p.56
A dramaturg and director are talking after rehearsal at the beginning of run-throughs at the end of the fourth week of a six-week rehearsal period. The actors are off book, the blocking is solid and the character relationships are firmly established on stage. The dramaturg has questions about the tempo of the piece and has found commentary from the playwright about the rhythmic influences that the dramaturg feels are important aspects to include to get the feel the writer is going for; also, the rhythm of the language is important to the structure of the narrative. The dramaturg has well-formed questions and valuable material to share – that she found and formulated three weeks previously. However, she knows that the start of the second week is much too soon to talk about rhythm so she holds off. At the end of week four, she is given the go-ahead by the director to work with the actors on rhythmic exercises that positively affect the tempo of the play and bring to light the various influences the playwright alluded to.
The most important contribution a dramaturg can make to a production is attention and useful and timely input. To dramaturg is an activity that is completely present, engaged, and in the moment. The usefulness of the response that a dramaturg offers is inextricably connected to the when she offers it; consequently, it is vital she is immersed in the given moment of the process and utilizes opportunities to communicate with director, actors, and eventually the audience. In the same way that she needs to stay connected to both forest and trees as discussed in the previous chapter, the mindset of the dramaturg is formed by the close attention to the point in time of the moment, with an eye to the whole arc of the production schedule.
p.57
The dramaturg constantly looks for the opportunity to provide valuable input and response, and it is the nuanced understanding of when to bring them to the collaborators that determines their ultimate usefulness. This can come about only with close attention to the people and process of the production. The dramaturg needs to understand the scope of the project and have a general idea of what goes into each given element in order to be attuned to the schedule of events. In addition, the dramaturg’s pre-production work often includes a thoughtful analysis of the timeline of the dramaturgy in order to coincide with the timeline of the production.
There are a variety of circumstances that affect the schedule of events both in the particular elements of production and the project as a whole. While the dramaturg does not need the kind of intimate and detailed knowledge of workflow that a production manager or stage manager requires, he is well served by following the general schedule of the production so he knows when the various pieces are at which stage of development. Again, it is not necessary that a dramaturg knows every aspect of production in minute detail, but he should understand the various processes and overall timeline and maintain them throughout the production, while exercising flexibility in response to changes. The more he understands about the process of production, the better he can navigate the terrain of a production in construction.
The schedule of events is also determined by the preference of the artistic team and the demands of the show. In every show there are fixed points such as the dates of performance, when the show will be loaded into the theatre, and marketing deadlines, among others. These are the built-ins for timing; however, the dramaturg needs to be in contact with collaborators for the particulars of the process. There is the lead time the costume designer likes to have for his research before preliminary designs and when the set designer prefers to finalize her painter’s elevations. There is the manner in which the director does individual character work and how quickly she blocks the show. In addition, the needs of the show will also drive timing – the movement for a Restoration piece like Congreve’s Way of the World requires rehearsal time spent on the physical work of the period movement, rehearsal time that would be used in a different way in staging a modern work.
p.58
The dramaturg takes this timeline and incorporates it into her mindset. The mindset to dramaturg is predicated on relationships, and this is another example of the value of strong points of connection throughout the collaborative team so the dramaturg knows where in their own processes designers, actors, and technicians are at various points in time. The purpose of this knowledge and attention is to have the most complete view of the varying pieces of the production. Think about the dramaturg’s process as a system of moving parts; at different times in the production one wants to be able to look at one aspect and know where it is in terms of its own trajectory and its construction into the whole project. In order to know what she is looking at as well as gauge what input is most useful for a collaborator, the dramaturg needs to know where those elements are in the general and specific production schedule and be able to track that schedule in relation to her own particular perspective.
Attention is closely aligned with timing, because understanding how the pieces come together necessarily includes their sequence and their time frame. Knowing the timing of all the processes and how they overlap and connect enables the dramaturg to recognize when and where is appropriate for what she brings to the collaboration. To be effective, it is often the “when” a question is asked or a point raised that becomes at least as important as the “what” and “how” something is addressed. Sometimes the willingness to listen to a collaborator work through a question is incredibly helpful, and the role as a trusted and knowledgeable resource invested in the overall success of the production is a good place from which to listen. This comes from being attentive and in the moment of the production. Timing is integral to the effectiveness of the dramaturg’s work.
It is worth noting that the dramaturg deals with his own scheduled deadlines within the production calendar.
• A presentation for the designers is made early in the process to introduce contextual material.
• A presentation at the first read-through for the actors, and at this time the actor’s packet, in whatever form that takes, is made available.
• Audience outreach materials and press releases have their own deadlines, as do study guides and program notes.
• Guests that the dramaturg invites to speak to cast or audience need to be scheduled in advance and when they are both feasible and useful.
The dramaturgical tasks are subject to the production schedule and the work follows a timeline in the same way as the other production elements.
Dramaturgy has another relationship to timing outside the production timeline; the dramaturg determines the timing of the questions he asks and input he offers. The timing of their delivery largely shapes the questions asked and answered, as discussed in the previous chapter. “When” matters at least as much as “how,” and how useful the work is will be directly related to it happening at the right time.
p.59
When to Ask the Question
One fundamental aspect of timing for the dramaturg is deceptively simple – when does he ask the question that may change the trajectory of the production? This is the most apparent element of timing in dramaturgy, the issue of when to offer input. As mentioned, the knowledge of the process of the project as well as the practice of the collaborating artists are both important contributors to determining the timing answer. It is similar to the vital skill of a director – knowing when to give a note. For the director, the challenge is recognizing when the note will be most effective, when it will be usable by the actor. However, although similar, the question has more clarity for the director since giving notes is a clear and expected aspect of the job, so finding the when and how to make them most effective is part of the exchange between director and actor.
The timing question for the dramaturg is somewhat more complicated, as the specificity of the role of questioner is not as clear, and the dramaturg is also trying to build trust and deepen relationships. Consequently, it is of even more importance that timing be considered. A director may give a note at a less effective time but that will not call into question his right to give a note. On the other hand, a poorly timed question from the dramaturg early in the process may affect the future overall reception of the dramaturg, particularly in a new collaboration, and may call into doubt the usefulness of the role. This is why the care of the pre-production work and the close attention to timing and process is so important, to help the dramaturg avoid or recover from a timing misstep. Dramaturgy is only as useful as it is effective, so the importance of timing is not to be underestimated. Combined with the mindset, relationships are as closely connected to the sequence of events as they are to their composition.
p.60
So when does the dramaturg ask the question? Easily said, the short and easy answer is to ask the question when it will be the most useful to the project. However, what makes it useful and deciding when that will be the case is the real challenge for the dramaturg.
Close attention to process and useful observation of the collaborators helps the dramaturg contribute questions at opportune times. A question is going to be effective if the asking and/or the answer will inform some element of the project. That happens when it is pertinent and when it is heard. It does not matter how useful a question may be if the people who need to engage with it are unable to hear it. Thus the first consideration is to recognize if the group is at a point at which the collaborators are able to hear the question.
Hearing the question has a literal component – is it asked in a time and place in which we have the attention of our intended recipient? Too often something may be brushed aside because it is lost in a casual mention or among too many other things that require more immediate attention. Similarly, it needs to be asked in a way that makes sense to the collaborator. It seems as if this would happen automatically; however, depending on the circumstances of the asking, it can be out of a context that makes sense to him and consequently be lost for that reason. For example, if a question that pertains to characterization is brought up in the midst of a meeting about the set design, the likelihood that the question will be heard is significantly lower than it would be at a point in which he is thinking about characters.
Another way in which the idea of hearing it is important relates to the manner in which it is presented. If the question is asked in a way that seems to be a criticism rather than an inquiry, the natural response is to “push back,” particularly when it is early in the process and ideas and details are being developed. Even if the intent of the dramaturg is legitimately to ask the question to spark the conversation that will help the collaboration, he risks shutting down that process by presenting a poorly phrased – and poorly timed – apparent criticism of the work. The attention that he exercises also necessarily includes the way a question is received in order for it to be heard.
p.61
The Question Itself
Finally, the form in which the question is presented directly affects the likelihood of its reception. One of the first things a dramaturg does after joining a production team is to establish with a collaborator how best to communicate. There are some directors who will want questions only in writing so they can read and think about them at their preferred time of day. There are playwrights who want only to talk directly after a rehearsal or designers whose preferred place of conversation is outside the scene shop on lunch breaks. When these modes of communication are established up front, it makes the process of asking questions much easier and the dramaturg is able to avoid a potential misstep. These preferred ways need to be coordinated with the dramaturg’s own preferences and strengths; it is not a single-direction communication. When he is able to work within the expectations and comfort of collaborators, the dramaturg has more room to ask questions that provoke thought and conversation. When the dramaturg wants to be heard and have the most effect, he makes sure that he asks the question at the most opportune time and in the most appropriate manner.
Timing lets the question be heard, and it also determines the pertinence of the question. The process of the entire project and its component parts has a particular order and flow that will allow for questions to be useful at particular times. The dramaturg is closely connected to the flow of the process for precisely this reason, so he knows where to place questions that will be useful. While a designer is gathering a general visual style, a question about the particulars of a texture would not be pertinent; however, in the midst of a build a question about texture can be incredibly enlightening.
A question about stage composition and its relationship to character relationship is a really useful conversation to have in week four. At this point, character choices are formed and stage pictures are solidifying. The rehearsals are including run-throughs and the story narrative is starting to take a strong shape. The dramaturg can ask the director about intent and have a conversation about shape and meaning in a way that can support the work of the director and be productive to the production. This is a conversation that would be not useful in earlier rehearsals when character is not established and the blocking is largely exploratory.
p.62
When to Ask It Again
Frustrating for the dramaturg, there will be times in which the question is pertinent, clearly presented at a useful time, and heard – to no visible effect. So the attention to timing becomes important once more when it is addressing the challenge of when to ask a question again. This concern consists of the same issues already mentioned, though heightened, since it is reintroducing a point and the dramaturg does not want to come across as argumentative.
To ask again, the fundamental process is the same; watch for a time when the question can be asked again, when it will be heard and when it is effective to the creative process. These circumstances are partially affected by the reason it needs to be asked again. If the original question was disregarded, then the need is to find another way to present it to the recipient where it may be applicable. If the person being asked did not see the need to engage with the question asked, the next step is looking for another approach that will highlight the importance. Manner and timing are vital in this case where the collaborator could feel harassed or berated by a repetition and so less apt to explore it. Consequently, how the question is phrased and presented needs to be crafted in a way that is both new and constructive. In addition, the question is asked where it is useful in the production schedule and the dramaturg has a limited window of time to affect the play. Asking questions that may inform materials after things have been bought and design elements are under construction is not useful and can conceivably give the impression that the dramaturg is unfamiliar or unconcerned with the practicality of the designer’s and technician’s work. In that circumstance, the conversation around the question should not happen, to avoid damaging a relationship, which could have a lasting effect on future collaboration.
Timing can help to preserve the collaboration while the dramaturg makes another attempt with the question. She needs to ensure that the recipient has had enough time to process what was asked as well as stay close enough to the original asking so there is no doubt that all parties know this is something that is asked again; she should not try to mask that fact. The specific time period that incorporates both of these needs is not fixed and depends on the nature and context of the question. For example, if the development question is about the overarching metaphor that is interwoven into many aspects of the production, the dramaturg likely has a broader range of opportunities to ask the specific question. Also, when the subject matter is part of other conversations, there is typically a greater willingness to explore it via additional avenues. At the same time, if the question is about a particular bit of stage business, the dramaturg may want to ask the question again before it becomes practiced and fixed and more strongly associated with a character or a moment, while also leaving enough room for the collaborators to see what that bit of business is offering the scene and have a context with which to think about the question.
p.63
There are times when the question is asked again because the issue has arisen anew, and this requires a slightly different approach to the question of when. If the question comes up in another context, it can be addressed as soon as the circumstances are amenable – when it is useful and when it will be heard – and the pitfall to avoid is the appearance of looking for the opportunity to ask the question again. That is to say, while the question that was dismissed may appear to be berating when it is brought up again, when the question is one that was addressed and has arisen again, it may appear to be badgering when it comes up for a second time. Avoid the “gotcha” appearance, because that is the element that causes the most direct harm to collaboration. The result of this kind of conflict is often the impression that “being right” takes precedence over the needs of the project, and that is a circumstance that shuts down the artistic alliance.
The relationship to the process and the collaborators is ultimately what determines when and how to ask a question again. Attentiveness to the flow and style of show and artists will help to shape the dramaturg’s questions and will offer a guide to how and when these questions will be most effective. The dramaturg has an idea of what she wants to accomplish through the asking or answering of a question, and including timing into the mindset will help to make that happen.
When to Offer Content
The timing of what to offer and when is a continuously evolving prospect for the dramaturg. He wants to provide the necessary information to help the rest of the production team develop the various elements of production. However, as mentioned earlier, too much too soon can be overwhelming and bringing in content too late makes it generally unusable.
p.64
One of the major contributions of the dramaturg in production is the output of information that helps provide context for the artistic collaboration. This takes many forms, which will be addressed in Chapter 7, though the form is important to consider in relation to the mindset of the dramaturg, particularly as it relates to the timing. The close attention paid in order to determine when best to ask a question is also needed when determining when to offer content to the artistic collaborators.
The most useful approach to content is to answer the question, “What is its purpose and who is it for?” It is a question and a point of view that is vital to effective content creation of all kinds, and will limit the dramaturg’s confusion and uncertainty around what to include and when to provide. This simple clarification will reveal the kind of information as well as its form and timing. The purpose points to both who is the audience and when in the process. For example, content that is intended to bolster advance ticket sales will be addressed to potential audiences and happen early in the production cycle.
The recipient of the content determines what it will be and in turn when it will be effective. We can frame three categories based on its recipient: content for actors, content for directors, and content for audience. Each area requires a unique approach and the form, content and timing need to be consciously selected to be their most useful. This goes back to the earlier discussion of understanding the composition of the parts into the whole and requires an understanding of the unique needs of each group, as well as knowing how the pieces fit together and when. The actor needs a character-name pronunciation key early in the process, while the list of prompts for the audience talkback will be one of the last things completed. These categories will be looked at in more detail in later chapters of this book when specific areas of content are discussed. However, they are worth considering when thinking about the mindset, as the question of timing is decisively linked to the question of content.
TIP: Try something.
Once again, attention to the process is of paramount importance. When the dramaturg knows what goes into the various steps, she can better gauge what kind of content will be useful at what point in the process. A collection of visual imagery that could spark ideas and conversation about the landscape of the production can be an effective contribution in pre-production meetings. That same source would not be welcome just before load-in when that kind of creative exploration has been replaced by the deadline-driven experience of finalizing builds. Similarly, actors need the kind of general information about the world of the play as they are getting to know characters and getting acquainted with the work. Information about pronunciation, dialects, and locations are things that are needed around the first read-through; which is not a time that the characteristic of a nuanced psychological condition would be well placed.
p.65
Understanding what kind of content will be most effective at each phase of the project is part of the mindset, and equally important is keen attention to the kind of content to provide. Close communication as well as presence in rehearsal and production meetings allows the dramaturg to have up-to-date knowledge of the work that is going into the production from the various departments. The contextual input the dramaturg offers is not to do the visual and textual research for the other collaborators, but to bring in additional material and commentary to add to the work. In order to do that effectively, the dramaturg needs to know what is being done, looked at, discussed, and created. She needs to know when a new direction is selected so her input stays in line with the other artists. She also needs to see if a production element starts to go off course from the rest of the collaboration.
The timing of content also incorporates that which we offer audiences. Our access to potential audiences can start well before the production through various kinds of outreach media, and carries through to what audience members see as they walk away from the production. The timing is in part determined by the purpose: is it to entice audiences to see the show, to provide important data, or to challenge an understanding? Again, what is the purpose of this content and for whom is it intended? When creating materials for the theatrical audience, we are attentive to where they are in terms of location and time. Is this something that is going to be a targeted marketing blurb or the text in the program? Are we preparing them for what they will see or inspiring response when they walk out the door? The dramaturg’s mindset is steeped in this question and it informs all of the information that she shares. The question is vital in shaping the what and the when of the content – what do you want it to accomplish?
p.66
Timing is determined by the effect desired. What do you want to provoke in the audience? Is this an opportunity to connect to more than the limits of a single show and specific audience? Are there artistic, institutional, and/or community needs that can be addressed in that content shared between dramaturg and audience? If so, at what point in the interaction would this content be most effective?
The question of efficacy is the foundation of every aspect of the mindset to dramaturg. The close attention to the kind of content we contribute, and particularly the timing with which we offer that content is going to significantly affect the usefulness of our efforts. Consequently, the importance of timing cannot be overstated when it comes to the contextual input of the dramaturg.
When to Offer Commentary
The next timing question is one that can sometimes be fraught and relies heavily on the relationships established with collaborators – when to offer commentary? The timing of this one includes the same considerations of useful and effective as any other contribution the dramaturg offers; however, commentary has an additional challenge. The dramaturg must contend with the possibility of seeming to “give notes” which is typically problematic in dramaturgical collaboration. The purpose is not to offer solutions or tell artistic collaborators what should be done; the purpose is to bring attention to elements that require care, so the time and manner in which commentary is offered necessarily contends with the possibility of being perceived as “notes.”
There is a difference between the questions the dramaturg asks, which were discussed in some detail in Chapter 2, and the commentary he offers. Both are intended to provoke thought from the collaborator; however, while the question is asked to incite an active response, commentary is offered to be informative. Commentary provides a perspective on the event of the performance and is particularly useful when it is framed as a description of what the dramaturg sees. Often the term is used to describe the sharing of an opinion, which is not how the dramaturg best utilizes it. The mindset to dramaturg is developed through the use of descriptive and responsive commentary on what the dramaturg sees. This commentary has a clear critical point of view and is shaped by the knowledge he brings of both text and process; however, it describes rather than suggests, and is an important part of the mindset.
p.67
It can seem that it is merely a semantic difference, or that the dramaturg tries to avoid the appearance of critique while that is what he ultimately does. However, the credibility of the dramaturgical process is predicated on this ability to offer insight and input without the bias of how he thinks it should be done, or an implication that he is trying to direct/design/manage the show for his collaborators. This goes beyond how something is phrased and is essential to the mindset. In various stages of the process, the dramaturg responds to what he is given and offers a commentary that is pertinent, useful, and will continue to prompt the other theatre artists to shape the vision of the play. Everything that determines the dramaturgical viewpoint is shaped by the desire to bring a project to an audience in a manner that is as authentic and meaningful as possible.
Commentary is not opinion, and it is not part of the mindset to offer opinion. The most useful commentary is responsive and offers collaborators a view of what is being seen or heard. By definition a commentary is a descriptive account of an event and that can be a useful tool for collaborators. On the other hand, opinion is an individual judgment that is less effective for the dramaturgical mindset and can leak into the process and potentially cause resistance in the listener. The value of the dramaturg’s commentary is that it is grounded in knowledge and carefully crafted, and ultimately intended to help the collaborator come to an effective artistic choice. Commentary invites conversation and inspires ideas where opinion lessens the effectiveness of the role as it forfeits the open, broad-based, holistic point of view. In short, opinions are lazy and less effective dramaturgy.
Since dramaturgy is a way of seeing and a way of engaging with material, both of these aspects are necessary when determining the timing of offering commentary. The dramaturg needs to have a clear view of the material as well as a deliberate and specific approach to and purpose for it. When that clarity of sight and function are in place, she will know what she is answering and to what end and this information will reveal the most effective timing of that offer.
p.68
The approach to discerning when to offer commentary is similar to that of the timing of asking questions. Once again the dramaturg looks for when it can be heard and when it is pertinent, with the ultimate goal of being useful for the individual production element and the project as a whole. The first has one very straightforward timeframe – offer commentary when it is requested. There are times where a director, designer or some other artist will ask directly to look at a particular element. It may be, “Is this scene working?” or, “Does this composition create a feeling of emptiness?” The direct request for commentary is a straightforward exchange and as long as care is taken to present it in a way that reflects that particular relationship and so the commentary is useful, there is not much to figure out.
Commentary is not always requested directly, and the need to determine timing and form becomes very important in these cases. There may be an invitation to come and “take a look” at something without a specific need or request. In those cases, when it is possible to establish expectations ahead of time that is preferable because it can help to clarify the exchange. However, it is frequently the case that the commentary comes from the ongoing relationship and presence in the process, and in those cases it is particularly important to attend to the timing in order for the observations to be both heard and useful.
One impediment to being heard as a dramaturg is offering commentary that provides the answer to how something should be done. When the dramaturg is no longer offering insight on what she sees and instead becomes a source of changes to make, the primary function as collaborator with a broad, holistic viewpoint is compromised. The ability to offer an open and responsive commentary on the elements of production while maintaining a perspective on the piece as a whole is essential to the work of the dramaturg. Once the remarks are proscriptive rather than responsive, the dramaturg no longer holds that position.
There are two ways to avoid this snare – one of form and the other one of timing. The form our comments take shapes their reception. When the dramaturg shapes the commentary to what is seen and tells the artistic collaborators what the experience of the work looks and feels like, and tells it with clarity and precision, then this is a usable analysis. The dramaturg has a specialized perspective on the work and her ability to reflect what is there and comment on what she sees at various stages in the process can offer her collaborators incredible insight into the reception of the artistic choices made. Because the dramaturg knows what is intended and is focused on what is there, she holds a unique position for commentary. That position is not one that we want to lose by offering suggestions on how to do the job of someone else on the production team. It is not only inappropriate to offer opinions on choices made by collaborators, it can be damaging to the process.
p.69
Whatever the project and whoever the collaborator, the chief asset of the dramaturg is the broad-based viewpoint and that is one we want to protect. However, when advice is sought or a direct question looking for a solution is asked, that can present a difficulty. It is a good general rule for the dramaturg to answer the question asked; however, when she sees the whole as well as the parts, the dramaturg recognizes that offering a solution may offer a short-lived resolution that results in a less effective collaboration long term. Questions are answered and commentary provided within the context of an established relationship. However, if it is at all possible to deflect the direct request for a solution into a conversation that helps to prompt ideas for that solution, that is generally more advantageous to the collaboration. One way to redirect the request for a solution is to offer commentary even when opinion is solicited. In other words, rather than offer an opinion on whether it makes sense for the character to exit through the audience, the dramaturg can describe the effect of her going through the audience and also the effect of her staying on the stage.
Timing is the other tool with which to approach the danger of becoming proscriptive in commentary. When it is provided gives more to the likelihood of commentary being heard and being useful than any other single element. Timing is also how a dramaturg can potentially avoid the complication of the direct question for a solution, if he can offer the solution at a time that gives the collaborator the prompt to think about it rather than an answer to attempt. That kind of resolution can often be straightforward; for example, something as simple as offering the suggestion at the end of the rehearsal rather than at the beginning will necessitate its being considered rather than immediately attempted. It really is a matter of attention, recognizing the value of a responsive commentary and staying closely attuned to when that is most usefully presented.
Once the comments are heard, the dramaturg wants to ensure they are useful, which is also a question of timing. As with the questions, the understanding of the process flow of the production and individual artists will help to determine this facet. Talking about broad-scale conceptual choices late in the production calendar when fine-tuning should be happening will not assist the process and will likely cause conflict since that level of artistic choice is not malleable at that stage. Consequently, those ideas are not heard and the credibility of the contribution is called into question. The reflection of what we see needs to be pertinent to the creation of the piece as a whole. There is a reason the dramaturg participates in the meeting or the rehearsal and there is a purpose to the questions, content, and commentary provided. If the input is not feeding into the creative process of the project then it is not effective dramaturgy.
p.70
What to Ask if It Has to Be Now
The dramaturg chooses the mode of communication that is best suited to the project and the timing that will most likely allow his work to be heard and pertinent. However, there are circumstances that preclude being able to choose the time to ask questions or provide input. There are a number of circumstances that may affect the timetable and remove the choice of timing from the dramaturg. It can be the production schedule, travel schedules, artist demands or any series of conditions that dictate when the dramaturgical contributions can be made.
The primary consideration is still one of efficacy, and if the dramaturg is unable to choose the “when,” she can work within the given parameters and select the input that is most useful to the project. That will mean both prioritizing the content and looking critically at the timetable in order to see what aspects of content and questions will be pertinent within the given constraints. There may be content that would have been useful to design staff but which becomes less so at the point in the production schedule when she is able to offer it, and so she selects context that is useful to the project as a whole.
The process relies on the knowledge of the project in its pieces and its whole, and is the reverse of starting with content to determine timing. When the timing is specified, the dramaturg looks at where her work will be most effective, what can be heard and be pertinent in the time given. Whether this is one week of residence in the middle of the production calendar, or an hour a week with the director, or working completely with remote access and the time constraints that implies, the scope and scale of the response must be appropriate to the circumstances.
p.71
Timing will also affect the manner of how the content is shared. The various options of question, content, and commentary are usually dependent on the subject and collaborators. There are some kinds of conversations that are more easily sparked by questions and other kinds of work that is better served by sharing content. However, when the time is no longer flexible, the form will be driven as much by schedule as content. Even if the preferable mode for working with the director on the metaphor of the piece would be asking questions and creative brainstorming, if the time is limited and only at the very beginning of the process, a dramaturg may choose to provide content that illuminates certain kinds of metaphor to give concrete examples to add to the discussion.
When the timing is set in the production schedule, as with audience talkbacks or student matinees, the dramaturg finds the most important and useful points of contact within that context. If the goal is to inspire a student audience to learn more about the social issues attached to the play, the dramaturg will use the hour of post-show discussion to tailor the conversation to that end. Her study guide and any other content available will work with that goal in mind. The mindset is formed through close attention to timing, and the effective use of the time that is available. The dramaturg looks for ways to connect to the audience and act as the advocate for those who will be in the seats, and she will use her understanding of the order and schedule of events to ensure that advocacy is well established. If there are things the audience needs to know or ways to shape the entry into the world of the play, the mindset to dramaturg relies on the close attention to the process in order to use the time most productively.
Staying in the Moment
The dramaturg is an advocate for the eventual audience to the production and his work always includes some aspect of looking forward to that point in time. In addition, much of the context research that he does is often historical or even in a modern piece will be looking at the recent history of the writing of the play. Consequently, the idea of dramaturgy as being focused on the future is an unsurprising misunderstanding. However, a fundamental part of timing and essential to the dramaturgical mindset is to stay in the moment at all times. The dramaturg needs to be able to respond to what happens at the precise time and place in which something occurs. While there is an eye to what the audience will ultimately experience, the dramaturgical process moves through the production schedule in such a way that he offers input based on the particular moment.
p.72
The questions and comments the dramaturg makes in week two are specific to that point in the production and reflect the understanding of the process and the relationships forged with the artistic collaborators. To work effectively, he needs to reside completely in week two and connect clearly to the needs and demands of that particular point in the project. While the image of the whole production and where the collaborators hope to take it is part of his viewpoint, in order to offer substantial commentary, he needs to see the elements of production clearly in time, as well.
Staying in the moment helps to connect to the process as well as aiding the flexible thinking that is so important in dramaturgy. It requires attentiveness to change and a close watch on the progress of each production element in order to track the movement of the piece as a whole. It is precisely the kind of attentiveness that the dramaturgical mindset inspires. When the dramaturg looks clearly at what is presented, taken on its own terms and seen in specific time as part of the composition of a whole, that is the frame of reference from which he can dramaturg.
Dramaturgy is a way to see, and a significant facet of that vision is shaped by time. Understanding how the production timeline affects how and what we ask or provide to the collaborators allows us to be more effective in the artistic process. Each element of the project has its own purpose and timeline, and the dramaturg can work at the intersection of those elements and move through time with them. Consequently, when she offers commentary on what she sees, it is seen in its moment. This continues to be important through the process as the ultimate presence of the audience will be the final case of seeing only what is presented in the present moment in time. As much as the dramaturg can create a resemblance to that experience, the more information the artistic collaboration will have and the more effective the dramaturgy will be.
p.73
The “Elephant in the Room”
The metaphor of the elephant in the room refers to the obvious issue that is being ignored, and it has also come to include a problem or concern that people refuse to address. It is a wonderful image, and one that has particular resonance for theatre artists. It is our job to talk about the things that are important, and difficult, and sometimes exactly the things that people want to pretend are not there. Part of the power of this metaphor is that it is not something hidden or obscured; it is a big, giant presence that is being willfully ignored.
There is something to the image of the giant elephant in the middle of the room, perhaps most delightfully explored by the English artist Banksy in the 2006 Los Angeles show “Barely Legal.” Banksy is a subversive and secretive graffiti artist, filmmaker and activist. His work in the streets and the galleries and showings around the world has an artistry that shows the combination of provocative, thoughtful, and prankster that characterizes the work. The LA warehouse exhibit was based on the theme of global poverty, and the centerpiece was an 8,000 pound live elephant painted red with gold fleurs-de-lis in the middle of an elegant room.
The topic is so conspicuous that it cannot be missed while at the same time attention to it is deliberately and markedly avoided. It is an apt analogy and a practice that runs counter to the work of the dramaturg. His purpose is to see the whole and the parts and offer input and commentary in time to help move the project closer to the audience experience being sought. In order to do that, he necessarily and actively sees what is presented and what is implied. While there is always the possibility of missing something, willful avoidance is something that is directly in opposition to his role in the production. The deliberate and willful revelations of the elements that are avoided are more in line with dramaturgy.
The ignored issue may be a difficult element inherent in the project or something that is done by an artistic collaborator, and it is the responsibility of the dramaturg to determine where and when the input needs to be placed. Typically it will be first addressed with the collaborating artists and whatever resolution can be reached will happen within the production team. However, if there is not agreement about the nature of, or even presence of the metaphoric elephant, the dramaturg may need to address it with the audience.
p.74
We can look at this as two separate elephants, the one in the room with the production team and the one in the room with the audience. They are each conspicuous, important, and potentially fraught and they require differing approaches.
The dramaturg is the surrogate for the audience throughout the production process as a point of reference for the production team. She can articulate an audience point of view for the various members of the company throughout the process.
The idea of the view of the audience has come up a few times, and it is worth noting there is no monolithic viewpoint of “audience.” The theatrical audience is a collection of individuals and is different each performance, each place. One of the primary dynamic elements of live performance is the presence of an audience and the differing perspectives that introduces. The thing that unites the group of individuals is the shared experience of the performance; they are sharing time and place in a way that creates a kind of community for that period of time. When the audience is referenced, it is with that in mind, the collection of people who gather for the event of the performance. The different perspectives and responses to the work are taken into account, and often are particularly useful for the dramaturg.
The dramaturg is the advocate for the audience in relation to the artistic collaborators to help them connect the elements of production into a cohesive whole for the eventual audience. Again he is looking for the coherent read of the production while recognizing different points of view among the audience. The dramaturg helps prepare the production staff and the audience for the experience of seeing the show through the distribution of content, questions and commentary for those behind and in front of the stage. He sometimes acts as spokesperson for the audience, asking the questions or helping to frame the conversations that the project will inspire.
There are times when the conversation needs to be framed because it is a difficult one, and this requires particular attention from the dramaturg. It can arise from a problematic element in the play or the production, such as a controversial notion or theme. It may stem from some disagreement during the artistic process about what needs to be addressed, possibly due to conflict within the company about the implication of an action. For example, there was a new play with a sexual scene between a student and her teacher that caused some conflict within the production team. The playwright intended the scene to be viewed as rape; however, the director did not feel the text supported that read and saw the scene more about challenging the idea of consent within a power dynamic. The cast was also somewhat split on the action of the scene and it caused conflict in rehearsal in addition to making the scene less specific and ultimately less effective. While the dramaturg does not undermine the work of the rest of the artistic team, there are times when she needs to address questions and concerns by drawing attention to “the elephant in the room.”
p.75
The Company Elephant
The very idea of the elephant in the room is touchy. It implies there is something that cannot be missed and is willfully ignored by those present. Consequently, one of the things the dramaturg should attend to when approaching these kinds of issues is the reason why they are being ignored. Once she has a sense of why it is overlooked, she can better navigate through in order to reveal it in a useful manner. The idea of useful permeates this aspect of dramaturgy, as well. The choice to point out what is being ignored is made with a purpose in mind. If it is not necessary, if it is not important, there is no value in pointing to the elephant; however, when it is something that affects the company or the narrative, it needs to be brought to light.
The situation with the contested rape scene mentioned earlier is an example of a rehearsal elephant that needs to be addressed. The notion of consent and the presentation of sexual abuse are themselves issues that incite reaction, and to ignore the conflict around the reading of the scene will not add to the strength of the piece or the relations among the company. Ultimately the scene is going to be played how the director directs it, and the dramaturg cannot undermine that artistic choice. What he can do is facilitate a conversation between the director and playwright regarding the scene to see if there is a common purpose to be found. For the cast, he can bring in materials about power dynamics in sexuality, sexual harassment, college assault, legal definitions and stories. In short, as much as possible, the dramaturg can prompt the conversation about the issues raised. These conversations will likely happen outside the rehearsal room. It is not a subversion of the process of staging the show, but can be an addition to the materials the company shares. Ideally this will help shape the scene into a clear and decisive narrative, while at the same time it is helping the company address the issues it confronts.
p.76
The elephant in the rehearsal room can be related to content, process, or personality, and part of the holistic view of the dramaturg is to see how all of the pieces are coming together. It is not simple to read the situation, nor an easy process to introduce those potentially contentious issues. However, part of the role is to help the company see the elephants they need to see in order to tell the story to the audience.
The ability to see the elephant in the room for the company is important; however, it is even more within the mandate of the dramaturgical mindset to see the elephant in the room with the audience. The issues and choices that a production introduces to an audience can cause a kind of conflict or unrest that may necessitate additional dramaturgical input.
The Audience and the Elephant
The dramaturg can give an audience room and language to respond to challenging aspects of the performance. She can provide the forum of a talkback or can use the access point of program notes and lobby display or other forms of direct audience outreach. One challenge when addressing the elephant in the room is making certain that it is in fact in the room, and not merely a personal response. For example, the dramaturg sees a real problem with cultural appropriation in the production. The questions and commentary she offers the director are dismissed and become borderline contentious. The dramaturg continues to work the show, offering the input she can and preparing a context within which to address cultural appropriation with the audience, if the need arises. She does not seek a “gotcha” moment for the director, nor try to undermine the goals of the production. Instead she recognizes the likelihood that the audience will see what she did and will welcome an opportunity to address the questions raised.
The training and habit of being responsive is of great assistance, and the dramaturg needs to take her cue from the audience even after setting up the place for the difficult conversation. The context is there in the audience outreach; however, not as input to create the reaction but as a frame through which to respond to it. If the audience is not concerned about the “elephant” issue, it may not need the spotlight. Once again, the attentive, responsive and in-the-moment dramaturg will be able to support the audience experience in a way that frames the conversations that need to happen. The balance between recognizing the elephant created by a production choice and not undermining or sabotaging that choice can be a challenge that requires the open, flexible thinking of the mindset. For example, if a director makes a casting choice that is controversial – perhaps a racial or ethnic change that may be provocative – the elephant is the choice, not the effect of that choice for an individual audience member. The framing of the talkback or the program note then can be racial or ethnic representation on stage as a way to recognize the element that everyone in the room sees but is typically asked to ignore, and an environment can be created where the audience can further explore the implications of what they saw.
p.77
Pointing out the elephant requires the same level of care and attention as any other element of dramaturgy. It demands understanding of process as well as timing, and has to have a specific reason to be done. The purpose can coincide with production needs or with audience outreach, and the dramaturg needs a clear view on what purpose is being served in order to shape the form and timing of her revelation. There may be times when the issue merely needs to be acknowledged as an omission – we as a production are choosing to avoid that specific topic in favor of this other one. This is the kind of input that can be done directly, highlighted in a program note or in the production’s marketing materials. The attention paid to the ignored element, shining the light on the elephant, can have any number of results, be it the sharing of information or the commiserating of an opportunity missed. Regardless of the outcome, the dramaturg tries to honestly approach the issues raised by a play and through a production. She seeks to consider and explore these issues in ways that shape a meaningful experience for the audience.
The dramaturg does not have the luxury to ignore the elephant in the room, and the need to illuminate it is integral to the mindset. The dramaturg gives context, responds to what is presented and sees with an eye that is both on the entire project and focused on the current moment. Those attributes do not coexist with the willful disregard of a concern or the hope that something will go unnoticed by the future audience. The attentive and responsive perspective is one that exists based on its ability to see clearly, think flexibly, and respond usefully. The dramaturg shines the light on the elephant in the room for all of his audiences.
p.78
Timing is absolutely vital to the mindset to dramaturg. Understanding when a contribution is necessary makes the work effective, and the usefulness of that contribution depends on the close attention to the process. Productions and projects have a schedule and an agenda, and the better the dramaturg understands that movement, the more closely she will be able to fit into that process. Timing will shape what and how she contributes and is the most direct way to gain the viewpoint from which to see clearly and offer useful input. This attention to timing joins with the ability to see holistically and to use questions effectively in order to develop a dramaturgical mindset – a way to see and engage with material.
Summary
The mindset to dramaturg is established through close attention to timing. Understanding how to incorporate the dramaturgical input into the production schedule as well as recognizing when that input will be most useful are both important skills to develop as a dramaturg.