Dramaturgy

[GRisdale]

...the cynical side of me says "classroom time is cheap, stage time is expensive" and draws a certain conclusion.

Well I've certainly never seen, or heard of, any university make educational decisions about course content based on economics of space, the fact that a barely relevent module is already written and running on another course, the fact that when they wrote the course (and advertised it to students) they didn't bother to plan or budget how to resource it...

 

Not since I left working in HE anyway...

 

Gareth.

[andy_s]

I'm glad to hear my cynicism is misplaced....

[gareth]

I am saddened ( a little) by the apparently general view that it's not necessary to have any interest in the product in order to work in theatre, and in interviews that I've conducted for technicians of any type or grade, I've always expected them to demonstrate some interest in what they were going to be working on, and to be able to demonstrate or talk about something they'd seen on stage that had got their juices going to some extent - granted this wouldn't necessarily be a top script or some really thrilling editing or scene juxtaposition, it could be a great lighting plot or soundscape, but am I naive in thinking that the excellence of the technical contribution (whether design, or installation, or operation) will be to some extent inspired by the product?

I don't think it's so much that I'm suggesting it's not necessary to have an interest in drama in order to work in theatre (in fact, I think most people who work in this game are here through some kind of interest/affection for live performance in all its guises). Personally, I'm a great proponent of people getting off their arses, turning their tellies off and getting out to see some real live actors in a real live theatre, and that stems from catching the theatre 'bug' at a fairly young age and being in its grip ever since.

 

However, you can take it too far - in order to turn out some first-rate lighting design work, or to function as an effective production electrician, you don't need to know, for example, every last background detail about every character in the play. A broad understanding of what the piece is about, perhaps, and an appreciation of the interpretation of the text in the particular production ... but even so, I can't help but feel that making students of production electrics (not even lighting design!) study an entire module in dramaturgy is probably stretching it too far.

[Just Some Bloke]

I've worked on a couple of pieces where a Dramaturg was involved

 

Just out of interest, were these productions funded externally (e.g. by grant) or did they try to make money all on their own? If so did they succeed?

Hi JSB, what's the relevance of this question? are you suggesting the Dramaturg was a waste of money and wouldn't have any relevance in the world of commercial theatre?

Not in the slightest, Andy. My question was quite serious (no smiley afterwards, you'll note! ;)) because I've worked on quite a bit of new work and I know how producers set their budgets.

 

The only way to expect to make ones money back on a production these days is to have something known about the piece - e.g. an adaptation of a well known film, an A-List Hollywood actor, a throwing together of all the famous songs of a well-known band into something you call a "musical" - and anything other than this has to be very careful how the money is spent.

 

I sometimes work with a company called Perfect Pitch, for example, who take brand new musicals that have been written and work them up into something that can be pitched to producers for production in theatres. They put actor/singers into a rehearsal room with the writers of the piece and workshop the songs and the scenes to see how they feel when performed. The rehearsal space is donated by a kindly sponsor and everyone involved is doing this on the barest minimum of fee just to give the piece a chance. Then it has a week spent on it to produce a short showcase to just a few interested parties to see if, when sections are run together, it has legs. Again, there's no excess money to be spent on designers, stage managers, indeed anything other than cast, director and MD. Then they get rehearsed up for inclusion at a showcase at the Edinburgh Festival or their annual London showcase. Again, cast (often doubling roles), director and MD are all that's paid for with just the occasional extra musician being paid some expenses as a favour to show off the music a little better. Then a theatre (like the one I work at, for instance) might take a piece on and give it a first performance. The cost of paying the cast, director, MD and crew will be about what we can make at the box office if we sell out every performance: in other words we're sponsoring it in the hope that it will make shed loads of money one day, a small percentage of which may come back to us as sponsors and cover our initial losses. Then another producer (as is happening at the moment) may show an interest to take the piece again and tour it to small venues nationally. This time he'll hope to at least break even and maybe make a modest amount in order to support the next production, but the thought of paying for anything other than essential costs is a mere pipe dream to him/her.

 

This is what actually happens with real, new work that doesn't involve something that already exists (famous film, actor or band, for instance) and at no point in the process is there money to pay for anything other than the bear minimum. A dramaturg may be a fantastic addition to the process but not only can they not afford to pay the person themselves there's also that extra time required for them to work with the cast to be paid for. If the designers could be a part of this process too that would be great but now we have to pay them to come in extra too. When you're asking "can we afford to spend £50 on a prop or can we get away with the actor miming it or the director cutting it?" then it puts the current discussion into perspective.

[paulears]

It is nice, and heartwarming to see the technical crew engrossed in the artistic elements of a production they are working on, but I'd suggest that a large, possibly VERY large proportion of the people I meet only like a small percentage of what they work on. Indeed, in many cases, what they work on leaves them cold. I don't think this really matters, and it's unreasonable to expect actual enjoyment because of the huge variety of works they make happen. I just tried to think of the last show that I really enjoyed, and it was pretty hard. The director of the one I'm working on this week has one scene where the cast whisper. They actually kind of whisper loudly, in unison, or on their own - and the scene is set with them low, in a kind of pyramid, almost at the stage edge. The headset mics they wear sound really horrible, whispering I've never tried miking before, and the sibilance and wind make them sound horrible. Any attempt at eq just made it even harder to understand, so I tried last night with 4 boundaries - about a metre apart. It's now much louder whispering - but basically awful. I have no idea what is going on, nor, does it seem, do the audience. I'm doing my job as best I can, but I simply don't understand what is happened, and to be frank, I don't need to know, and even my curiosity hasn't been engaged.

 

In many bigger houses, the crew will spend their time in the crewroom, appearing for their calls, then vanishing again. How many stay in the wings and watch? Very, very few. There's nothing wrong with this at all.

Any wrote

.... in interviews that I've conducted for technicians of any type or grade, I've always expected them to demonstrate some interest in what they were going to be working on, and to be able to demonstrate or talk about something they'd seen on stage that had got their juices going to some extent........ it could be a great lighting plot or soundscape, but am I naive in thinking that the excellence of the technical contribution (whether design, or installation, or operation) will be to some extent inspired by the product?

 

Great interview question, but I'd suggest not reflective of what generally happens.

 

Last night, with about twenty minutes before curtain up, the stage manager's power vanished, no comms, no video link, no power to the movers, no loop, no backstage relay and no stage side heater (most critical in a force 10 or similar). Making (bodging) up jumpers from 125A 3 phase to a few 13A sockets with just a leatherman and no tools, with the clock ticking brought back what it was that made me start all those years ago. This is where my satisfaction came from. The actual show itself was wiped from memory immediately curtain came down. I'd suggest that many technicians 'techniche' because the doing of the job is the satisfaction, not the arty farty rubbish taking place on stage.

 

Thinking back, all the really awful shows in my head - the ones you chat about in the pub - were these total wastes of time. The really good shows sadly don't remain in the brain for long.

 

I suspect that a dressing room label saying A Smith, Dramaturgist would be a cause for amusement in the crew room! A bit like somebody walking in and announcing themselves as the Heath and Safety Compliance Rep!

 

Tongue in cheek? I'm not quite sure?

[GRisdale]

...there's also that extra time required for them to work with the cast to be paid for.

In so far as my understanding (which differs from that of Wikipedia) goes you wouldn't generally expect a dramaturg to spend any time with the cast.

 

A dramaturg's job (I've always thought) is to tell the director what they see - or how the piece "reads". They offer feedback on the work, the difference being (between them and ordinary folk) that they are professionals in doing so. They don't just think about what they see or feel, but offer guidance on what others might see or feel about the work also. The point being that, rather than waiting until opening night (having spent a lot of money) to see if the rest of the world understands what the director is getting at, any moments that aren't clear, or aren't working as they should, can be dealt with.

 

In practice this happens all the time in this country, on pretty much every production that goes on. The difference being that the director asks a trusted friend along (normally a fellow director or writer or some such) to see what they think and offer feedback. We just don't call them a Dramaturg or offer them any money. Also, as they are friends rather than professionals, they aren't necessarily in a place to be able to offer truly impartial advice about areas that don't work...

 

Funnily enough, I went to a performance last night by IP Tanz, and noticed that they had a dramaturg credited. Afterwards (remembering this discussion) I asked the choreographer how they had worked with the dramaturg. Essentially, as above, they came into some rehearsals at key points to offer "audience" feedback on the developing work. She seemed very surprised that we don't really use dramaturgs here in the UK (being from Germany). All very interesting...

 

It would seem to me that there is a clear financial case for using a dramaturg (in this way at least), since if major issues in the performance go unflagged and unchecked during the production it will fail and/or be critically shredded (even if it does have well known talent, or is based on a book). If paying someone to be an intelligent and impartial critical eye can solve these issues early, it makes sense to me (and, clearly, to some efficient Germans).

 

To try to bring myself back on topic, dramaturgs are (I think) extremely useful people, and can think of many productions that could have really done with one (Kensington Gardens Peter Pan anyone?). I can also see why having a basic understanding of dramaturgy (which is something different) could be of benefit to theatre lighting or sound crew, from a view of understanding what the director, or other creatives, are trying to achieve. What I can't understand is why there are people with a University education in technical theatre that don't know things like how to rewire a parcan, lay a dance floor, focus a S4 zoom without breaking it, what the letters CTB stand for... (all real examples) when they apparently had time to learn about things like Dramaturgy.

 

It's as though these places are training everyone to be a lighting designer, or sound designer, or set designer, when in reality if they ever want to be any of those things (or use any of those skills) they need to be able to know what they're doing practically first.

 

If a degree in Production Electrics has covered everything there is to know about electrical theory and practice, to the point that the students can do it all blind folded, by all means knock yourself out with Dramaturgy, but that would have to be a pretty intensive three years!

 

I'll stop ranting now. Like I said - I don't work in HE anymore ;)

 

Gareth.

 

A concurrent post has been automatically merged from this point on.

 

I have no idea what is going on, nor, does it seem, do the audience.

Case in point! Send in the dramaturg (via a time machine in this particular case).

 

Gareth.

[w/robe]

Before I go on I must say I'm not a huge fan of Dramaturgy as a subject and teaching/learning it I can see will not be much fun, but I do think the more we all understand the process of theatre making the more we can offer to that process. The reason that, as a costume person, I log on to TBR most days and go to PLASA and ABTT shows is because I have an interest in what we all do.

 

In many bigger houses, the crew will spend their time in the crewroom, appearing for their calls, then vanishing again. How many stay in the wings and watch? Very, very few. There's nothing wrong with this at all.

That's true but if the original poster is training as a Production Electrician he may have more input in to a production than the crew.

 

.... in interviews that I've conducted for technicians of any type or grade, I've always expected them to demonstrate some interest in what they were going to be working on,

Great interview question, but I'd suggest not reflective of what generally happens.

I would prefer to work with people who are interested in and excited by what we are trying to achieve on stage than not.

 

 

I have no idea what is going on, nor, does it seem, do the audience.

Case in point! Send in the dramaturg (via a time machine in this particular case).

Gareth.

I was going to say just this.

 

A quick dramaturgy quiz, which are the most important scenes.

 

Cinderella

 

Act I sc1 - kitchen, sc2 - woods, sc3 - Uglies bedroom, sc4 - kitchen/transformation.

 

Act II sc1 - ball, sc2 - staircase, sc3 - kitchen, sc4 - songsheet, sc5 - walkdown.

 

If you think that the transformation is more important than the songsheet then you are using your dramaturgy skills.

[paulears]

I suspect that most people who would do this quiz would come up with the same results, and not even realise they had a dramaturgy (dramturgilogical??) skills.

 

Have we really 'invented' a new job in the industry? I don't think so. We've always had a director, performers and then feedback from almost anyone, on the basis that audience makeup is along similar lines - 'art' lovers or cynics and varying levels on the socio-economic scale. We now have a single point of focus who is trained and skilled in what? A mix of analytical reviewer and communication studies expert? Or is this a case of a specialism being introduced to produce what is in effect an advance notice, before things are embedded in stone.

 

I've been involved in far too many arts projects where the entire point, to me, has been to design a product that ordinary people would hate - introducing a dramaturgist would surely generate many potential issues that are in fact the entire point of the production.

 

In my earlier example, plenty of people did appear to get it. I'm not bothered that I didn't.

 

So does the excellent director have a contractual requirement to modify their work to suit the dramaturgist's comments, or do they just take onboard the comment they like, and ignore the rest.

 

We've never needed these people before - what has changed.

 

Paul

[GRisdale]

So does the excellent director have a contractual requirement to modify their work to suit the dramaturgist's comments, or do they just take onboard the comment they like, and ignore the rest.

No - not at all. The dramaturg is not there as an authority. They are not there to tell the director what to do. There job is to tell the director how the piece is reading. The director produces a piece of work, happy that it clearly conveys the meaning that they intended. The dramaturg then watches it and tells the director what they got from it. If the two match up, the director knows they're on the right track. If the dramaturg says something completely different, they might want to take another look at it.

 

Sometimes this could highlight fairly mundane or practical issues, for example: In order to understand Scene 6, you have to have noticed that in the background of Scene 4 Rodger steals Rosie's passport from her unattended hand bag. Everyone in the production, especially the director, knows that it's going to happen, so at that moment they all watch Rodger get light fingered... But does that mean an unprimed audience member would notice? Do you want to have the first night of audience fail to notice, hate the show and give negative feedback before you know you need to reblock it? Like I said, you can get someone to check this for free, but that might mean getting a friend to give up a days work or holiday to come and sit in on your rehearsal.

 

Alternatively it might be about something on a more metaphorical level. If I'd have been a "dramaturg" on Kensington Garden's Peter Pan for example, I probably would have told them that the dance scene half way through had clear sexual references in it's movement vocabularly which (given the characters were supposed to be children - in a childrens' show), judging by my own reaction and that of parents all around me, might not have been a good idea... Did the director see these references? I would guess (or hope) not. They, I suspect, interpretted the movement very diferently, and I suspect no one dared to suggest anything otherwise...

 

In anycase, if the director disagrees with the dramaturg that's up to them.

 

Gareth.

[w/robe]

We've never needed these people before - what has changed.

 

Paul

I think that there are probably a very, very, very small number of productions which have specific difficulties where having an experienced person (a Director or Writer perhaps) take on the role of Dramaturg may possibly be useful but should people train as Dramaturgs? No.

 

A separate question is should people who are involved in creating theatre study Dramaturgy?

I think the more you are involved artistically in a production the more useful it will be, but the more skills we all have the better.

 

Would I have hated to be taught it as a subject at college? Yes.

[TomHoward]

Now I have an understanding of the position I think we will have to credit our cleaner as 'dramaturg' from now on.

[Bobbsy]

With respect, I think the definition of the dramaturg which has crept into this thread is a bit limited. From Wiki:

 

The dramaturg will often conduct research into the historical and social conditions, specific locations, time periods, and/or theatrical styles of plays chosen by the company, to assist the playwright, director and/or design team in their production. The dramaturg locates and translates worthy scripts from other languages, writes articles and makes media appearances promoting shows and community programs, and helps develop original scripts.

Despite occasional intimate connection with all aspects of play selection, production, and performance, the dramaturg remains independent, keeping a critical eye on the company's creative activities, working to improve and maintain high quality.

 

I was actually getting worried that maybe I had it wrong but the above better reflects my experience of what a dramaturg did during my very limited experiences of working on productions that used them.

 

Certainly the historical research they carried out was very useful to me when designing and recording sound effects and "soundscapes" and the fresh set of ears and eyes was also useful in spotting areas where things were unclear or distracting.

 

Do we need dramaturgs? Probably not most of the time. Are they something to be avoided at all costs? No, not at all. If a company or production decides to use one it can be interesting and helpful.

 

Bob