biggest obstacle portraying tech in theatre? people.

Recently, I was tagged in a comment thread on Facebook after American Theatre Magazine raised a question posed by one of its fans:

Which plays effectively incorporate contemporary communication technologies – interactions on Facebook, Twitter, Skype, online chat, texting, etc? How have they overcome some of the obvious challenges in portraying those types of communications?

Carleigh Welsh, Sponsorship Consultant for Performance Space 122 and Director of Marketing and Communications at The Levitt Pavilion for the Performing Arts, mentioned my play Feeder: A Love Story, which was super sweet. Our team worked hard to integrate prerecorded and live video feeds and create a fun and engaging online experience.

I’m happy to see this question asked, and I especially enjoyed the query’s frame, presuming there is theatre successfully incorporating these technologies. I eagerly read other responses in the comment thread since I include this in my work. I’m always on the hunt for theatre integrating tech well. A few suggestions were Carlos Murillo’s Dark Play or Stories for Boys, Real Girls Can’t Win by Merri Biechler, Tommy Smith’s Girlfriend, and even Patrick Marber’s Closer.

Then, a man wrote: The experience of using those technologies is innate anti-theatrical.*

A woman immediately responded to the comment: That is piffle.

The man’s retort?

People spend ALL DAY LONG looking at screens, why would we expose them to that when they pay money to come to a theater? I suppose if you wanted to talk about how boring these technologies make people that would make a great play.

One of the obvious challenges in portraying those types of communications is overcoming prejudices of theatre purists like this fellow. Theatre is a congregational experience that entertains with live performance supported by a vast array of tools. Technologies are tools just like puppets, costumes or sets. To fully expand creatively, we should use every tool in the box. Even Annie Dorsen’s Hello Hi There, which employs no actors whatever, is a theatrical exploration of these technologies. Is it a play? Not in the traditional sense, but it is theatre.

If “people spend ALL DAY LONG looking at screens,” why wouldn’t we portray that on stage? Are we supposed to pretend computers, mobile devices and video technology do not exist? They permeate every moment of our lives. To keep theatre isolated is limiting and dogmatic. A better question is, “How can one write a contemporary play and completely ignore technology?”

People debate: What is theatre? What is good theatre? What is the best kind of theatre?

Who cares?

Expressing opinions freely wherever one wishes is healthy. Open people might listen and learn. Closed-minded individuals will continue to write negative drivel on comment boards and Facebook walls. I create theatre that matters to me, and fortunately I’ve met others who create theatre to which I aesthetically and emotionally relate. There are markets for everything, and so it is with theatre. Whether it’s downtown experimental performance art, a well made play on Broadway or something in between, we’re all in this together. Why spent time debating theatrical purity when it’s subjective anyway? All that matters is whether the show moves and entertains the audience.

Transmedia storytelling is a big part of the work I do. Transmedia isn’t for everyone, nor should it be in every play because not every play calls for it. However, those who suggest tech tools have no place in theatre should go to Broadway and see a musical or two. Most implement some sort of “multi-media” and have for over 20 years. If people do not want to see technology on stage, those plays certainly exist. If you value that aesthetic, support it and let tech advancements continue evolving theatre elsewhere.

As part of their 50th anniversary, Theatre Communications Group created a blog series called the “What If…” Project, asking what if we imagined the theatre field of the next 50 years, and began making visible progress today? TCG kindly invited me to respond to the question, What if Theatre Embraced Transmedia? Funnily, there are still people out there who can’t even face the question “What if theatre embraced multi-media?” If we are to make progress, we must accept both.

Opposing the integration of communication technologies in theatre is artistically irresponsible. As long as we keep embracing technology in our daily lives, it should continue on manifesting onstage. Art reflects life, and life includes technology.

*All grammatical errors belong to the poster.

___

If you’re interested in hearing me speak more in depth about these topics, I’m presenting on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at the Transmedia New York City Meetup. I’ll share details on the creation of my play Feeder: A Love Story, and discuss examples of theatre taking up technology in this new and exciting fashion. There are still slots available. It’s free, and you can SIGN UP HERE.

meeting feedees

A few weeks back, Aaron Gell from the New York Observer called to interview me about my play Feeder: A Love Story. The conversation was casual and focused on the play’s development. It was similar to other interviews I gave over the past month to Tom Murrin, Adam Szymkowicz and Zack Calhoon.

Then, our conversation turned to my research. Specifically, Mr. Gell wanted to know if I spoke to anyone in the feederism community. Being very private people, I wasn’t compelled to share many details. I did mention that the feederism blog, FeedeeWorld, picked up our press release about the play, discovered the play’s character blog, and organized a group to see the play’s first preview performance. Mr. Gell thanked me for my time, and proceeded to find FeedeeWorld and Fantasy Feeder. He posted requests for interviews at both sites. He planned to attend the same preview performance with the feederism group and hoped to ask them questions.

Because this play examines the media’s exploitation of sub-cultures and fringe groups, I have a few opinions and reservations about the media, and when one of the bloggers at FeedeeWorld told me Mr. Gell reached out to her, I encouraged her to be cautious. Though Mr. Gell reassured me his article would maintain participants’ anonymity and respect their lifestyles, I was still skeptical.

To my surprise, Mr. Gell did not attend the first preview of the play, but the group organized on FeedeeWorld did.

The original version of Feeder: A Love Story, written in 2006, was a solo play. I shared an experience here about two audience members confronting me after a performance about my intentions. Needless to say, when I discovered a group from the online community Fantasy Feeder was attending this new production, my heart jumped a little. Would they be angry? Would they be satisfied with the work I’ve done to depict this lifestyle honestly?

Happily, the group was open, responsive and generally pleased with the play. We had a wonderful discussion about their concerns, and they even offered some dramaturgical suggestions, which I implemented. It was a very different experience from my original post show discussion in 2006. Amanda, the woman with whom I’ve been corresponding, posted her review of the play today.

Mr. Gell contacted me a couple days after the group’s visit to the show, asking again if I could connect him to this group. I explained I respected the group’s privacy, and he would have to break the ice on his own. He returned to Fantasy Feeder, and with persistence persuaded one of the attendees to chat with him about their experience of the play. You may read Mr. Gell article at the New York Observer website.

Again, Mr. Gell surprised me. His intentions were indeed respectable, and his portrayal of the group was sweet, fun and objective. It wasn’t a hard piece of journalism, but that was never his intention as he so often insisted. In this exploitative and fast-paced 24 hour news cycle, we see innocent people vilified and judged for lifestyles. It’s refreshing to see a reporter do the work and stick to his word. One may disagree with how others live their lives; however, we’re all human beings seeking happiness and understanding.

Thanks, Mr. Gell, for staying true to your word and sharing a moment in which people tried to understand each other just a bit better.

it’s about engaging

Last night, I met some great people with whom I’ve corresponded in the social worlds for quite a while, and we put faces to names (not just screen names to avatars) for the first time. We had a quick chat about our upcoming projects, and I told them about the blog I’m creating for Feeder: A Love Story. One suggested it was about marketing and hooking an audience, and I tried to explain that it’s not just about putting butts in seats but about telling the story.

This is a common misunderstanding when it comes to transmedia storytelling. Certainly, it’s a way to “hook” people, but I prefer the word “engage.” When I first thought about creating the problog for Noel and Jesse, I hadn’t heard of transmedia storytelling. I just wanted to find a unique and interesting way of telling and expanding their story. Eventually, after working on it for a while, I discovered the world of transmedia storytelling, or deep media storytelling. There are stories in the problog that are only briefly mentioned in the play, and the play has stories not even referenced in the problog. The pieces are meant to work together to give the audience a richer experience of the tale.

Theatre is a unique and special experience. Like any live performance, it allows the audience to congregate and trek through events and emotions of the characters. It should make the audience curious to know more. I don’t know how many times (especially with this play) people remark, “I wish I knew more about that character.” To put everything in the play, however, doesn’t make sense. There’s subtext. Human behavior. Uniquely theatrical journeys. As a dramatist, I don’t want to tell everything in the play. That’s where mystery and magic lives.

So, why tell back stories on another platform at all? I dislike dramaturgical notes.

With Feeder: A Love Story, one of the first questions audience members ask is: “Is this real?”

Yes, it is. Do I want to put that in a paper program people read before the play begins, detailing out what the fetish is, how people live it, or how I found it? Not really. That takes people out of the play. Generally, theatre could do a better job of pointing the audience in the right direction to discover these answers for themselves.

As theatre-makers, our job is to create worlds that entertain, enlighten and excite. If we have to explain why we wrote something in a dramatugical program note, aren’t we falling short somehow as storytellers?

Of course, sometimes audience needs explanation. Pieces may be completely avant-garde or experimental with no story at all, or perhaps a company re-envisions a classic play in a new setting or time period. There are ways of giving context without writing a four paragraph manifesto on why this piece exists. I don’t care. I don’t usually read them. If I am not moved to laugh, cry or dance, the performance doesn’t succeed.

If and when audience requires context, why not share it in other mediums? There are loads of ways to achieve this. Direct an audience to source material on the internet, tell a classic story in a two minute video with puppets, or create an interactive game that reveals more about the live performance experience. Make dramaturgy a fun discovery, not a return to the classroom. No body wants to feel like they must learn something to enjoy art. But, if art spurs people to learn because it engages, a dual benefit manifests.

We aren’t printing a program for Feeder: A Love Story. We’re going green. Our program will live online at the terraNOVA Website. But, we’re not going green just to “go green.” We’re doing it because we want to direct people to the back story. Back to the problog. If an audience member hasn’t discovered the problog before the play, she or he can dig deeper on their own.

Hopefully, it engages in a fun and fantastic way.

transmedia storytelling

At the end of last year, August Schulenburg, Artistic Director of Flux Theatre Ensemble, posted at the TCG blog, TCG Circle, “The World Wide What Next”. He primarily focused on fundraising, social networking and how companies interact with their audience in the 21st Century. At the end of the post, he brought up the subject of transmedia storytelling. He quotes Max Koknar on 2am Theatre blog, “Don’t just write/produce/devise a new play. Build a new world and loose it upon ours. Do it incrementally and make the live performance your premium content.”

Two years ago, I’d written a play, Feeder: A Love Story, and it had some problems. First, was it was about a couple living the feederism lifestyle, and I got it all wrong. I wrote a thriller disguised as a love story. It was a series of monologues and short scenes about a subject on which I skimmed the research. The feeder and feedees who came to see the workshop readings were disappointed and, in some cases, angry. The other problem was the world of the play wasn’t consistent. One character was creating a video diary for a television program, and the other character spoke to another, unseen character in monologues. Their worlds didn’t make sense together, and the characters felt disconnected.

Once, I shared this play with a director, and he responded, “I don’t even know if it’s a play.” That may be the single most insulting thing for someone to say to a playwright. I get the statement’s sentiment. Perhaps the story isn’t well constructed. Perhaps it’s not a traditional dialogue rich theatrical experience. Perhaps they have a narrow opinion of what a play is. Still, the statement stuck with me in a way that challenged me.

Finally, I concluded, “Maybe this isn’t a play. Or, maybe the play is a part of a larger experience.”

I valued the workshops the play received, for during this time I made two major discoveries. More research needed to be done, and the characters yearned to live in the same world. I didn’t want to lose the aspect of monologue storytelling, but keeping the current scenario no longer made sense. I chose to shift the entire given circumstances to tie in with one of the main plot points in the play:

The characters share a blog together.

Suddenly, I saw this story as a theatrical journey rather than a traditional play. What if the characters’ blog existed? What if both characters share stories leading up to the opening of the play? What if this experience was as essential to the journey as the play itself?

To talk about how entertainment is pulling people away from live performances and gluing them to televisions or computers is to beat a dead horse. It is obvious, unless you’re a neo-Luddite living beneath a rock in the woods, the Internet is here to stay. It is a part of what we do and who we are in a very intimate way. So, why wouldn’t it be a part of the characters created on stage? Especially, when the characters talk about it in the play.

From this breakthrough, I fused the idea of a prologue & blog that exists entirely online in blog format. I’m calling it the problog. The aim isn’t viral marketing, as so often is done with big Hollywood films (though, some television shows [Fringe, Heroes] fully embrace transmedia storytelling). The purpose is to be part of the play in a very integral way. This doesn’t mean if audience only attends the play they won’t understand the story. The problog does, however, adds to the audience’s understanding of the characters.

Other theatre is venturing into transmedia storytelling. Most well known was New Paradise Laboratories Fatebook, which was a hit at the Philadelphia Live Arts Festival in 2009. In 2010, Waterwell’s #9 explored how we use technology creating a live video feed of the play in which Twitter users interacted with the production in real time. Currently, Better Left Unsaid is a live play streaming online with audience purchasing a ticket to go to the theater and see the play or paying less to view the online streamed version.

It’s exciting, for theaters are finally embracing the next evolution of live performance by tapping into this medium in fun and creative ways. I’m not suggesting that every play needs Facebook profiles created for each of its characters. What I am encouraging are more playwrights to think of innovative ideas to engage and entertain their audiences. The Internet is a unique, individual experience while still being social.

The problog for Feeder: A Love Story launches on February 15th, and I look forward to seeing how people respond to the story. I hope, like any good yarn, it will invite an audience to join another unique, individual (centuries old) experience while still being social – attending the theatre.

play development

Over at the 2amtheatre.com blog, Mariah MacCarthy shares her experience with the New York Theatre Experiment’s Generations event. There was debate on the development of plays – over or under development (or none at all) – and Mariah offered the debate to the people, asking ten questions to playwrights and theatres. Most of the responses (so far) have been from the playwrights’ POV, and one was a very insightful response from the literary manager’s office.

Here’s my response to her questions as both a playwright and associate director of terraNOVA Collective, a theatre company that not only develops but produces new plays:

1. Playwrights: have you ever had a play produced as a result of submitting it to a theater with an “open submission” policy? (And if you submitted it to Theater A, and Theater A did a reading of it, to which a rep from Theater B came, and Theater B produced the play, that doesn’t count.)

No, I haven’t, but I know many playwrights who have.

2. Theaters: has your theater ever produced a play that was sent to you unsolicited? How often does that happen?

Yes, we have produced unsolicited plays; however, over the past two years our play submission and development process underwent a drastic overhaul. We shifted how we accept play submissions. Namely, we only accept submissions to our Groundbreakers Playwrights Group, a program that develops not only plays but playwrights.

3. Theaters: if you cut your literary department today, completely, what would happen to your theater and the way it functions? What would change? How would you decide what plays to do, and how is that different than how you decide what plays to do now?

We did cut our literary department. Two seasons ago, we realized that our Groundbreakers Play Development Program was stagnant. We put out calls for open submissions, and we had a rolling submissions policy on our website. If someone sent in a play and we liked it, we asked the playwright if she or he would like to bring in the play in to be read in our weekly round table. Most of the time, the playwright was more than happy to have the play read, for it probably felt like a carrot at the end of a string – “A possibility to have my play produced!”

We had a “literary manager” who read the scripts and acted as a gatekeeper. Initially, that person was myself, and then we brought on Jessi D. Hill to comb through the plays. Sometimes, playwrights would come in, have the play read, and we would take it through the three tiers of Groundbreakers – table readings, staged readings/workshops & full main stage production. This is how we found and cultivated plays we produced. It worked in theory, but more often than not playwrights would do a table read and never return.

Happily, we produced several of these plays, and many have gone on to production. I just received an email from a playwright getting a production of a play that came through Groundbreakers a couple years ago. That excites me. We had a hand in that! Still, something wasn’t working.

When Jessi came on board, we took a long hard look at what was working and what wasn’t. The overwhelming realization was that we were developing plays, but the playwright wasn’t getting the attention she or he deserved. Our mission for the program shifted drastically. We opened submissions for the first annual Groundbreakers Playwrights Group. Last season, we invited seven early career playwrights (our criteria for that can be found here), and we found that the experience was very fulfilling – both for the playwrights and us. We learned tons – mostly, that we needed to make the group smaller – and this year we invited five playwrights to join this group.

The new structure rolls out in three tiers:

TIER 1 – Five playwrights each bring in one early draft play. Over the course of 15 weeks, each playwright hears her or his play three times. We match actors to the play, often casting people who might not be traditionally right for the roles. Always, the actors have experience in play development and feedback. The intention with these round table readings is to grow these first or second drafts into workshop ready scripts.

TIER 2 – The scripts go into a 12 hour rehearsal process as per the Equity Staged Reading Guidelines, and each playwright receives a public presentation of her or his play. This gets plays on their feet. Play development can never happen solely around a table. We solicit audience feedback through written forms with questions about each specific play.

TIER 3 – From these five fully developed plays, terraNOVA selects one play annually to be our main stage production. Obviously, we cannot produce all five plays developed each season, but our aim is to send the playwrights out into the world with fully developed plays she or he can share with other companies and get produced. Additionally, we actively invite companies to attend Tier 2 readings in hopes of finding productions for each of the plays.

This new framework in which we develop and produce plays is unique and exciting, for it doesn’t leave the playwrights out in a lurch if they don’t receive a production. Yet, it sticks to our mission of producing the plays we develop. If we continue the momentum terraNOVA currently has, in the next five years we will be producing two main stage productions annually from this fast evolving program.

4. Are there any theaters out there that have a purely blind submission policy – not just for one contest, but for all your season, all the time? If so, what are the pros/cons of that policy for you?

I do not know of any theatres that have a blind submission policy. I’m sure there are some. Groundbreakers cannot have such a policy, for we assemble a group that works well not only with terraNOVA’s dynamic but with each other. Every year, it’s a challenge, for we are constantly faced with the desire to be “diverse”. I’ve quoted diverse, mainly because I hate the word. If ever I use the word seriously, it’s discussing the diversity of styles and forms in plays or artists. This is the true road to “diversification” of race, sexuality and gender. Choose the best plays, and you’ll discover your pool of artists is “diverse.” We apply the same philosophy when selecting performers for our soloNOVA Arts Festival. One year, we had 11 women artists and one man. Other years, we had an even mix. Consistently, we strive for excellence, and typically that means reflecting all walks of life.

This season we have three women and two men in Groundbreakers. Two are gay. Two are Jewish. One is African. One bi-racial. All are dynamic, challenging and cutting edge. They feed each other in extraordinary ways, and friendships are budding from their interplay. It delights me to watch writers from different backgrounds clash with and enjoy each other.

Do I understand the value of blind submissions? Of course I do – especially in the case of contests and grant funding; however, that process won’t work for Groundbreakers.

5. Playwrights: how vital do you consider readings and workshops to your process? Do you feel it actually improves your play? When it works, why does it work? When it doesn’t, why doesn’t it?

As a playwright, readings and workshops are essential. Any playwright who says differently probably isn’t produced often. The only time one hears the play is when one hears the play. It’s magical. The first time actors utter my written words is very emotional for me. Not because it’s so good. Often, it’s not, and that’s the point. You dig through dirt to find gems. Good actors infuse a reading with purpose, showing what works and what doesn’t. They help discover gems and polish them for the audience.

Readings and workshops do something most people don’t consider: They introduce actors to playwrights. Often, characters are only flat black on white pages. This process yanks the writers out from in front of their computers and plops them into rehearsal halls – where they should be.

Finally, audience reaction is extraordinarily important. It’s ultimately who you have to please. I don’t mean pandering to the audience, but if they don’t understand the play or find it severely boring, there’s no chance anyone else will come and see it. In the end, that’s what we all want, right? People to see our work?

6. Theaters: of the plays of which you’ve done readings and workshops, how many of them have you ended up giving a full production? (Rough percentage.)

100%. Since 2003, we’ve been producing and developing new plays, and of the plays we’ve produced, all have gone through the three tier development process, landing on the main stage.

Another big consideration in making Groundbreakers into a group was pulling playwrights out of development purgatory. We all know good plays that are workshopped to death. We all have seen plays that should have spent more time around the table, too. To remove this stigma, we create a time line with deadlines. Playwrights get three readings around the table with four weeks between readings, and that’s it. If it’s not ready to get on it’s feet by the end of Tier 1, it’s not ready. We intend to work fast, furious and raise the bar for playwrights. This is the pros, and there’s no room for missed deadlines or half-assed re-writes. Real writers only. Posers will not be tolerated. This year’s crop Groundbreakers are intent on seeing their work performed, and we’re rewarding hard work with public readings in February 2011.

7. Playwrights: do you agree with Itamar Moses that it’s more productive to get artistic directors, rather than literary managers, to see your work? Or have literary managers/departments actually been responsible for your work getting produced? Or have both been the case at different times?

I do agree. In the end, artistic directors and directors of programs like Groundbreakers are the people to whom you want to be speaking. Certainly literary managers are gatekeepers, and those gatekeepers can get you to these artistic directors. Literary managers are like agents – they can only do so much for you. You must do the rest of the work yourself. Send letters to the artistic directors, invite them to readings, go to events where you know you’ll meet them, and at lower levels, email them and invite them to coffee or dinner. You’ll be surprised how approachable some are. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

8. Theaters: does your literary manager/department contribute significantly toward deciding what plays get produced? Or do those decisions mostly come from the artistic director?

We’re a small company. Artistic Director Jennifer Conley Darling, Jessi D. Hill and I review submissions for Groundbreakers, we interview finalists together (when we can), and we collectively agree on the group participants.

I believe most writers groups work this way. In the end, there are very few artistic directors worth their salt who act like Moses on a mountaintop passing down stone tablets from God. The companies I love, including The Public Theater, an enormous machine of an institution, make these decisions collectively. An artistic director may have the final say in the matter, but it’s rarely without careful consideration by committee. The process is much more complex than just some literary manager (or intern, for that matter) holed up in her office sifting through scripts or some artistic director on high playing with playwrights futures.

Again, I know there are exceptions to this statement, but generally, I see successful organizations working collaboratively.

9. Theaters: do you rely on grants that go specifically toward play development, rather than production? Do you receive funding that you can use for readings and workshops but CANNOT use for a fully mounted production?

This is a conundrum. Groundbreakers does not charge participation fees, we do not charge admission to our readings (but donations are happily accepted!), and the only time we charge an admission is for our main stage. The income for this program is based on grants and fundraisers.

Because we develop every play that arrives on our main stage, we consider it intrinsic to the fully mounted production; therefore, we include Tier 3 – our main stage – in our grant applications. Sometimes, we apply for grants that do not support production, and when we apply for those, we only include Tiers 1 & 2. However, typically, we can include production because the development of the play still occurs during rehearsals. We are not just producing plays. We are a developmental company that fiercely believes we play…in front of people. Our productions run under a Seasonal Showcase Code, and that doesn’t allow for an open ended or extended run. Plus, we don’t make money on these runs. They rely on donation, foundation and corporate support. These productions do exactly what the code says it should do: it showcases a playwright’s (and other artists) work so the play might see another future, either in NYC or elsewhere.

10. Playwrights: do you find that doing rewrites in rehearsal/preparation for a reading or workshop is preferable/more productive to doing rewrites in rehearsal for a production?

Production is part of the development process. Our productions offer playwrights the opportunity to finalize this process. It’s all valuable and essential, in my opinion as a playwright. Tony Kushner re-writes Angels in America for each new major production. It’s never over, and most people only have a three week run in a tiny space way off Broadway to achieve perfection. An impossible task, really. Productions with playwrights’ involvement always offer opportunity to fine tune a script.

Final note:

terraNOVA Collective truly believes in the playwright’s process, and though playwrights too often feel lost in a literary manager’s (or agent’s) pile of papers, there are great companies developing and producing work by discovering writers who are on the cusp of something great. This conversation is still churning, and there’s obviously many things wrong with the system; however, we hope we’re contributing to the annihilation of playwright purgatory and resurgence of producing playwrights.

If you wish to support the Groundbreakers Playwrights Group, we are having a fundraiser for our Tier 2 readings. This coming Monday, December 6th, the playwrights present Bug Out! – five 10 minute plays infused with the word “bug.” It’ll be loads of fun, you’ll get to meet the playwrights, themselves, and we’ll have some great raffle prizes.

Support play development. It’s the future of theatre.