Second question: if theatre does benefit society in some way, does all theatre benefit it, or does some of it not benefit society?

Scott

I think we need to back up (as Albee says in Zoo Story, sometimes it is necessary to go a long way in order to travel a short distance correctly). It seems to me that the government only gives money to things that it believes will benefit society. In what way does theatre benefit society?

Maybe part of the reason we see poor theatre in such predominance is due to the fact that 90% of the theatre artists working cannot devote the amount of time to the work necessary to create great theatre. Having to hold down a forty hour a week job seriously undermines your ability to stage quality work. It is this limitation I would like to see corrected.

Government subsidy of ticket prices is a necessity. It won't happen, though, until our political representatives see exposure to the arts as a necessary means for education of society.

I don't believe having the government subsidizing theatres is the best way to approach the problems in today's theatre. The problem is not the lack of theatre, but that the quality of the theatre that exists is very poor. Theatres that turn out great work will always find an audience.

Plus, I am wary about how money is distributed. For example, there is a company in Raleigh that consistently puts out shows that are of poor quality. Their group applied for many grants, and went to the city and pleaded for their own space. They argued that with their own theatre they would be able to build an audience much easier. To make a long story short...they received $250,000 (plus a space, virtually rent free- $1 a year.) from the city and in government arts grants, and now have a brand new 350 seat thrust theatre.

There MUST be some way to bring the costs down for the audience in order to attract a larger crowd. There is not a theatre in Raleigh that charges less than $15, most range between $20-30, (depending on the company) a person for a show. This is a lot of money for many families, particularly minority families- whose numbers are high here.

It is the ticket prices turn theatre into an elitist activity because many people simply can't afford to see it. Besides, you can see a film here for $6. For $6, you could see Robert de Niro, Jodie Foster, Meryl Streep, Kevin Spacey, and others that will give you quality performances-unlike many of the actors in the local companies.

Any government funding should be allotted to cutting the prices of tickets. Otherwise, what's the point? Without cutting the costs of tickets we would end up with lots of theatre- but still no audience!

Let's face it. Theatre is without doubt an elitist activity (from an audience perspective). It's certainly not a pastime of the populist at large. Which means your prime audience are the people that George Carlin refers to as, "middle age, white-collar, cigar smoking, cocksuckers."

This situation disgusts me. Especially the number of theatres that receive large amounts of money, and still have no connection to their audience or a quality piece of work.

Reclaiming the theatre must start with individuals and not groups depending on the government. We need to redefine what our notion of theatre is and work to change the form. Only then will theatre survive.

Brian

Does anyone remember the days of yore when this chat room used to have conversations focused on theatre and the arts in today's society? Or are witty banalities the only way we can communicate anymore?

I offer this to the great group grope:

Does government subsidy of the arts merely create "welfare artists"? Is there an inherent difference in funding an individual and subsidising a theatre? Would the channeling of funds to arts groups be more appealing (and possible) if the focus for monied distribution lay in subsidising the audiences?

I call a pre-emptive "foul" on anyone who refuses to answer based on the grounds that we've already tackled this subject. Let's apply our critical thinking skills and work towards some type of synthesis...

Or, pose another topic that is art/society/theatre related. I'm sick of gossip and Rawlings references that substitute for dialogue.

Grrrrr....

We've got a motto now? Shit, what's next? A crest?

I'm picturing an azure owl rampant on a field of sable, maybe with a red chevron, bearing the bar sinister.

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!

Jess-

What show are you doing?

Brian

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!

hey scott-

Actually I was following the DD motto by finding and reading the essay. We didn't read the article for class. EVERYONE loved Emerson, and the discussion was becoming slightly uninteresting for me. I think Emerson himself would have been disgusted with the "bandwagon" atmosphere of the discussion. I feel uncomfortable when everyone starts agreeing too often in a class setting. So, I looked for writers that disagreed with Emerson's ideas. Social Darwinist critiques just happened to be more abundant than others. (After all, I didn't have weeks to do careful research). Questioning everything...even Emerson.

I plan on taking the ideas in the essay and picking a fight in the next class with a few students in particular. I'm curious to see if the ideas of some of the students will hold up. At the least, I'm hoping the discussion will be better.

And no, I don't actually agree with the ideas in the "Forgotten Man" essay. However, some good points were raised that will hopefully promote better discussion at the next session.

Brian

PS- I was also a little annoyed by the absolutist tone of Emerson in the essay. He works within the sentence....which makes the constant assertions a bit much for me at times. Regardless of how quotable and inspiring the tone.

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

Scott-

One recommendation: William Graham Sumner's "The Forgotten Man." It is an essay that takes some of the principles of Emerson and channels them to support Social Darwinism- though he is not referred to directly. It is of interest because because it takes advantage of the absolutist mode of Emerson's ideas. It is easy to see that his views could be easily be taken to extremes...beyond the spiritual and intellectual levels (which I think were his intention.)

An online version of the essay can be found at:

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/SumnerForgotten.htm

Sumner (1840-1910) was a Sociology and Economics professor at Yale.

Thought you might be interested-

Brian

It's really amusing watching all these minds work to come to a consensus about lunch. Especially since lunch has become the main discussion of the list.

So, to join the discussion here is my input on the plan:

John is right. People should arrive separately. Gossip will start if the group is seen together too often. Instead, why not have a secret hiding place where the info. concerning a particular date's meeting can be stored securely. For example, a small steel box under a particular tree near CBT. The info will be deposited the Friday before each lunch.

Each person can then obtain the info. without the threat of a security breach. Of note- when obtaining the info. it is wise to engage in an act of subterfuge. For example, "he is that a penny!" ...then start digging.

I think this method would be more discreet than talking about world domination in front of Pat. Besides, you wouldn't want to disturb one of her conversations with one of the many theatres whose board of directors she is on.

Feel free to take this idea and run with it. Just trying to be helpful.

Brian

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?

Be where exactly? I don't think meeting at CBT initially is such a great idea, unless we're carpooling. If we could all meet at wherever we're going for lunch at 1130 it'd probably be much more efficient in terms of discussion time, especially for those that have a limited window, such as myself. That way the others won't be as affected by stupid schedules.

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.

Jennifer-

Good to hear from you again! How was the NY trip? Did you do/see much theatre while you were there?

Brian

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.

So have we actually started meeting now? I ran into Pat Snoyer today and she said she saw the group sans me around lunch time. I'm confused as to what's going on...

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...

Jess- only a chunk of the Brustein article is online. They don't put full text of all their articles online for free. A 12 month subscription is only $19.99 though. I believe this give you access to the full text of all articles as well.

They email you a pdf file with the entire issue enclosed if you subscribe. This isn't necessarily a bad deal. You could get several people together to get a subscription, then forward the issue to all those that chip in. $5 each (for DD) for a year's subscription- that's not bad.

The address is: www.tnr.com

I've been buying individual issues at the local bookstand- or I would forward the entire article along.


Brian

PS- Did you ever hear back from Peter Hall?

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?

Robert Brustein wrote an interesting piece for the latest edition of The New Republic. The article is titled, "When Egos Collide." Here is the intro to the piece:

"Since theater is an essentially collective activity, it is not always easy to determine whose imagination is exercising the greatest influence over the shape of a production: the director or the designer, the playwright or the actors. Nor should it be easy. The ideal production is a seamless web. One sign of a faulty collaboration is when there is no doubt about who has been running the show."

I thought of our earlier discussion when I read the article. Thought it might be worth passing along...

Brian

MWF 11:30=ok! I'm free until 1 on said days. Tuesday and Thursday could work but I'd only be free from 12-1. Regarding Lachlan, I'm with Scott, in that I don't know her very well at all. So I can't offer much of an opinion on who she is on the inside. And in regards to her cynicism, we should also take into consideration the fact that she might not even be interested...which would mean we'd have to eliminate her, naturally. You don't refuse the Dead Dramatists. Heh heh... But I'm open to it if the rest of you guys are and she is as well. Just for fun, I say we track down and invite Mike Henning.
Oh and about the whole "anybody can read what we say" deal, I say we post the address everywhere. That way, everybody can come and lose a little self esteem at our hands.

John
ps. Just joking about Mike and the url to the blog, of course. And maybe the elimination of those who refuse us, too. I haven't decided yet.
pps. Brian, I think you've found your calling.

Good point about Lachlan. She can be extremely cynical...maybe she just needs a change in environment. It's hard to say...

Scott, to answer your question:

we just really got into Emerson towards the end of our seminar today. We've been building up to it. The course is designed in a comparative format. For example, the first unit is Hawthorne and Emerson. From Hawthorne we reading: "Young Goodman Brown," "My Kinsman, Major Molineaux," "The Minister's Black Veil," "Roger Malvin's Burial," "Wakefield," "The Birthmark," Rappaccini's Daughter," "The Maypole of Merrymount," "Ethan Brand," "The Artist of the Beautiful," The Scarlet Letter, and The Blithdale Romance.

From Emerson we read: "Self-Reliance," "The Divinity School Address," "The American Scholar," "Experience," and a book of his poetry.

Each unit last a few weeks, with 3 seminar discussions per week. For example, today and Monday include a discussion and comparison of ideas presented in Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown" and Emerson's "self-reliance." Various works are juxtaposed and discussed at each session.

However, we have supplemental readings and one intro lecture before we begin each unit. Students rotate throughout the semester giving the intro lecture when needed. In fact, the lecture counts for 20% of our grade. Our professor, Dr. Stein, takes turns presenting at the same interval as the other students. He started by giving the first lecture. A lecture on the Neo-Classical Outlook of the 18th Century. Then moved on to works that influenced development of Romanticism. For example, he discussed Rosseau's "Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts," "Discourse on the Origins of Inequality Among Men," and "The Confessions." We also looked at Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Critique of Practical Reason." Then we would go over major Neo-Classical trends. For example, the emphasis on order, discipline, moderation, and reason...(OR that the first goal of the individual should be to serve society first, before self vs. romantic notion of defining self before focusing or being able to help others.)

This intro then spills into to our discussion as a starting point. The discussions then last 2-3 days on any given topic. We just got started today with the Emerson work, and didn't have a tremendous amount of time to address as many things as people would have liked. The discussion will continue on monday though. Today we focused on Hawthorne's use of allegory, and the broad differences between the ideas in "Young Goodman Brown" and "Self-Reliance." For example, the Hawthorne tale ends in a very ambiguous manner. It can be interpreted two different ways- each could be argued with much validity. The ambiguous nature of the ending was used to emphasize Hawthorne's idea of people being self-doubting. He believed that the beginning of wisdom is realizing that there are many things our of the realm of human capacity and understanding vs. Emerson's notion that the individual is the maker of all meaning and truth. Along the lines of Friedrich Schleiermacher when he declared, "Not he has religion who believes in some holy scriptures, but he who needs no holy scripture or might well produce such scripture himself."

Anyway, I'll let you know about the Emerson discussion when we are in full swing on monday.

Brian

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

"I think I'll just stop talking all together."

Not all together, but you might want to watch it about one of the few people around here who'll actually take up for you despite your heinous abrasiveness. I'm all for inviting Lachlan. She's smart, she thinks, and she's got a thick skin. Sounds like our kind of people.

And just to throw out an idea...how does the old set-up of Monday at 11:30 work for people?

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.

"is Brian's spot worth replacing?" thanks John....only after an appropriate grieving period. Lachlan Smith is someone that you might consider if you ever decide to invite new people. She is a great leader, and someone of high intellect- though she doesn't always assert herself.

She is going to be an important leader in the department.

Brian

Thanks for the teaching advice- it definitely helps. I finished my first full day of classes today and survived...though it is going to take much more preparation than I anticipated. And yes, I realized tonight that lectures take MUCH longer to prepare- and I can't maintain that style throughout the semester. The class is composed completely of freshman in a "first year college" program. So, they are making the transition to being college students just as I am making a transition into my new role. It should be a learning experience for all involved.

Scott, you mentioned in an earlier post that you have read a good amount of Emerson this summer. I was curious about anyone's thoughts on connecting Emerson's "Self-Reliance" to theatre or the arts today. Particularly, Emerson's notion of following intuition and "whims." This assertion seems to argue against any type of training...particularly training that focuses on past methods or history. I ask because my seminar on American Romanticism is focusing on Emerson for the next two weeks- so it is fresh in my mind.

On a completely different note, I wanted to give everyone an update on a fellow graduate from this past semester. Carly Gramer found out yesterday that she has been cast in a professional production of a play called "All the King's Men." It is an original adaptation by Adrian Hall of the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Robert Penn Warren of the same name. She is one of only a handful of non-Equity actors in the show...the actress Lynda Clark (who is a television actress) is playing the lead. The show opens at the BTI Center in Raleigh in early October.

Brian

Sorry for my however long it was absence from posting... I just got the 'net set up in my new...uh...place...yeah... Anyway though, I've returned, and I just have three spur of the moment things to say.

1) "If you'd rather lecture, then lecture." - Scott, this is Brian Santana we're talking about here. I don't think this is even in question.

2) Have we discussed trying to set up an actual meeting time of any sort this semester? I'm still in favor of the lunch option. I thought it worked well when we first started.

3) Is Brian's spot worth replacing? Or should we just be comfortable with ourselves for the time being?

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...

I just moved into my new office at NCSU today...that sounds funny just saying it. I am a TA for an American Literature class(which just involves grading papers and giving a lecture in the event the professor cannot be at class), and I teach an introduction to literary theory... a section for non-majors. It is essentially a survey course (1 hour credit), with lots of eclectic essays that I am giving them to read. everything from Virginia Woolf to Stephen King. I have spent the past few days in training...which was slightly odd. Rather than give advice on teaching, I was given lots of guidelines and rules to follow. Including a 2 hour seminar on sexual harassment and ethics.

Here is what I was taught before sent off to teach my first class:

1. Be sure to notify your supervising professor if controversial material will be reviewed in class. Include the specific information in the syllabus about the material.

2. Always be a role model. Confront racist, sexist, and other inappropriate remarks promptly. They will not be tolerated by NCSU.

3. Always keep compliments impersonal.

4. Avoid words and phrases that have inappropriate connotations.

5. Respect each person's personal space.

6. Always try and conduct meetings with students with your door open. If the meeting requires more privacy, ask for permission to shut the door completely.

7. never give personal info to students. Remember, students perceive an enormous power differential between themselves and the faculty. Personal info should not be given, unless it is given to all students.

So, I guess this will be "the blind leading the blind." It's feels so strange that I was in classes three months ago, but now an qualified to teach others. Then, instead of getting "wise" guidance, I get pages of administrative rules.

Anyway, good luck to you all with the start of your classes/shows!

Brian

PS- Never complain about the workload at UNCA if you plan on going to grad school. In my Literary Criticism class (alone), our grade is composed of (4) 5-7 page papers, and (2) 15-20 page seminar papers...with enough reading in between to make my eyes bleed. Our final exam is presenting a seminar paper of a new work to a faculty panel.

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.)

"Hey, what's wrong with Slytherin? Some of the most powerful graduates of Hogwarts were members of Slytherin."

And that is why Brian's in Slytherin.

Brian, I've always loved that idea about writing (got the Stephen King book for Christmas my freshman year). I'd never thought of applying it to education, though. Another ten points for Mr. Santana. :)

~Kate (Ravenclaw, of course)

PS-No one will even remember your Nimbus when they see my shiny new Firebolt.

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

Hey, what's wrong with Slytherin? Some of the most powerful graduates of Hogwarts were members of Slytherin.

On another note, I was re-reading a section of the Stephen King book, On Writing, earlier tonight. (Stephen King's book that deals with writing as a craft) I came across the closing passage, and it made me think about the purpose of university training, especially in the arts. King writes:

"Writing isn't about making money, getting famous, getting dates, getting laid, or making friends. In the end, it's about enriching the lives of those around you, and enriching your own life, as well. It's about getting up, getting well, and getting over. Getting happy, okay? Getting happy.

Some of this book-perhaps too much-has been about how I learned to do it. Much of it has been about how you can do it better. The rest of it- and perhaps the best of it-is a permission slip: you can, you should, and if you're brave enough to start, you will. Writing is magic, as much the water of life as any other creative art. The water is free. So drink. Drink and be filled."

It made me wonder...is one of the largest parts of our education at UNCA a permission slip? The idea of a permission slip seemed to be a somewhat appropriate way to describe liberal arts education- if that makes sense to any of you.

Brian

PS- Everyone in the neighborhood is jealous of my new Nimbus Two Thousand!

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...

Ten points to Slytherin, Mr. Santana! You successfully changed the color!

The full tag for just changing the color is : < font color="#008000">Your text here < /font>
only without the space after the <. (I put the spaces in just so you can see the tag, instead of having it get absorbed as it would if I were actually using it.)

The first tag tells the color to change, and the second one tells it to stop. The stop is important, or it will, as you saw, turn everything green.

I quit now...

Testing red color

Wow, I can do all sorts of colors now!!!

I think I somehow colored all my scripts....

I feel like a first year student at Hogwarts right now

Brian

Test Post

Test

Test Post

Test Post

<000080

<000080>

Test Post

<000080

shit...didn't work. Trying to do some html coding, but having problems.

Prof. Yuhas, what does the full tag for color look like?

Brian

Test Post

<#000080

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

Okay...I know you don't care, and it doesn't -really- matter to anyone but me...

But the numbers do mean something. And for some reason, I can't seem to stop myself from explaining them. Call it a teaching compulsion or something, I don't know...but brace yourself for a little lesson in mathematical, computer, and color theory.

The numbers are hexidecimal code. Note the same "hexi" (six) and "Decimal" ten. Sixteen. Because what you're looking isn't a string of six digits so much as three numbers, each in base sixteen, which your computer converts to binary (base 2), and shows as color.

Base 16, in simple terms: We usually count in base 10. 1, 2, 3,...8, 9, 10. "10" is actually a 1 in the tens place and nothing in the ones place. In base sixteen, you're working with a sixteens place and a ones place. So you count 1, 2, 3,...8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10. The letters function as place holders, and 10 in base sixteen is 16 in base ten.

Now, when you're looking at the three numbers in the hexidecimal code, each set refers to a different color. The first two digits are red, the second two are green, and the last two are blue. "FF" is the highest you can go, because "0" in hex code is used to represent a nil. So, when you see "FF0000", that's primary red. The red digits are turned up as high as they can go, and the blue and green digits are at 0. Because we're working with colors of light, all the colors at "FF" gives us white, and all the colors at 0 gives us black. Then, if you reverse things, "FFFF00" gives us yellow because everything's at full but blue, and yellow is opposite of blue on the light color wheel. Everything in between is a mixing of red, green, and blue to get different colors. Like, for instance, "6495ED", Cornflower Blue. Converting to base ten, we've got red at 100, green at 149, and blue at 237, all out of a possible 255.

So yeah, that's what the numbers mean.

And I'm sure you've all just totally skipped over this or I've managed to lose you somewhere in there. But I felt compelled to defend my numbers.
~K8

"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

And for Scott the budding HTML Guru, here's how I did it: It goes in the same font tag that changes the color. < font face="Times New Roman" color="#000080">Times New Roman, in #000080 < /font>

Sweet! I can change the font!

Hee hee, indeed. I object to the "Strike" definition, though--DeWalt totally blows Makita out of the water.
And really, I'm just typing this to see if I can change the font.

Hee Hee!

A Few interesting definitions I thought I would pass along:

Prop- A hand-carried object small enough to be lost by an actor 30 seconds before it is needed on stage.

Blocking- The art of moving actors on the stage in such a manner as not to collide with the walls, the furniture, the orchestra pit or each other. Similiar to playing chaess, except that the pawns want to argue with you.

Tech Week- The last week of rehearsal when everything that was supposed to be done weeks before finally comes together at the last minute; reaches its grand climax on dress rehearsal night when costumes rip, a dimmer patch catches fire, and the director has a nervous breakdown.

Dark Spot- An area of the stage which the lighting designer has inexplicably forgotten to light, and which has a magnetic attraction for the first time actor. A dark spot is never evident before opening night.

Lighting Designer- One who wines, bitches, throws fits, and says "this is the last show I'm doing here! I swear t God!" (rinse,repeat)

The Forebrain- The part of an actors brain which contains lines, blocking, and characterization; activated by hot lights.

Stage Crew- Group of individuals who spend their evenings coping with 50 min. stretches of total boredom interspersed with 30 second bursts of mindless panic.

Message Play- Any play its director describes as "worthwhile, " "a challenge to actors and audience alike," or "designed to make the audience think." Critics will be impressed both by the daring material and the roomy accomodations, since they're likely to have the house all to themselves.

Strike- The time immeadiately following the last performance that all cast and crew members are required to watch the two people who own Makita screwdrivers dismantle the set.

Actors- people who stand between the audience, director, and designer's art...blocking the view. That's all the origin of the word blocking, by the way.

JUST REMEMBER: It's only theatre until it offends someone...Then it's ART!

Brian

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".

Scott,
In regards to your directing class, I see no reason why you should not teach what you believe. Being the 'authority' on the subject affords you the ability to craft the class the way you see fit. And even if the current consensus is that what is required is a traditional approach to directing, that still does not influence actual class dynamics, and your freedom to express ideas, as to say, "What I'm teaching is a traditional approach, but I also feel you should take a look at..." I don't think not teaching the class at all benefits the students to any greater of a degree.
You make a valid point about the effects Robin Williams has on his students in the aforementioned motion picture. But the actual changes that take place within the students are ultimately the result of their own choices. And how can we expect society to ever change if the individuals within it do not? I believe the students are ultimately better off for their experiences. To use a slightly more pop-culture sensitive metaphor, these are the burdens that accompany the red pill. But is it better to live your life under a shroud of closed mindedness? I don't think so. So to answer your question, yes... I believe the teacher's leadership is responsible.

ps. Do you know "Flynn-McIver A", who is now listed as teaching the directing class? What can I expect?

pps. No offense meant by any of the above mentioned opinions, of course. I really respect your decisions as to what you feel is needed in your life.

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.

Aii-yah. I walk away from my computer for a couple days, and things get all heavy. Sweet merciful crap.

All right. Gonna try to catch up now.

I hate it when people tell me how to drive. I'm behind the wheel, my feet are on the pedals, and my fingers are the only ones that get to touch the radio. When people start whining and bitching about "Kaaaate! You're going too faaaaaast!" and "Kaaaaate! You're pulling up too close to that guuuuuuy!" and "Kaaaaate! I haaaaate Led Zeppelin!" and "Kaaaaate! You drive like a bat out of Heeeeeeel!" it pisses me off big time. I tend to glare, snap at people, and drive even more recklessly than I did before. It makes me angry, because it's my goddamn car and I'm driving it and they really have no business whining about it.

You know what else I hate? I hate group projects. "Why do you hate group projects, Kate?" you ask. Well, kids, I hate group projects because I'm generally smarter than everyone else in the group. It would be much, much easier for me to just do the damn thing myself and not have to mess with stupid people's stupid opinions and their stupid ideas.

And while we're on the subject of things I hate...

I hate bizarre extended metaphors. And hypocrites.

Seriously, though...what frequently frustrates me about the collaborative approach to things is not having equal collaborators. I would never presume to tell Rob Bowen what to do with the lights because I don't have his knowledge, talent, skill, or expertise. At the same time, there's a reason almost no one is willing to tangle with me in a class discussion of a play--because I know what I'm talking about, and they don't.

So what I'm saying is, I don't really think actors have any place commenting on their costumes, I don't think electricians ought to say anything about the set, and I think carpenters should keep their damn mouths shut about the acting. They don't have any of the skills necessary to form educated opinions about any of those things.

Now, as for the interpretation of the play...

Here's my ideal world: Designers, directors, actors, and technicians are all intelligent, educated, insightful people. They have a broad knowledge of history, literature, science, and theatre as well as skill at their chosen crafts. They can contribute great ideas and help form a truly wonderful interpretation of the play that everyone has some stake in and can believe in.

Is it possible to create my ideal world? Yes, if you're willing to work really hard at it. You'd have to hunt all over the place to find that quality of artist. Would it be worth it?

It just might be.

~Kate, Metaphysically Conceited

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...)

Scott-

Personally, I don't mind the current directing model. As a non-actor, designer, etc...I focused most of my classes and interest towards the academic end of drama while at UNCA. One of the main things that I lacked, and what I wanted from the directing class, was some basic technique. What I really wanted, and what intimidated me most was the actual "nuts and bolts" of staging and realizing my ideas on stage.

I have no intention of being a professional stage director, but would like to continue to direct occasionally in the future (I am actually waiting to hear about my first directing job as we speak). When I did take a "production class," like directing, I wanted things that would make-up for my deficiency in the area of production experience. I found that the things that helped me most were the bits of advice on using areas of space, power stage positions, using the pause, etc...

Directing can be a skill in the same way that carpentry or painting is a skill. It is elevated to an art by the intangibles that each individual brings to the work...which cannot be taught. Yet, such work cannot be accomplished without the basic tools. I think we should work to develop the voice of each artist while at UNCA. Lastly, they should be given the tools to realize their own vision and ideas.

Directing is nothing more than being able to physically express on stage what is intellectually understood/felt inside. I don't think it is wrong to teach directing in a traditional way. That is not the problem with today's artists. The problem is that they don't bring anything else to the productions. They are taught technique from day one, and never progress beyond that point. This makes their work hollow. Technique is nothing more than a servant to the artist's voice, not an end in itself. So, teaching directing in a traditional manner should never be feared when the individual desires those tools to be able to give form to their voice.

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?

I personally very much agree with Scott on this one. The actor is no less as valuable an artist as is the director, or the costume designer, or any of the members of a production, and this means that the ideas of said artist are no less as valuable. Same goes for everyone involved in my opinion, including the author of the piece being produced. Important in his own right, but not to a dictatorial extent, or to a subservient one. However, this philosophy also binds me to the belief that the director and the role he plays are also quite important, and not expendable. But I'll step aside for the moment, as this isn't an argument bonded to my heart by any means...just thoughts on the issue.

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!

Having said that...there are a few contemporary directors I would consider auteurs. For example, film director Robert Rodriguez. Among others, he is responsible for the Spy Kids films.

Here is a list of the jobs he did on the film:

Writer, Director, Producer, Editor, Director of Photography, Production Designer, Film Composer, and Special Effects Supervisor.

He is the only person I am aware of that works that many positions in film. It is safe to say that he has taken authorship of the film, and that few could step in and do these jobs.

Perhaps, an argument could be made for Julie Taymor in the theatre.

Brian

PS- Maybe it is easier for a director to be "god" in film. Since, the director oversees and can craft (if the studio gives him the authority) virtually every aspect of what the audience will see. Long after the actors and other personnel have moved on.

I actually agree with some of your last points Scott. During my time at UNCA, I went through a period where I was a big advocate of the auteur theory. The notion that the director is the sole author of a production.

I have since changed my mine. Mainly because I have never met an "auteur" at any level of contemporary theatre or film. I don't doubt their existence. Many of the people I admire most could be classified as auteurs. Yet, I think the theory is rather silly...especially in film. As I have explored the subject further, I have become convinced that the auteur theory and the aura of the director is a title conjured up by theorists...that bears little resemblance to the actual role the director has in a show.

Why do you think we have elevated the position of director to such a status?

For example, I recently finished reading the autobiography of Don Knotts...yes, I'm a fan of Don Knotts. Anyway, one section of the book chronicles in detail his experience of acting in his first Broadway show. The show was titled "No Time for Sergeants" by Ira Levin.

Here is what he wrote:

"The director, Morton Da Costa, known as Teke, wasted no time getting the play on it's feet. We had only three weeks of rehearsal and three weeks of out of town tryouts."....

"I was a little baffled at Mr. DaCosta's direction. I'm afraid I had romanticized Broadway directors in my mind. I imagined that I would be privy to all kinds of story insight, and that I would receive keen direction. But the fact is, once Mr. DaCosta had blocked our positions on stage, he rarely spoke out loud, and rarely to the actors. After fourteen full days of rehearsal, we had not exchanged a single solitary word. So, I finally got up the nerve to approach him. Mr. Da Costa, I said. He whirled around and looked at me as if he had never seen me before in his life. "well...I..er...uh...am I doing it all right?" "Yes" he said simply, and went on with his discussion with a designer. Those were the only words we ever exchanged. "

"Teke DaCosta went on to become an extremely successful stage and film director. So, I guess he did something right."

This passage is very funny, but makes a few good points.

Why does the role of director have such a mystique about it?

In fact, like Scott mentioned....in many cases, there are several members of the production team that could do the same job.

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

Again, I'm with Brian. So I'll just say that and leave it alone.

First of all, I don' think the comparison to "Picasso doing a Norman Rockwell" is fair. The mediums are intrisically different. There is no interaction with the audience when viewing a painting, the work is completely your own. With theaters, your ideas not only go through other people, but are designed to speak to others.

I lose interest pretty quickly in companies that do a certain "type of play." For example, "classical theatres" or avant -garde theaters." Such theaters and their audiences quickly become stereotypes and caricatures of themselves. They play to the same audience over and over again- and little progress is really made.

Theater only has power when it works on a large scale. When you attract as many different types of people as possible to your company. You create a dialogue with people from completely different areas of interest, experience, etc... People are more complex than types, and so should an artistic director. Similiar to the discussion before....you could have a play that is nothing more than entertainment, a classical piece, a new play, and a fringe play- all in the same season.

Theater is about building community and bring different people together. Not providing outlets or social clubs for already existing groups and niches.

I would want my theater to communicate with the rest of the world, not just a few groups or critics.

Brian

PS- Jess: You can reach Peter Hall at the email address: judice.uh.edu The address was provided by the theater department at the university of Houston. All email sent to that address is forwarded to his other email account.

You know, I find it interesting that Brian and I, the ones who were so vocally against service projects and the like, are the ones advocating theatre as having a responsibility to the audience. Guess we aren't as misanthropic as we claim.

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

Scott-

Have you been to the UNCA Drama Dept. website lately? I just checked the site for updates, and found ads for the upcoming season. I thought the ad for your show was particularly interesting. You spoke a great deal about not doing a "traditional" Frankenstein story. Yet, the poster has a huge picture of Boris Karloff on it, from the first James Whale film. The image that is perhaps most associated with the traditional "monster story." ....the green make-up, stitches, the head with a flat top, etc...

Don't you think it's slightly unusual to stage an original adaptation- but advertise w/ images from a past film production. It's the equivalent of advertising a production of It's a Wonderful Life with pictures of Jimmy Stewart from the film.