After years of thinking about it, and sometimes even talking about it, I have at last begun a blog. The motivation for the blog, the inspiration for the title, and the subject of my first post all stemmed from an incident a few weeks back when, after I delivered an impassioned rant regarding my standards for community theatre, an actor I was working with smiled, shook his head blithely, and murmured, “Well, we all have our windmills.”
This good-natured comment took me aback for only a moment, but burrowed into my subconscious for weeks. It left me wondering, and re-wondering, is my dedication to the creed that community theatre is the front line in the battle to keep live theatre viable really a case of tilting at windmills? I don’t know – but perhaps if I chatter on long enough with random blog posts, I’ll be granted a grand epiphany on the matter. Or not.
The aforementioned rant that became the genesis of this blog was prompted by a rehearsal for a show I was directing. After a week or two of struggling with a difficult script, an actor or two began to display mutinous leanings, and a demand of “Change the lines!” began to emerge. I put my foot down, and the roar became a grumbling, and rehearsal went on. Afterwards, I was treated to an email from one of the actors, simultaneously apologizing and questioning my unwavering devotion to “every word of the script”. I responded via email, reiterating my reasons for not making changes to difficult lines (clearly a subject for another blog post!), but after bedding the line-change issue, I found myself continuing in what quickly became a rant. With some editing to remove unnecessary information (and because there just *might* have been a touch of inappropriate language sprinkled in), here is a sampling of the email:
. . . I am of the opinion that community theatre is as much – [heck], more - "real theatre" as professional, so I hold it to the same standards. Theatre is a passion for me, and I hold all aspects of it in the highest respect and I expect the same of those I work with. I find it an embarrassment when people take the attitude "Hey, it's community theatre, it's just for fun, it doesn't really matter what we do with it." That kind of community theatre makes me cringe . . . Theatre was born in the community, the community is it's only hope for survival right now, and it may very well die in the community - there is no excuse for lazy community theatre.
[snip]
That's the kind of director I have always been and always will be - I see so much more to theatre than actors running around on stage spewing lines. The artistry and meaning of it goes much deeper than that - there is art in the playwriting, art in the directing, art in the set design, art in the lighting design, there is even art in the stage managing of a show, and I won't shrug off those principles because I got stuck with a bad script.
It was this rant, with the line-change issue snipped, that prompted the actor to make the Don Quixote reference when next we met. For those of you unfamiliar with the reference, “tilting at windmills” refers to a scene in the novel Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes where the protagonist of the story (named, shockingly, Don Quixote) spies a group of formidable giants in the distance. Don Quixote valiantly charges into battle with them, sure of victory and fortune, despite the admonishment of his friend that the giants are, in fact, merely windmills. In modern terms, “tilting at windmills” can mean either a battle against an imaginary foe, or a battle that is futile. Hence the question that inspired this blog: Is my fight for quality community theatre a battle that doesn’t need to be fought, or a battle that cannot be won?I admit, my horse is quite high on this issue. :)
I say neither, and if giants disguise themselves as windmills, then it is windmills I will fight. And I know for a fact that I am not the only Don Quixote wielding a lance in the community theatre world.
copying from FB: My opinion is that everyone has their priorities. As a born comedian and class clown, my priority is to entertain and cause laughs - at any cost - even the purity of the script or the sanctity of the 4th wall - and it's never a PLANNED thing with me - it's an interactive reaction to the audience's reaction. Directors like you usually want to strangle me but laugh in spite of themselves! :) I'm sure I caused you a few eye rolls during "Steel Magnolias" - even though I behaved as well as I could stand to! :)
ReplyDeleteI get tired of seeing community theater that sacrifices entertainment and fun for absolute, mind-numbing purity. There is one I think you would LOVE, but I don't go to their shows anymore because I hate sitting in the audience thinking of all the ways the show could be fixed, rather than enjoying myself. Again, it's a case of priorities. I have a two careers that feed our budget needs. Acting and singing is a hobby that feeds my soul, but a hobby I have very little time for. I WILL NOT participate in something that is no fun and does not allow me to shine at my assigned moment in the script. Hopefully, I'm a good enough actress to use the script, as written, to shine - most of the time I am good enough - thank God! :)
Having disagreed with you to that extent, let me say that your prioirity is no less important to you and to the theater and no less a goal to be reached for - HARD. Your actors can disagree, but it was very rude for someone to belittle your goals with a windmill remark! Furthermore, if they don't like you as a director, there ARE plenty of community theaters to work for in the area. There are certainly directos, actors, and general theaters I never want to work for again - usually not because they are bad people, but their priorities don't suit me.
I have a JOB for which I sacrifice more than I want to at times. Theater is MY hobby, MY time, MY talent. If it doesn't make me happy, why bother? Since I've adopted that philosophy, my work has only gotten better and better and all of the sudden, certain professional opportunities arose in recognition.
Now Starshine, you have to post your response so I can post my rebuttal. :D
ReplyDeleteAh, but Tami, theatre, unique of other art forms, can't every be about ONE person's time, ONE person's talent. You are part of something bigger, and you have to contribute as others are. And my "tiresome" dedication to purity led to a nearly flawless show that was extremely well-received. :) But, definitely, thank you for the future blog fodder!! LOL!
ReplyDeleteTami, you didn't post your rebuttal, but I want to go more in depth on your comment anyway. You say you're willing to go for the laugh at any cost. First, I would say that that may work fine if you're a stand up comedian, or even a solo singer, but it's just not an acceptable attitude in theatre. You're working with other people, a multitude of artists are contributing to the piece, and for one actor to sacrifice other artist's hard work in order to get a laugh is offensive, rude, and wholly outside the spirit of theatre, not to mention it's just not good acting. Second, having said that, I have to dispute your contention that you sacrifice anything for the laugh. You forget, I was at the performance of Steel Magnolias where we had our lovely wardrobe malfunction. Two things happened: 1 - I freaked for a moment, and then I relaxed. Why? Because I knew your entrance was coming up, and I instinctively thought, "Tami will fix this." 2 - You *did* fix it, and you did it with class and without breaking the scene. An actor who sacrifices all for the cause of a laugh would have played that moment to the audience, sacrificing the dignity of her fellow actors and the integrity of the scene in order to get more laughs from the moment. You didn't do any of that. You handled it in character and the scene lost nothing.
ReplyDeleteAs to your point that community theatres shouldn't sacrifice fun on the altar of purity, I couldn't agree with you more. I take issue when "having fun" = "doesn't matter" in the minds of the community theatre participants. It's still an art form, one that deserves respect. Even hobbiests, whether it be mountain-climbing, knitting, singing, or cow-tipping, put actual *work* into their hobby. They do things that aren't fun in order to get the full experience out of their hobby. (Ok, maybe not cow-tipping.) If a hobby means doing something that is nothing but pure fun, then reading a book, watching tv, going to the movies - those would be the real hobbies, and we'd have to come up with another word for the rest of it. Additionally, if you're doing something for pure fun, and have no intention of putting any effort into it, or working to make it the best you can, then why share it with other people? Don't take the stage, keep it in your backyard.
As for your last paragraph, I would only say this. I can't claim to know you really well, but I've worked with you enough and interacted with you enough to say that I don't think you *would* be happy if what you were doing wasn't the best that you could make it. And that takes work. You put the work you need to into making your individual performance outstanding. I, as director, also need to put work into making the entire performance outstanding.
o...k... Sorry for doing something else besides FB for a few days! :) My only response to your last comment is that you are taking my response to the extreme. I should not have said "at any cost" - I should have said "at the cost of total purity." I certainly did not say "it's ONLY about fun and should not require work." In fact, I've been threatening to quit another group because they don't schedule enough time to get things right. I won't associate my good name with that.
ReplyDeleteIn your blog, you said you wouldn't change ONE line - sounded extreme to me. I WOULD change ONE line. (Bob and I did change TWO lines in our show that our actors -incl. YOUR brother - hated and we thought the audience would hate,too. We changed totally dated lines in another show I directed, too. Luckily those playwrites had the vision to encourage creativity and timeliness.) I am willing to compromise SLIGHTLY on purity for entertainment - not throw my co-stars to the wolves to promote myself - as you conjectured with the wardrobe malfunction in "Magnolias." That situation was not about me.
Ok, original rebuttal: No, it's not all about ONE person's time and talent. But my decision to invest MY good reputation, my precious time getting behind in my work, away from my loved ones, my gas money, my property, my exhaustion...my HAIR COLOR! (HAHA) etc. is MY decision. Nobody is forcing me. I always do all I can to lift and/or improve my cast - it's not all about me being a STAR. Being the STAR of a crappy cast is still a crappy production (I've been there, too.) But there does have to be SOMETHING in it for me. I know that sounds selfish, but why else would I do it? Why do you direct for teeny or no paychecks? For personal satisfaction of an excellent product - as you stated in your blog. If you don't get it because someone impeded you - you won't spend your time and imagination on that group anymore - as stated in your blog. (gotcha!) [For the record, I would invest all that in your directing again - but maybe not in that particular theater. I'll give it some time and see.]
I hated to use the word "tiresome" - it was how I felt during the first week or so of rehearsal. But when you are the director and I am the actor, I have to let you attempt to execute your vision unimpeded. It's very hard when I, too, have directed. But, as I said, I saw the value in what you were doing, so I impatiently went along with it for a few weeks, started seeing and feeling the results, and then it was again a joy. And the product did, indeed, pay off. My patience and faith in your vision was rewarded! Your patience with the couple of little stunts that some of we actors pulled in the heat of performance that paid of in laughs was also rewarded.
So I guess the summary of my zillion paragraph response is: I agree that excellence IS to be striven for in everything you do - even "just community theatre," but a little compromise often pays off. (I.e. I agree with you 95%.)
For the record- when Clairee had her malfunction, I thought long and hard about what was best for HER, the rest of the cast, and YOU. Should I whisper for her to fix it? (that's what I did) or should I try to convince the audience that she MEANT to do that by saying something like, "Clairee, a High/Low hemline is meant to be worn in the FRONT - not the BACK!" and she would pull her dress out in front of everyone, they would laugh and think, "Oh - was that part of the script? Cool." I knew Clairee could handle that bit of improv and might even steal it from me and run with it, knowing her! But I was afraid the cast novices might be very thrown by it and I KNEW you would hate it! :)
ReplyDeleteOk, several things.
ReplyDeleteA: The focus of my blog was not the line issue (although I'll probably write something on that later), it was the "whatever" attitude that I run into too frequently in community theatre.
B. Your assertion that changing one line is no big deal ignores the legal contract and possible legal ramifications. But again, another blog post.
C. You claim that I took your response to the extreme, but you seem to be taking my views to extremes as well.
D. I brought up the Clairee incident as an example of why I don't think you're as blase about the issue as you claim, not at all as any sort of criticism. Also, you misread my directing style completely if you think I would have hated that sort of improv in the interest of saving the scene. On the contrary, it's what I was expecting from you. The whisper was effective and worked well, but the comment you were contemplating would have served the scene much better.
I could never be a Director. What a tremendous responsibility. To take words written on paper and breathe life into them! To take a writers vision and give it form! A director - to me - is the liaison between the writer and the theatre audience. You are being trusted by the writer to represent his product exactly as he envisioned it.
ReplyDeleteYou are also being entrusted by the paying public to present a product worthy of being paid for!!
What do you do when given a difficult (read:crappy) script to work with? That is exactly the scenario you seem to have been dealing with when the actors asked you to change some lines. How can you blame them for wanting to present the best show possible?
You say, and I believe you, that you are fighting for the quality of community theatre. How does putting on a poorly written play advance your cause? At a time when money is tight we can't afford to turn off an audience member for life because they saw a bad play.
So, who is the directors allegiance supposed to align with? The right of the author to expect the "purity" of the written word or the right of the audience to expect the best product possible?
If changing a few words makes the script better, I say do it! If adding or dropping a few lines to aid in scene transition makes sense, go for it! Shakespeare re-wrote his stuff all the time. To this day, his plays are set in different eras and in multiple variations of the queens English. And that's Shakespeare for goodness sake!
I think your loyalty should lie with your audience. THAT is the very definition of not allowing for lazy community theatre! Make the tough decisions with your paying customer in mind.
There are so many wonderful plays out there! So many young and talented playwrights who need someone with your passion to breathe life into their creation. Tackle one of those! But if you ARE stuck with a bad script I hope you will think about what is right for the paying public - because ultimately THEY will decide the future of the community theatre we so love and enjoy.
A person who tilts at windmills they think are giants is considered courageous. A person who tilts at windmills they KNOW are windmills is a fool. You, Starshine, are no fool.
Keep your passion. Let it fuel your desire for great community theatre. I will gladly ride beside you on your noble quest. Just don't go there blindly.....
A. You are right and I apologize. I was reading your focus to be that you won't change anything. (I think that's what "Anonymous got out of it, too, and I liked what he/she said.)
ReplyDeleteI COMPLETELY agree that if your attitude is "whatever," you shouldn't audition and you REALLY should not direct. That is why I'm only in a few shows per year. I can not dedicate that kind of time and effort month after month. Not to mention that when a project I've given my heart and commitment to IS substandard, my husband gets tired of hearing me cry and fume over it! I already said that I am feuding with a group that has great promise and talent because they won't devote the proper time and effort to showcasing that talent in a quality manner. You are absolutely right. So...sorry? :)
B. Thankfully my directing has involved scripts where authors' notes allowed us to update specific references. Thank GOD! Referring to Kathy Lee Gifford in a play aimed at teenagers just a few years ago would have KILLED the scene as they thought, "Who?? I don't get it." And it was "the comedy rule of 3" - so it would have killed 3 scenes!
C. See A. Mea culpa.
D. Apparently I did misjudge you. I guess we really have not worked together enough yet to really know everything the other person can do. I really thought changing the scene that much would make you never want to cast me again! While my "cold" improv skills suck - I am the go-to cast member in an on-stage crisis. I will always take the missed line, improv to acknowledge the disaster -whatever I think we need to do to address the crisis and maintain character.
Well...next time....muah ha HA HA HAaaaaaa!!!
Anonymous -
ReplyDeleteFirst, serving the audience first makes it a commercial endeavor, not an artistic one. And pandering to your audience serves neither the art nor the audience.
Second, your Shakespeare example doesn't hold up. I think we can both agree that a playwright changing their own script is a whole different beast, and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Furthermore, Shakespeare is public domain and subject to pretty much any treatment, and yet, while I have seen parodies, and updates, and modern scripts based on his work, I have yet to see an actor decide that the audience would be better served by saying "If you called a rose something else, it would still smell good", rather than the original line.
What do you do when you're stuck with a crappy script? You make it work. We're artists, we're creative, it's what we do!
As for the rest of your comment, I think it will be answered in my next post. :)
And I maintain my original position - I am no fool, and where you see windmills, I see giants disquised as windmills.
The Complete Works of Shakespeare-reduced: Act I: "A rose by any other name would still smell!"
ReplyDeleteHAHAhaha!
Tami, that would fall under the heading of "parody", not "It sounds better this way". :)
ReplyDeletePardon me for jumping in at this late date, but I find the subject very interesting. I'm an actor, director and playwright; I've been involved in discussions such as this for our local community theatre (on several levels).
ReplyDeleteI've been involved in poorly written plays. Comedies, mostly (my preferred genre). In fact, I first wrote my own play because I was involved with a play so bad that I thought "I could do better than this!". I've followed the direction of the director on all accounts. In some, we changed a few lines; in others, we stuck to the script. I don;t know that one is necessarily better for the audience than the other.
I do know this: I've seen a script completely ruined because the director thought he had a sense of humor, and was wrong. Inane dialogue, pratfalls, even the addition of characters have been the work of a particularly poor director.
On the other hand, as a playwright I'm never quite happy with the end product. I want to fiddle with it. Part of this is because humor goes stale after becoming familiar with it, but the other aspect that comes into play is that I change as a person as time goes on, and I find different things important, different things funny. I go back to plays I've written several years ago and see obvious changes that was completely missed by my younger self.
My thought on the subject is that you should,whenever possible, follow the script as written. I realize that theater produces errors, it's one of its greatest charms, but have trust in the playwright as long as you can. Think about non-verbal cues that can cover lapses in the storyline. This is, of course, largely the perview of the director, but most directors will at least listen to suggestions.
Thanks for bringing this topic up.
Brian
Brian - all jumping in is appreciated. I agree with most of what you say, in particular seeing the way a director or actor can obliviously destroy a show by disregarding the script and intent of the playwright.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I am glad to see that Starshine's topic of community theater sparked enough interest for comments and rebuttals.
ReplyDeleteHere are my two cents... I believe that anything you choose to do, should be done well, or else... why do it? Community theater is no exception. I've done both community theater and professional theater. Alright, in one venue I was paid for my work and in the other, I was not. But my commitment to doing the best possible job I could do was the same in both. Not everyone feels the same way and it IS frustrating to work with actors/directors who are not as committed. I believe, especially in these harder economic times, that whenever you are asking the public to pay to see a production, it should be the best production you can possibly put on. You have an obligation. You are representing theater in general, theater the art form. Community theater is the front lines, Starshine. I totally agree. Out of respect for everyone involved onstage and in the audience, you owe it to everyone to treat the experience as important. "It's only community theater" should not even come into play. Otherwise, don't audition, don't direct, don't participate, if you can't give it your best. Community theater provides actors with opportunities to get experience and opportunities to play roles they would probably never be offered at a professional theater.
If you paint a beautiful painting that speaks to the heart of anyone who sees it, and you hang it in your living room, it is still a great piece of art. Do you have to sell it and see it hanging in a museum before you can enjoy it or until you treat it with respect? I don't think so, because your result is a masterpiece. If you put on a play that moves your audiences and inspires others to become involved in theater or to see more theater, does it matter if your play was in your neighborhood or on Broadway? I don't think so. What fun is it if you do not strive to make the masterpiece wherever you are?
Thanks for your input, Anonymous!
ReplyDelete