A New Kind of Casting

Suppose that there were a fine acting company made up of white actors and black actors and Hispanic actors and Asian-American actors; women and men; young actors, older, and old; deaf actors and the hearing; actors with other special characteristics. And suppose that one assigned roles freely, without prediction from history or from one's old habits of thought. What if one took nontraditional casting as far as one could?
—Zelda Fichandler, American Theatre, May '88

This month's issue of American Theatre features an excellent essay consiering the gender debate from a more abstract and expressionist point of view. What if casting could be completely gender neutral? What is casting could be color blind? What if the age or a actor didn't matter? What if body type was also irrelevant?

Read the article here and let us know what you think.

From the article:
..."it would drive a wedge between actor and character, encouraging spectators and performers to critically examine interacting performance texts rather than assuming a simple-minded identification of the performer with the role."

Theatre should not be realistic

David Ian Rabey, writing in The New Welsh Review in December 1998 [hat tip to George Hunka]
A number of critics and audiences persist in the presumption that theatre should "reflect life," depict it in readily recognizable terms ("readily recognizable" usually meaning upper middle-class, white, heterosexual, careerist) and proceed to some rational diagnosis of social contradiction (as in Ibsen) or else affirm the poignancy of inevitable decline of aspiration and inevitable waste of passion's possibilities (as in Chekhov). It's worth pointing out that these formulaic presumptions do Ibsen a disservice, as he was also the author of the wild, supernatural, associatively freewheeling and remorselessly unsentimental anatomy of the modern soul that is Peer Gynt. Theatre is not instruction on how to live, because if it were its presumption of a moral infancy in its audience would be offensively authoritarian. Theatre is speculation on possibilities of life, and should therefore be amoral in its explorations, which are ultimately fictional, never purporting or obeying realism: it provides the imaginative space in which such investigations can occur, in order to interrogate and refresh habitual perceptions and conventional assumptions. The laws of gravity need not apply. By analogy, neither need the depressive solemnities nor the dismissive flippancies of "real life"... A miasma of critics, directors and cultural legislators who only want their own prejudices confirmed might give rise to an audience with similarly repressive restricted appetites. Thankfully, that hasn't yet happened, entirely. I recently heard a comment from an audience member after one of my plays. She said the performance 'released her from literalism'. That'll do, for today.


Thanks once again to Thomas Cott of CottMail for this source.

Shared Experience

So much of what we do in the theatre is based on shared experiences. At the most essential level theatre is simply that: audience and artists coming together to share a story in a common space for a few hours. Then there are the hours of rehearsal and collaboration that lead up to that one performance. After that there is the reminiscing and trying to capture just what happened in front of the audience. And the experience is different for each and everyone of us whether it's because of our life experience that we connect the story to or simply because we sat in a different seat than anyone else - each person's expience is unique.

A new production of Romeo and Juliet capitalizes on that thought - with a slight tangent. This production, rather than performing the classic Shakespearian tragedy, performs what all of us remember the story to be about. Director Pavol Liska interview friends and family asking them what the story of Romeo and Juliet is about and he used their responses to construct this production.

While the bigger experiment may be more about how people's memory works and how a play begins to inhabit the subcontious of a culture as a whole, it is also important to step back and think of how the shared experience plays into this. What is it we take away from a production? What is it you would like your audience to come away with? If all anyone can remember is that people spoke in a very stiff, stereotypical "Shakespeak" and everyone died at the end, are we really doing our jobs as story-tellers? How do we make our performances stand out and become memorable?

Throw It Away

A wise friend of mine once said that if you are a good enough actor to play every moment perfectly, no one will be able to tell that you are a good actor. You have to be able to have some moments where your acting does not work so people can see the moments when you are really doing a great job. It is for this reason that he always chooses to play some beats and moments in his performances poorly, so that when it really matters he can nail the character and really give an effective and affecting performance for the audience.

This is one reason why I enjoy clowning as a performance style. It gives you a wide range of emotions and expressions to play. If you play the majority of any piece at 120% silliness and then suddenly shift gears and become very small - or better yet pull out a gun and shoot the main character - the audience is forced to sit up in their seats and take notice. Controlling the size of the performance is much like the screen director's ability to control the camera angle; it helps point the audience toward what they should be looking and and what you, as the director, want them to focus on.

Creative Process

Normally the design process for Off-Loop theatre goes something like this. Hire a scenic designer at the last possible moment, she or he has a few brief meetings with the director to discuss vision, and there are some drawings or a white model ready for the first production meeting. The process usually works out well and everyone is generally happy.

Once, however, the scenic designer walked into the first production meeting with a full 1/2" color model; all done and beautifully painted. The designer obviously had spent a lot of time working on it and built it to perfections. The director was so surprised he didn't know what to say - that the model became the final design and that was the end of the discussion.

What the director didn't know what this is simply how the designer "thinks." Where other designers might do some basic drawings, show research, or have a conversation with you, this particular one builds models - and very good ones at that. The model was just the literal expression of his initial idea. He would have been happy to have gone back and build a second, third, fourth, or fifth just to work through the process. But the director was so shocked to see what he thought was a finished design that he didn't offer any feedback at all.

Just remember that theatre is a collaborative art. Every element is just as important as another. As long as budget and time don't get in your way, take the time to explore all possibilities with your team of artists before setting on the final way of telling your story. You never know what may surprise you.

The Tragedy of Roxanne

Cyrano de Bergerac is a wonderful play and a great character. He is swashbuckling and quick witted while at the same time tender and romantic. He is the perfect blend of bravado and poetic. But when you get to the final act of the play, the catharsis is not his.

Through the whole story he has pined away after the beautiful Roxanne, but has been too self-conscious of his trademark large nose to ever allow himself to believe that she could love him. He is the one that gives his rival the poetry he needs to win the lady and in a sense Cyrano lives vicariously through his triumph.

As all good tragic love stories go, the lady finally figures out who truly loves her and who's soul she loves in return only too late. The dying Cyrano comes to her in his last moments and only then does she realize who he really is to her. But this is not Cyrano's tragedy. He has had all he could ever wish for: his lady's friendship and the chance to serve her. That was all he ever needed after he resigned himself to never be worthy of her in his mind. She, on the other hand, only begins to realize the loss of a fulfilling life and relationship as he slips away in her arms. Her loss is larger indeed.

Take the time to reread the whole play from her perspective. How does this change the outlook on everything?

Happy Birthday: Patrick Swayze (b. 1952) and Robert Redford (b. 1936)

A New Way of Acting

"'Ultimately if we do this right, the character will tell you how to behave... The idea is that everybody dies. The playwright has to die in the director. And then actors have to die in the play because they have to let go their ego to create a world that is a world of its own. And then of course [the] play goes into [the] audience's mind, and everyone understands it their own way."
Natasha Williams

NPR recently did an article on the life, career, and directing style of Natasha Williams. While her life's story is undoubtedly interesting, her approach to creating theatre is even more fascinating. Her whole idea is to finds ways to serve the story and the text.

One of the actors who has worked with her is quoted as saying "That's a process different from any I've ever encountered." But why? Why should putting the story first be such a foreign idea?

Too many actors get engrossed in creating their character. Too many directors loose the play in their vision of the piece. Too many designers over-design and allow their work to swallow the rest of the play. Too often all of the above elements do not dwell in harmony with one another and the play just does not have the resonance that it should.

Theatre is a collaborative art and this means that every time a story is told, all of the artists involved should unite behind the same story. This means putting self and ego to the side. This means letting the text take you where it needs to go instead of trying to force your perspective on the journey. It means allowing an audience member to have their own experience and interpretation of the performance. It means allowing yourself to fail so you can see where it is you need to go.

If creation is done our of fear, the fear will constrain and limit you. The audience will sense this and retreat into their comfort zone as well. If performance is done with reckless abandon, everyone feels threatened and unsafe - like walking a tightrope without a net. But if theatre is done with confidence and bravado in an inviting way everyone feels empowered and there is no limit to where the story can lead.

Less is More

"Because the play is so stripped down, so elemental, it invites all kinds of social and political and religious interpretation, with Beckett himself placed in different schools of thought, different movements and 'ism's. The attempts to pin him down have not been successful, but the desire to do so is natural when we encounter a writer whose minimalist art reaches for bedrock reality. 'Less' forces us to look for 'more,' and the need to talk about Godot and about Beckett has resulted in a steady outpouring of books and articles."
Normand Berlin (1999) reflecting on Waiting for Godot.

"Less forces us to look for more." It is such a simple statement and yet profound at the same time. Whether in presentation, design, or performance, simplicity and imagination has been a constant theme of this blog. Today I want to reflect on different ways that simplicity helps a story get its message to the audience.

The less being performed and represented means that the audience will have the ability to focus on one thing rather than sorting through a whole myriad of different ideas and themes to get to the central argument of the play. While this can be scary as it affords little room for failure and far less diversions to hide behind, in the end if attention is paid to executing the one story line the clarity that will ensue is more affecting than any smoke and mirrors combines. How much more do you enjoy a play that you get? When you're not coming out of the theatre having to say "I don't understand what it was about" or "what were the artists trying to say?" It doesn't mean that the message has to be obvious or that it has to be spoon fed either. But simplicity is only aided by clarity.

So what about a play like Waiting for Godot? This play has been debated and discussed ever since its first performance. No one seems to be fully confident about the play's meaning. It takes a strong vision to stage the play. But at the same time, if you allow the words on the page simply to play themselves and develop a rhythm, the play will begin to find its own meaning. Beckett possesses a higher power to allow the thoughts simply to represent themselves. It is those directors and actors that see simplicity and try to add meaning to it that will muddy up the story and make it incomprehensible. So there is a danger in simplicity too.

For an excellent example of simplicity, go out and check out a mime show. All of their performance is done through action. There are no words to help indicate what is being show. There are no props to lean on as a crutch. Yet, if they are not absolutely clear with their actions and movements, the story is lost. How can this simplicity and clarity translate to dialogue? How does this thinking aid staging and design? What are the elements in mime that are essential to any performance?


Happy Birthday: Laurence Fishburne (b. 1961)

Implied Design

My Lighting Design professor had a very wonderful theory of how her design should work in dialogue with that of the other designers and with the text of the story; "lighting should evoke an environment", she said.

This can be applied to all design factions too. It is better to imply to an audience the world of the play and let your suggestions play upon their imagination rather than striving to recreate a perfect world on stage. As Brecht said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "I'm all for realistic theatre. But the truth is I'm sitting in a theatre." No matter how perfect the theatre technology, no matter how big your budget, and no matter how good the special effects are, the realism of any theatrical moment is destroyed by the fact that there is an audience present; it's not real. Let film try to conquer realism as is so expertly does and allow theatre to flourish in what it does best.

Theatre is a medium of imagination and inspiration. It is a platform where a stick can become a sword, a blanket a cape, and a piece of blue fabric a vast ocean. The audience is willing to go where ever you are bold enough to take them. It's just like the imaginary games you played as a kid where as long as you said the rules of the imagination (hey everyone let's get on this space ship and fly) everyone had to go along with you.

Shakespeare is grand at doing this - he describes his environment in words and the audience has to go along with it. Mary Zimmerman has made it her brand. Sarah Ruhl is a master. Charles Mee is an expert. Let's find more and more playwrights who challenge their designers to be creative and imaginative and in turn challenge their audiences to do the same.


Happy Birthday: Wil Wheaton (b. 1972)

Theatre and Religion

There has always been a strong link between theatre and religion. The Greek theatre was always part of religious festivals. In the middle ages, the theatre was used by the Catholic Church to help educate their parishioners on Bible stores. But beyond that, theatre seems to be fascinated with religious topic as subject matter. Take a look at some of our favorite plays: Doubt, Angels in America, Inherit the Wind, Red Noses, Sarah Ruhl's Passion Play, Fiddler on the Roof, Freedomland by Amy Freed, and even Amadeus. There are of course many other and, conversely, many plays that don't treat religion at all, but theatre does seem to be inclined to view religion in a different way than many other performance mediums.

Perhaps this is because of theatre's tenuous relationship with religious authority. Theatre, it seems, is often the first art to be condemned and censored by any sort of moral authority. The idea of the loose morals of the theatre is an old one associating actors with the lowest of low lifes there can be. Perhaps this is theatre's revolt against institutions that for so long have tried to stifle their important voice.

Perhaps too, theatre is able to tackle issues in a more direct way that popular medium. Theatre is generally not your normal form of entertainment and therefor is able to criticize in ways a pop film won't be able to. Theatre too is an older form and has a greater sense of their self identity and how to criticize.

But there are many other factors that keep religion and theatre together as strange bed-fellows. What are some of your thoughts as to why the two fight, intermingle, and compliment each other so well.

Strike

One of the unfortunate realities of theatre is that unless you are The Phantom of the Opera, the show you are in will at some point have to close. This means that the theatre has to be prepared for the next production and in the process the old show has to be cleared away. This process is called strike. In the case of Phantom, there will be a small army of stage hands hired to take apart the set, take down the lights, and cart away all the costumes and props to some warehouse. For the majority of us, strike is carried our by those who participated in the show.

While many hands make light work, strike is often optional to the actors in a show. Many actors stay away from strike for many different reasons. They are tired having just come off a series of performances no matter how long or short and would like to have some time to themselves. Sometimes, the actor is already in rehearsal for his or her next project and is unavailable for strike. Often, the actor is too emotionally attached to the production to see the whole thing be taken apart before their eyes.

I, on the other hand, find it therapeutic. I need the time to undo the work with my own hands. To sweep up the remnants of the production rather than having it end abruptly; it's part of the process of letting go. There is so much invested in any production: time, talent, hard work, and often money. I find it hard to move on to the next project unless I really take the time to put the show to bed and reflect on the parts that went into it.

But no matter whether you choose to participate in strike or now, it happens. And soon after the theatre is cleared our, a new production will begin loading in. It's easy to attribute this to progress or "the circle of life." But it really is the essence of this art that we create. It is forever changing and malleable. It is what happens in the here and now in front of the audience. Strike is a large part of that experience and theatre is always the better for it.

My Favorite Genre of Theatre

Today I've decided to create a whole new genre of drama to encapsulate some of my favorite plays. The Play-with-a-Play/Prison Drama.

Definition: a play set in a prison or prison setting where the inmates perform a play and in doing so find some level of revelation or illumination. Examples: Man of LaMancha, Our Country's Good, and Marat/Sade.

Fewer plays toot theatre own horn the way the Play-with-a-Play/Prison Drama. But there is some importance in what it does. It forces us to objectively watch individuals struggling with an issue and their journey to their illumination. In the end, this illumination usually transcends their prison walls taking them far far away from their present surroundings to where the human spirit is allowed to run free. This is the essence of theatre. The ability to reach beyond the walls of the theatre and beyond the costumes, props and physical space to where imagination reigns. There we are able to look at things, have discussions, criticize and analyze in a way that can lead to real change.

Alienation Effect is essential in this setting. As we sit and watch the parishioners learn and change, we are essentially watching ourselves and hopefully are allowing the forces of the play to work on us as well. There couldn't be a more didactic form of theatre - or a more manipulative one as well. Brecht would be proud.


Happy Birthday: Ian McKellen (b. 1939), Greg Vinkler (b. 1951) & Eve Ensler (b. 1953)

Shaw's Prefaces

Next time you decided to sit down and read Major Barbara, Man and Superman, Pygmalion, or any play by George Bernard Shaw, take the extra time to sit down and read the prologues. While not theatrical in nature and usually a little more than politically minded, you will find no better written example of how to pose an argument. Written to appeal to the intellect, the pieces are declarative and persuasive.

But if you sit down and not only read the prologues, but read them out loud as a sort of debate or oratory and really put in the effort to make the text work, you start to find something extraordinary. Nor only are they exceptionally wells suited to be read aloud, but they sound very similar to the dialogue of his plays.

For his plays themselves are arguments. He is calling for changes to everyday life or at the very lest, for people to think about what is going on around them. Shaw chooses to write in comedy because the laughter at the end of the line is the audience "getting" the idea that the play is trying to convey, recognizing the inherent silliness expressed, and identifying with the humor. There is no better way to know for sure if you audience is following your work than listening to whether they are laughing or not.

So take some time to actually do this; especially you actors out there. It is an excellent exercises that will improve your performance in not only the language based playwrights like Shakespeare, Coward, and Stoppard but any other playwright you come across. Shaw makes you think about what you are saying and work very hard to make sure that your partner and audience understand it too. And that is what line delivery is all about, isn't it?

Amusement Park Theatre

Good theatre should be like a roller coaster. There is a defined beginning, middle, and end along a defined trajectory. You wait and wait and wait for the play to begin. It begins slowly, but clearly, slowly ratcheting up the first hill and setting out argument of the play through exposition. Then you're off and you start to fall. You are whipped one way and pulled another. The story leads you through loop-de-loops and spirals playing on multiple senses at the same time. Finally the brakes come on and you glide into the platform shaken but satisfied.

While the roller coaster is thrilling, you should never be afraid for your own safety or the immediate safety of others. And a roller coaster that fails to thrill - especially on that bores or allows the rider's focus to wander - isn't much of a roller coaster at all. You are along for a ride and that path should be both clear and compelling.

Too often productions seem to loose their path. They try to go in several directions at once. Sometimes they try to do a barrel roll and and inverse loop at the same time. The audience becomes afraid of falling off, or worse yet, confused about what is going on around them. Sometimes the path gets caught going around the same circle or there are no hills at all and the ride becomes nothing more than a monorail. Sometimes the tracks disappear all together.

I challenge you to look at your theatre work. Make sure that the tracks are made of strong and tempered steel that is safe. Create a clear path that is both bold and exciting. Never make your riders fearful, unsafe, or confused. And if you ride straight and strong to the finish line, you can help but take that rush of adrenaline with you for the rest of your day.


Happy Birthday: Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793)

What does a Stage Manager do?

If you work in the theatre, you know that the stage manager is one of the most important people working on any production. If you aren't familiar with what goes on backstage, you may not be so familiar with this important position. Yet even in the ranks of the theatre, there is disagreement as to what the stage manager is actually hired to do.

We all know that the stage manager is there to run rehearsals and "call" the shows. He or she is usually the one running around with a stop-watch calling people who are late for the rehearsal. You will hear the cast replying "thank you places" as the stage manager calls places backstage and then returns to the booth to call the lighting, sound, scenic and other cues; coordinating the execution of the show without a hitch. The biggest part of their job is to make sure that the show maintains the vision agreed upon in rehearsal and runs to the best of its ability.

How a director uses the stage manager can be as different as the many different temperaments of the directors themselves. In some rehearsal rooms, the stage manager is completely in charge. They will be the one who starts the rehearsal and then give the floor to the director, who will then give the floor back to the stage manager at the end of the night. Other directors do everything themselves and the stage manager becomes a glorified note takers and actor wrangler.

But however the stage manager is used, they are one of the most wonderful people you will meet. They are completely selfless in a world of huge and/or fragile egos. The SM is always the first person to the rehearsal and the last person to leave. They have to hear about all the problems of the cast and coordinate their schedules. Often they can end up "mothering" the show. And while the "mothering" instinct can both be an asset and a potential weakness, their investment and care of the show for very little personal glory paints the picture of absolute dedication and devotion.

Be sure to say a nice word to your stage manager the next time you see them and thank them for all the wonderful work that they do.

Interactive Theatre

Remember the old "choose your ending" books. You be reading along and then you would face a fork in the road and it was up to you the reader to pick your character's next move. If you want to go right turn to page 93 but if you want to go left go to page 67. These books would be remarkably fun on the internet. After reading a section, you simply click on the appropriate link for the action you want to happen next and your browser will take you there. You could even do this with audio, video, or animation.

Does theatre have a format where you the audience can affect the plot or choose action?

The easiest answer is sketch comedy. Everyone knows this: quick give me a genre, a 60's rock band, and an adjective and we will make up a scene on the spot. Generally works pretty well for about five minutes. Entertaining, yes, but generally lacking in deeper meaning. And we all know that theatre is not always about deeper meaning. But is there a way to make a truly affecting performance where the audience has some control? There are murder mysteries such as Shear Madness and Drood are fully developed scripts that have alternate ending that the audience will vote on and then the actors enact. But this still doesn't get at the root of the matter.

Is there a way for theatre to be controllable by its consumers? To make the experience interactive while still having the sweeping scope of insight? How can theatre use new technology to help accomplish this? And the biggest question, is this actually desirable?


Happy Birthday: Warwick Davis (b. 1970), Nathan Lane (1956), & Sarah Kane (1971-1999)

Classical Sci-Fi?

A television show once had a television agent say "classical actors and science fiction are like peanut butter and chocolate." Indeed in Hollywood this love affair with classical actors (especially British ones) seems to see this as true. Sir Ian McKellen as Gandolf in Lord of the Rings and Magneto in X-Men. Patrick Stewart as Captain Picard in Star Trek: the Next Generation and Professor Xavier in X-Men. Dame Judi Dench as M in the new Bond movies. Alec Guiness as Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars. Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock in the original Star Trek. And of course, the entire adult cast of the Harry Potter movies. We at Ghostlight Chicago have touched on this theme before, but let's look at this a little more.

One one level this makes sense. Shakespeare and most classical texts use heightened language - not the terse short responses our modern ears are used to. It takes a great level of energy and skill to get through the longer lines. Just the same, there is usually a level of heightened language in science fiction - the scenarios call for long explanations of fantastical situations and often less than well written scripts. It takes a certain level of acting skill to slog your way through the techno-babble and keep the audiences engaged in the plot.

But these classical actors are not unaccustomed to supernatural powers. Greek tragedy has the appearance of Gods and immortal beings. Fairies and sprites abound in Shakespeare. These actors know how other worldly beings speak so having to perform as aliens, wizards, and the lot is no challenge.

But at the same time, these roles can also be the most fun; both for the actor and the audience. There are little quirks and nuances that can be readily exploited to make fascinating characters. And sometimes the more unlike us they are, the more the reveal our humanity. Once you have studied the cannon of Shakespeare: Lear, Viola, Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, and Mercutio... well, there aren't any characters that are more challenging, human, and diverse than are found there. So playing anyone else, even an alien, is a breeze.


Happy Birthday: Anton Chekhov (1860-1904)

Acting Method and Process

In a guest appearance on the television show Extras, Sir Ian McKellan asks "how do I ask so well?" While the question is not arrogance but part of the funny bit that follow, an interesting discussion on acting can come from it. "I pretend to be the person I'm portraying in the film or play... How do I know what to say? The words were written down for me in the script. How did I know where to stand? People told me."

While this may be an over simplification of an actor's process, it does accurately portray the point that actors, for the most part, are fairly helpless. I know this will not be a popular thought to all my friends out there, but they are asked to be chameleons for someone else's work. They have to say the lines that a writer wrote exactly as he wrote them. They wear the clothes that someone else picked out and designed for them. They follow the director's vision and blocking.

This is why it is always special when you find a group of artists who are able to lay ego aside and truly collaborate together to tell the story. This is often most effective when working on a new play and you have the ability to include the playwright in the whole process so that the script grows and breathes with the actors and the rehearsals. But there are ways to do this with an existing script as well.

The key ingredients are respect and trust. Every member of the team has to trust that the other members are well trained to do their job, are as completely devoted as you are, and won't let you down. It's like building a great big safety net. How do you do this? It is dependant mostly on finding the right people. Beyond that, all effects are ephemeral and will sometimes work and sometimes fail. But the difference is you know when it really works and it will show in the final product on-stage.




Happy Birthday: Alvina Kraus (1893-1981) & Vsevolod Meyerhold (1874-1940)

When was this play set?

Why is it that when we choose to set a play out of the period it was written as, we always update the setting? We are fast to set Richard III in a foe-Nazi setting and Twelfth Night on the moon, but why do we never see "Caveman Hamlet" or "Toga Macbeth."

The first answer that comes to mind is the growth of culture. How do you justify advancements in technology, customs, and even thinking showing up in a time where there was nothing comparable? How do you have Ophelia denied burial in consecrated ground before Christianity has even been invented?

But we are able to accept it when Ian McKellan calls out "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse" in his World War II era of Richard III or Baz Luhrman having Tybalt and Mercutio duel with pistols in Romeo + Juliet, why can we accept Willy Loman selling goods door to door in anchient Greese.

But wouldn't it be interesting to have the duality of hundreds if not thousands of years. To compare our "sophistication" to less advanced times to show how far we've come. Or perhaps it may highlight how barbaric we still are - a caveman Stanley enters dragging a piece of bloody meat and shouts "Stella." Who knows? It may not be the best device to make your point, but it is an interesting way to comment on shortcomings that your theatre piece is calling for change on.


Happy Birthday: Kaj Munk (1898-1944)

WikiPlay

Playwrighting has now gone digital in a huge way. WikiPlay is an internet based project striving to compose an original play using wiki-technology. In other words, anyone who has access to the internet can go to this site and contribute to the work or edit a part of the work. If you are looking for a truly collaborative process, the only thing that may trump this is the old game where everyone sitting around the campfire adds a word as you go around the circle to tell a story.

The idea is a noble one indeed. Unspun Theatre is using its experience in creating collaborative projects to create this new method of playwriting. However, it is not entirely clear what the purpose of the project is other than to do it. There is no structure for performance which is where theatre really lives - alive and on stage.

So what does this project provide us with? Are there other ways of accomplishing this type of collaboration that are perhaps more effective? Or how is this more effective than other forms of collaboration? Is this something that you would want to share in? Take a moment to poke around the WikiPlay site and tell us what you think.


Happy Birthday: Richard Burbage (1568-1619)