibition concerning their ability to make assessments of the work around them) -- this is the flip side of #2

Good:
-safety net for individual/perceived job security (if I just do my job to the best of my ability, the whole show will be a success, or at least I won't be blamed if it fails)
-efficiency in regards to time/labor
-responsibility for failure of product more readily identified

What could be added to these lists?

I think part of the reason for the current state of mediocrity in the theatre world has to do with the amount of theatre being produced. There are so many reasons not to do theatre. No one has the time, space, money, etc. Were these issues to be alleviated, there would be more theatre. More theatre means more good theatre. More theatre means more knowledgeable audiences. More theatre means larger, more varied audiences. More theatre means more choices, including that which is produced on Broadway. Kind of like a "trickle-up" theory.

What can I do? I don't see running away from the art form as an option. I need to encourage all the artists I know to work to create, create, produce, fail, succeed, evaluate, discuss, create, create, create! At the risk of being redundant (I guess it's the director in me, Scott ;>) I will propose that a permenant company in a permenant space alleviates a lot of the problems in theatre. A stable, long(ish)-term artistic community allows for artistic evaluation, dialogue and promotion of the individual as well as group growth and development.

I'm ready to write off broadway, though. Believe me, that's not just sour grapes. Any system where I perceive money as the only motivating force for doing art holds no interest for me. Shows won't even go to the late, great white way unless it has star power, drawing power. No interest in talent, only concern with name recognition and sure-fire success at the box office. Fuck that. I'd rather be poor. (okay, that last sentence MAY be sour grapes...)

Jess, I apologize for underestimating your knowledge of leadership literature. In doing so, I was guilty of exactly what I as accusing you of.

I think one thing I am trying to say is not that the director is useless, but that to a large degree he is redundant. I am not arguing that there should not be directors, but rather that raising the director to the top of some artistic pyramid is really not justified, and that ultimately it makes the work less rich.

There are good reasons to prefer the hierarchical approach with the director at the top of the pyramid. The best argument is efficiency: more collaboration takes more time. But I am not convinced that efficiency has ever been at the center of the creation of worthwhile art. Nor do I think that it is particularly efficient to create multi-million dollar productions with four weeks of rehearsal, and then watch them close in a few days because they just aren't very good. The failure rate on Broadway, for instance, is appalling.

I despair over the state of the theatre. When I look at its mediocrity, I can't just blame it on the lack of "good" plays, or on the lack of courage in finding and producing them (Broadway is almost entirely revivals now). But there is also something wrong with the way we create. To me, what is wrong is a reliance on a production-line model of creation, which has an atomized work force focused only on its own particular job ("I'm an actor, and not only can I not comment on the set or the costumes, I can't comment on other actors either").

As far as Coach K and my Directing I class, I teach a traditional approach to directing, not because I believe in it, but because the consensus is that I should if I am responsible. Many times, I feel that this is a betrayal of my own values, which is why I am not sorry to not be teaching directing this fall. When I was at Illinois State, I taught directing by giving the entire class a single, non-dramatic work and telling them they had the rest of the semester to create a 45-minute performance out of it. Then I taught them the skills they needed as they created. This is the model for The Frankenstein Project.

Ultimately, given my despair about the way theatre is created, I sometimes doubt whether I should be teaching drama at all. Am I passing on this rejection of the way things are to the students -- students whose desire is to apply their energy and creativity to the creation of theatre, no matter what kind? Why insist on examining one's artistic life, one's artistic values? Wouldn't it be better to simply be more pragmatic, and give students the skills they will need to make it in today's theatre world? Maybe I am destroying young minds, much like Robin Williams did in the film after which our group is named. Yes, he inspired them, but ultimately he made them unfit for society as it is. Is that responsible?

scott-

Honestly, I don't think our ideas are that far apart. What I am trying to get you to realize is that even within less hierarchical paradigms there is always the presence of leadership, of management, of a source of discussion moderation. You asserted that the role of director was, for the most part, useless--that others, left to their own devices, could do the individual jobs of the director better than she could. I maintain that everyone does better work through the efforts of a good director.

An artist, or anyone for that matter, responds best un a fertile atmosphere of collaboration, of free exchange of ideas. Encouragement and group actualization of the individual is necessary for this to occur. Artists, especially, do not respond well to dictums. that's why the best leaders are recognizeable for their "followers" ability to make strong decisions and their ability to maximize their potential. You know this. I didn't just imagine all those conversations where you touted the methodology of Coach K.

Also, don't patronize me by assuming to know what I have and have not researched. Team building, decision making, conflict resolution, meeting management, the 4 E's of leadership, 7 habits..., TQM, TMS, SYMLOG, interpersonal communication, people styles -- I have ten plus years of experience outside the realm of academia in these fields. Maybe I haven't written a definitive paper on the subject (though chances are twenty years from now I will), but that doesn't mean my opinion isn't validated by observation, implementation and experience.

The "realities of group dynamics"??? "No other team-oriented profession"??? Jess, if I accomplish one thing before you graduate at the end of the semester, I hope it is to get you to stop making sweeping "authoritative" pronouncements about things you have not researched. All it would take is one trip to Barnes and Noble to look in the business section to see that a less hierarchical model of leadership informs many of the best-selling management books of the past decade. TQM, for instance. Of course, theatre is always decades behind in the world of ideas (as my recent conference experience reinforced, since most of the papers were about deconstruction and "body studies," two areas of theory that are dead as a doornail in other areas), and we are particularly enamored of the "genius auteur." Nevertheless, other models have been tried and have been successful.

The caricatured image of a less hierarchical arrangement as being a situation where everybody "votes" ("Who thinks Hamlet ought to move downleft on this line?") is not what I am talking about. I am talking about arriving at an interpretation as a result of discussion rather than a solitary decision by the director. I am talking about actors being able to comment on their costumes without designers getting bent out of shape, as Kendra always did ("I don't want to hear it. Tell it to the director, and the director can talk to me"). I am talking about everyone being in on the creation of an identity for the theatre, and in on choosing the plays. In short, I am talking about a system that recognizes that everybody involved is an artist, not a cog in a machine; a system that is based on civility, not compulsion; a system that recognizes that art that is created by a group, in order to be unified, cannot be made by an atomized company made up of people who only are allowed to think about "their job;" a system where everybody is responsive to each other, and open to giving and receiving ideas (which does not mean being compelled to accept them, simply give them consideration). In short, community, not a dictatorship.

There are arguments for the hierarchical model. For instance, such a model is much more efficient than a more collaborative approach. But has efficiency ever been a characteristic of great art? Is it efficient to create a multimillion-dollar production in 4 weeks of rehearsals, and then close them after a few performances because they aren't very good? These are models for the creation of "show business" products, not art. Our mission statement says we are creating artists, not show business men and women. And I think it is time that we recognize that art isn't created on a production line.

Scott

The realities of group dynamics belie many of your assertions, Scott. In no other team-oriented profession does anyone assert that a unified, group-mind, "decisions by committee" approach to growth and success is possible, or even desireable. Why pretend that theatre artists have some uncanny ability to lay aside differences in personalities and experience to work as a self-governing artistic body? You may say this as well points out the economic heritage of success in our country. But our goal is to work in a capitalist country with goals other than the accumulation of dollars. And be "successful".

My opinion, not fact:

Sets would not bebetter if the actors had input. Nor costumes. Interpretations are an amalgamation of the rehearsal process (best case scenarion). Actors would in no way be better if people outside the cast (and I'm including the director, my "rehearsal manager") were allowed to impart their unsolicited opinions.

I'm late for work, I'll type more on this later...

Thanks for the e-mail, Brian!

Well, there must be a full moon, with all this Kate-Brian agreement. Kind of giving me the creeps...

Since my first dissertation was on this very topic (the rise of the director), I'm afraid I have to point out a few problems in Jess' argument. First, the actor-manager was NOT a precursor of the contemporary director. The actor-manager did not seek to create a unified production, but rather oversaw the repertory, finances, and managed the mise en scene. But the modern director arises when one person (the Duke of Saxe Meiningen) asserts the right to interpret the play himself, and force others to follow that interpretation. Itis significant that it was a Duke, since his theatre was entirely financed by himself, all of the actors were his subjects, and he had complete artistics and political control. Since the modern director was born, there has been a great deal of ink spilled trying to establish his royal pedigree (sort of like the biblical begats that trace Jesus to Abraham): Sophocles "directed" his own plays, and so did Shakespeare, and so did Moliere, and so did David Garrick. This is all nonsense as far as what these people actually did, but the point is that by claiming them as ancestors, it gave prestige to the modern director.

The other thing that modern directors did right off was to write a lot of acting theory. Take a look sometime at the woefully misnamed Actors on Actors book, and you will see that most of the acting theory is not written by actors, but by playwrights and directors. Stanislavski created a system of acting that made the director absolutely necessary, because the actors' attention had been shifted entirely to their internal processes. An outside eye was "necessary."

But go through all of the things that a director does, and try to see if someone else could do it. You will see that there is very little a director does that couldn't be done by someone else on the artistic team.

The phrase "theatre is not democratic" is repeated so much by so many people that you would think Aristotle wrote it, or that it had some basis in fact. But the fact is that, yes, sets would probably be better if actors had a role in their creation, as would costumes, and interpretations. Actors' performances would probably be better if more people than the director were allowed to give feedback. The cult of the director is the artistic reflection of the hierarchical ecomonomic system. It has nothing to do with collaboration, or artistic communities, or the creation of quality work, any more than the 4 week rehearsal period and the unionized work schedule. When all is said and done, it is a system that has led to the absolutely awful state of the theatre today.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Scott

Do you have the Catherine Itzin book? I'd love to read it...

The idea of theatre as a collaborative effort inherently implies the need for an artistic director. Communism does not work in the theatre. Nor does democracy. So you designed a great set? Does this mean that all the artists in the theatre get to vote on it before it is used? Should the artisans doing the construction be consulted in regards to design concepts? That would be absurd and the answer is unequivocably, "no." Yet there needs to be some kind of link between all the talents that comprise the production. This is the job of the diretor. In rehearsals, someone has to ask the questions, provide the audience perspective. In production meetings, in work between all different areas, there must be a means of dialogue that is answerable to some artistic vision. I see this as the role of the director -- to ensure that all the artists of the company are working toward the same goal. In a perfect universe, this means that the director would have nothingto do. Designers would automatically work together to make the strong collaborative choices. The actors would inherently utilize the stage's setting for it's maximized results. They would also rehearse themselves with the unique ability to be onstage and aware of their percieved appearance form the audience's perspective. We all know this is just not the case. The director is the glue that binds.

"There was no strong director running the Globe, but a collective of artists who managed the theatre together, and they did a pretty good job. "

you mest be referringto the Globe of Shakespeare's day -- the current Globe is very much Sam Wanamaker's artistic vision. Yet Shakespeare's Globe (or Rose) was under the artistic influence of probably the greatest individual in the history of the theatre -- Shakespeare! yes the ensembles were self-directed, but only within the context of a permenant company where actors played the same types of roles from show to show. This is exactly what I am advocating. Not necessarily, "once a standard bearer, always a damn standard bearer" -- but absolutely a group of actors that train and perform several shows over several years together. Plus, what was the "actor/manager" if not the precursor to the current director?

One quibble, Jess: I don't think identity has to reside within a strong director, despite what the megalomaniac Edward Gordon Craig said. There are many ensembles that are run by a collective of actors, and when it comes to running the company, directors are either have an equal vote, or they are jobbed in by the actors! This is very prevalent in England, for instance, and I recommend a wonderful book called Stages in the Revolution by Catherine Itzin if you're interested. I find the hierarchical, director-down approach to theatre peculiarly capitalist, and last-capitalist at that. And also strangely limiting -- for both the theatre itself, and for all the non-directorial artists working in it. There was no strong director running the Globe, but a collective of artists who managed the theatre together, and they did a pretty good job. We regularly fall back on the old "too many cooks" saying, but the "two heads are better than one" could also apply. Unlike writing novels or painting pictures, doing plays is a collaborative art -- why limit the collaboration? Why should actors and designers be seen as tools for the directorial vision? I have a very Kantian idea about people being ends in themselves, and not means to another person's ends...

Scott

I have to agree with Scott. A strong identity is essential for a theatre company to grow artistically. But here's the thing -- this identity does not at all have to center around season selection. I feel it shold be more concerned with ways of doing theatre. "We are an experienced, text-based company," or "we explore fringe theatre in found spaces," or "we deliver weekend entertainment for tourists and locals." Do you see how some of these very same types of philosophies are recognizeable even in Asheville's theatre community? The great theatres of the world have specific goals. And these aims always have their genesis in the art of the specific artists that work in that theatre.

Permanent company, permanent space. No way does the best theatre get done by hiring in new talent for every single show. Artists need the chance for community. Actors have to learn to work as an ensemble and take it upon themselves as a group to further their acting education. In order to work best, artistically, designers need the chance to work in the same space for more than just three weeks on more than just one show. Teams of people get better at their tasks the longer they are together. In sports this is immediately recognizable. But it is observable anywhere. No one wants a new carpenter on the crew. No one wants a new lab assistant in the middle of an experiment.

In the theatre, in a permanent company, this has to have a strong sense of individual aesthetic as well. This is where directors come in to play. If their artistic drive is strong they will bring the right plays to the audience--it will be the shows they are driven to do in order to communicate to the public. If the directors work well together, if they respect each other artistically, then their works will complement each other - even if they are wildly different in appearance. Too, even if they are similar in appearance.

Also, for those that might know:

How do I get in touch with Peter Hall? I know that as of 1999 he had a Chair of Drama at the University of Houston and taught there one semester each year...and Asheville airport now has non-stop direct to Houston...

I'm just back from NYC, where I saw an incredible production of Long Day's Journey Into Night starring Brian Dennehy and Vanessa Redgrave. I never thought 4 hours of pain could be so enjoyable. The two guys playing Jamie and Edmund (I don't remember their names, but the actor playing Edmund also played the kid who plays Puck and then commits suicide in Dead Poet's Society) were incredible as well. It really was a revelation -- worth the trip to NY for an otherwise boring conference. By the way, Jennifer Croke says Hi to you all.

I'm not sure that I agree with Brian and Kate. I can't think of another industry that takes this "something for everyone" approach. Picasso didn't paint Norman Rockwell-like scenes in addition to Guernica, when you go to church they don't throw in a little Muslim stuff just to keep people happy, when you turn on the TV there are hundreds of specialized channels -- why do we feel that we ought to provide a smorgasbord? How can a theatre develop an identity?

Also, in response to Brian's comments about the Frankenstein Project imagery: the production will deal with the myth of Frankenstein, of which the Boris Karloff version is a definite part. In addition, the image isn't just of Karloff, but also of a nuclear explosion. Advertising is about making an immediate, visceral connection to the viewer, not a complex artistic statement. That image will attract attention.

Scott