Letters to the editor: November 2008

Editorial

We encourage thoughtful comments, ideas, disagreements, and criticism. Write us. Here are some of the messages we’ve been sent so far.

On Alan Berks’ three-part essay on the rehearsal process

I was quite inspired by the article on innovations in the rehearsal process and restructuring alternative theater companies. I totally agree that ensemble members steeped in the process of theater could make intuitive changes in the rehearsal schedule and take initiatives that include a significant part of the community in the process.

This is actually the founding manifesto for my new ensemble, The Electric Telescope Theatre Project, which I established in conjunction with Andodyne Artists Co., Inc.

—Dan Reiva

I thought your most recent piece advocating for increased use of Companies in the theater world was a great read and you make a strong argument. I'm just not sure I agree. As a lifelong flibbertygibbet and commitment-phobe, the idea of having one group of people with whom I'm allowed to work feels as limiting as the idea of home ownership or marriage. Maybe I'll be ready for all those things one day, but I think the young artist should jump at the chance to work with as many different people and institutions and in as many different styles as she possibly can. I can't help but roll my eyes a bit when I hear of another batch of new college grads who are banding together to make their own theater company because no one else is doing it right or giving them the opportunity to work the way they want to work.

On the one hand, I applaud creating opportunities for yourself. On the other, I question the mentality that says you have nothing left to learn from other artists. While the positive things you say about Companies can undoubtedly be true, what about the negative aspects, like stultifying growth and turning into an echo chamber for the same one way of doing things? All I know is that half the thrill of embarking on a new project is, for me, getting to work with new folks and glean what I can from their way of rehearsing, creating, and interacting. Naturally there are people and companies I've worked with multiple times, and there is comfort and power in that established relationship, but I like it most when it also has a dash of anticipation and potential arising from new elements. There are dozens of artists in this city with whom I would love to work. To limit myself to a handful over the course of my career would make me sad.

Anyway, thanks for this piece. It was really interesting and compelling and made me think (not something I'm in the habit of doing at my day job).

—Mo Perry

I joined Theatre Unbound as a company member in 2004 and I’m also a freelance actor/director. For the past four years, I’ve alternated between working with an ensemble of women that I know quite well versus working with others who may be acquaintances or even strangers to each other. As a company, Theatre Unbound works with the familiar and with the new; some productions feature company members, while others employ several different artists that we bring together for a particular show. Reading Alan Berks’ essays on the rehearsal process this past month had me thinking about the virtues and foibles of each scenario. As Alan points out, "A company of artists who work together regularly develop an understanding of each other." Building relationships with my fellow company members over time has allowed us to explore so many facets of each other: Stacey Poirier, Theatre Unbound’s artistic director, and I have been in five productions together, and in those various incarnations we’ve played the gamut from hair-pulling rivals to scandalous lovers. I’ve also sat at Stacey’s dinner table and labeled postcards—or cleaned out the storage space with her. You just don’t get that kind of mundane to the sublime experience when you’re "jobbed" into a show.

On the other hand, we regularly collaborate outside of our ensemble. The core of our mission is to create opportunities for women to write, direct, design and act, and over the years we’ve done just that. Dozens of writers, directors, designers and actors have worked with us—some of our productions haven’t had any company members directly involved in those creative roles. But we’ve balanced that with occasional company-driven work, such as a Fringe show that was created and performed by Theatre Unbound, or the Mary Shelley play written by our managing director (Anne Bertram) and developed within the company for over a year. The latter was a creative luxury which would have been hard to sustain outside an ensemble (since most of the simmering time was unpaid). Realistically, we can’t develop all of our plays this way, but that process felt right for that production. So for us, it seems to be a script-by-script basis: Who are the best collaborators, whether inside or outside the company, for this particular play?

—Delta Giordano

Alan Berks responds: My argument for a recommitment to Company was as much a philosophical one as a practical one. I agree with everything that Mo Perry says about the excitement of the new and the need to work with lots of people, but I don’t think that the concept of Company necessarily limits that. In fact, I think everyone should define ensemble in the way that works for the ensemble—as Theatre Unbound appears to have done. That is part of my point. A group of committed artists (not just actors, mind you) who each have a stake and a position within the company can and should come to an understanding of who their Company is and should be. It’s not necessarily easy or neat but, I think, it’s better than investing the entire identity of any given theater group in one specialized director who somehow embodies the vision and direction of the company as a whole. While I understand why this has occurred, I simply believe it does not actually support the reality of theater as it is discovered and practiced in a rehearsal room—or in production.

I also think that once we make a philosophical commitment, we can and should figure out how to make our priorities real in practice. So, for example, in an established professional theater that is committed to compensating the artists that work there, company contracts might be three years long with a reciprocal commitment for one and three-quarters years of work during that period. Ensemble members would paid for one and three-quarters years of work while committing to contributing to the company that amount of labor (and ideas) in return, allowing them both the stability and sense of ownership in a theater while also providing time and even need (how will you make up the rest of your salary?) to work and grow in new places... Just a thought, you know.

On Craig VanderSchaegen’s photo essay

Just wanted to say I loved stumbling across Craig VanDerSchaegen's behind-the-scenes photos of some of the shows I've seen recently. The photos are brilliant. Please keep it up.

—David DeYoung of Howwastheshow.com

On Sarah Gioia’s “Eleven tips for rehearsal”

Sarah makes it sound so simple. Well, it really is. I want to work with her even more now. I love seeing these little insights into people who I don't know well enough to ask about these things.

—Katie Kaufmann

On MinnesotaPlaylist

I’ve been reading your articles with sporadic regularity and want to take a moment to complain about their quality. They are consistently good. John Middleton’s piece, “Another actor prepares,” brings a nice, snarky humor to ideas that could have sounded flat otherwise, and Sarah Gioia’s essay, “Eleven tips for rehearsal,” has graceful clarity to it. The other texts I’ve read are MFA-degree solid as well. So what! At no time was I offended, confused, bored, or morally challenged! Where’s the drama in that? MinnesotaPlaylist has a unique opportunity with the theater community it serves. You’ve made a very solid, very valuable publication. Now take some risks with it.

—Justin Maxwell

Minnesota Playlist readers