On October 27, the
L.A. Weekly hosted the third of
six roundtables on new-play development, in reaction to the closing of the Mark
Taper Forums play development labs and A.S.K. Theater Projects. The roundtable
featured two newcomers: Gordon Davidson, founding artistic director of Center
Theater Group, and Nancy Cheryll Davis, artistic director of the Towne Street
Theater. Returning were writer-performer Stacie Chaiken, Evidence Room artistic
director Bart DeLorenzo, Theater @ Boston Courts co-artistic director, Jessica
Kubzansky, L.A. Stage Alliance executive director Terence McFarland,
Weekly theater editor Steven Leigh Morris, and Ghost Road Theater Companys
Steven Leigh Morris recapped the idea of an annually evolving consortium of arts organizations that had been discussed in two previous meetings. This would consist of a grouping of between four to six performing-arts organizations (theaters, music groups, dance/performance companies), each of which would remain in the consortium for three or four years, so that each year, two could graduate out while two more were introduced. During this three- or four-year tenure, an umbrella administration (which also rotates) would oversee an annual or biennial festival of works-in-development ranging from readings to workshops, some of which could be a continuation of a development process during the previous year. The design is to encourage interaction among the various groups so that new, interdisciplinary work can be sparked and then developed over a two- or three-year period.
Mark Seldis added that among the goals was investing and interacting in local communities in order to create a greater rapport between the arts organizations and the patrons they serve.
Gordon Davidson asked somebody to expound on the goals for such a consortium. The following suggestions were expressed by the various participants:
1) To create an institution that helps define and give legitimacy to the idea of a play-development laboratory.
2) The creation of work.
3) The collaboration of people working in different genres.
The thing that concerns me the most is really trying to
come to grips with how you develop new work better. If all the criticism that
one has heard [about the Tapers development labs] is true, what about it? As
in anything, I think its only partly true. The success of this depends on who
runs it. Now everybodys in the new-play business, I think its diffused, the
way in which a play can, or plays can, find a fuller life. It puzzles me, if you
dont have on one hand the Taper or the Lincoln Center or the Public Theater,
what is going on to help the situation. When I see something off Broadway, Warren
Leights new play for example, and its truly an engrossing play, but it aint
done, it aint going to get [in a single off-Broadway production]. How do you
create a system that allows it? One way or another one can provide a first step,
then what can one do, does it have to go to another place, another I guess,
because having done the institutional structure for so long, I want to hold back
and see if theres a sustaining energy in the work. In principle, the idea of
artists stimulating artists is great, there should be more of that. But I think
we have to help figure out, how does one serve a playwright? Getting to the next
I think that the two questions are separate how you bring a play forward is such a complicated issue, like how do you fall in love?GORDON DAVIDSON:
How do you sustain love?BART DELORENZO:
How do you move the mission in general forward, the mission of creating a community of performers? I think thats an easier question, I think thats an easier question; this gathering and mixing and exposing people to different things, I cant imagine how that would hurt. I think that was one of the great things you did, Gordon the circus of interaction that you created. The idea of grouping together [varied] individuals to develop work is unarguably useful.JESSICA KUBZANSKY:
Consortium is an idea we should expand around the country.GORDON DAVIDSON:
August Wilson didnt go through development, he had productions in six regional theaters, he sat, he listened, and whatever notes were there, he listened and he worked on it. No amount of note-giving would have changed that at the phase its at. How do you create new motives in which the artist feels safe and yet has a new opportunity to find out more about [the work he/she is creating]? MARK SELDIS:
What were trying to create is not necessarily better art, but ways of making better art happen. (Stacie Chaiken brings up Lee Blessings use of Pacific Resident Theater as a laboratory.)JESSICA KUBZANSKY:
How does a play get another life? If a play is done here, the next step cant happen here, it has to move to another city.
There are two things that are useful: one, being able to see
the work; two, the idea that this is not your tryout, this is not the perfect
version of it (which I think scares people) the idea of working on something
in your room for a long time and then the process of trying something different
with it [once actors get involved]. But it is a sort of tryout situation, because
you want to add to the thing that youve been working on meticulously. Often when
these things happen, you have one version, but then the later version is adjusted
Every playwright needs different kinds of nurturing;
one of the virtues of the consortium is that it allows for different approaches.
We need to discuss more the curatorial role of the consortium.
One of the things it could offer is what Id call a full-service gas station. We could commission, we could do readings, we could do small productions. When [the Taper] lost the John Anson [Inside] the Ford experimental theater, we didnt really replace it until the Douglas. Im a big fan of the idea that if you possibly have the ability to move a play to the main stage, you should do that. [When challenged, Davidson presented administrative reasons why the plays at the Tapers New Work Festival couldnt go directly to the main stage.] What sounds interesting about this can a city provide a way in which projects can go sideways where a play can move to a different 99-seat theater that can cut the ball a different way?
The interesting issue is continuity, the rotating committee
is interesting. So often these things start out as one way, they have about three
good years, and then things get weird. I think its because of this democratic
spirit that waters things down I like a bit of elitism to help preserve continuity.
Its very dangerous to think of permanence. The Theater
Guild in Pittsburgh, it lasted five years. The Group theater was not very long.
Im the oddball that Ive been here 38 years. Maybe [the short lives of such programs]
should be that way sometimes you have to evolve the money for what youre
trying to do, its not out there. Maybe the theaters can do something about that,
and in the process help share more things about how the hell you make art in the
21st century. With the computers and the Internet. What is it youre trying to
do? The answer could be simple we just want to see artists see their play.
NANCY CHERYLL DAVIS:
Would audiences sustain a play that moves around the
city? I think the production aspect is already out there does the festival aspect
[of a consortium] take plays to a next level?
I think you have to make a case for the strengths whats
different about this project, what makes it strong. A lot of it is the people
who gather around the table, who make theater. Diversity. I dont think at this
stage its something about audiences. Audiences are a result. What youre trying
to do is find a way to make better theater. The sense that artists are going to
be taken care of. Whats the difference between a consortium and the play-development
programs that exist now? Thats the question you need to answer.
If I were a funder, and you wrote a proposal that said
with a consortium you get more bang for your buck mix and match, the great meeting
place of all these artists as a funder, I would find that really appealing.
As an artist and an audience, its a smörgåsbord of new work.
I have a relationship with a playwright that started
in Gordons theater. The thrill of all those levels and excitement and the idea
of consortium, thats what weve lost, thats what we lost when the Taper went
away and when ASK went away. I do think theres something about the festival aspect;
being at one theater is nothing like showing work collectively.
Maybe it has more to do with, either because that program
is gone, or maybe not, but each of the member theaters takes it upon themselves
to bring forward one or two exciting pieces and that the money you ask for is
not necessarily to do that, but to create a citywide festival in which the first
and foremost of the city get presented, the artists share, and out of that mix
comes this and that that was interesting work you were doing because the
only way you can communicate about art is by doing it. What might be attractive
is how youre taking responsibility for partnering, and what the funding agency
is doing is acknowledging the diversity and sprawl of the city. It does represent,
from the theaters point of view, some of the best things that are possible.
The idea is youre not trying to get four or five sources
of funding to build one gigantic thing, but rotating companies with a core administration
the gathering is open to the larger community. We need to hammer out how this
It should be as exciting as Edinburgh. You can use that
as a selling point.
I think the hook is that our society right now is much
more interested in process than product. From behind-the-scenes reality TV to
Moving Arts, which is discovering its workshops draw larger and more enthusiastic
crowds than its productions.
The other question, besides how to bring together the companies,
is how an administration would collaborate with the artists, which brings us back
to Jessicas point on how to curate such a program.
More on the future of L.A. theater: Click
here for Steven Leigh Morris' article Squinting Into the Sun, on how Los Angeles
theater will change over the next decade.
Reach the writer at email@example.com