E-script Q&A -- Bob White: Page 2

The E-script Virtual Q & A with Bob White
Topic: Writing, Developing and Producing New Plays

Questions on this page (2 of 3):
1: What do you see the playwright's role being during rehearsal?
2: Do you continue to have a dramaturgical function during rehearsal?
3: Once in rehearsal, when should revisions on a new play stop?
4:- What do you do if you think the writer's revisions are actually -un-improving the play?
5: Bob, I think most playwrights (at least in the U.S.) would agree with me that it is much harder to get a SECOND production than a first production (particularly in the "development" context). Development, from this perspective, often becomes a dead end street leading to a single production - and then zilch. Any comments?
6: Another question from down under. Coming to playwriting from a literate direction I sense that a lot of actors are movement-centred folk. They might be happy to be the centre of the attention and don't care much what they might say as long as they look good -- at least, that's how I might explain 'Melrose Place' . . .
. . . Can we have literate theatre?
7: How come you direct so many new plays? Is this a special directorial skill?

Go to page 3
To the Good Stuff menu
To the E-script main page

What do you see the playwright's role being during rehearsal?

The playwright should be able to see what is working and what's not. And then, in discussion with the director, decide whether it's a text problem or an acting problem. And, if it is a text problem, attempt to do something about it. She's not there to defend the work, to explain it, to interpret it, to impose her directorial concepts. She should tell the director when she thinks he's missing something, or sees a moment differently from what's emerging in the rehearsal room.

Oh, yeah. And buy drinks for everyone after rehearsal.
Back to the questions

Do you continue to have a dramaturgical function during rehearsal?

Just try and stop me. However, at a certain point I do like to be happy enough with the text to freeze it so that I can put all my energies into directing, and being there totally for the actors and everyone else involved. It is difficult not to keep tinkering--and hopefully improving--a text. I am currently directing Eugene Stickland's "Some Assembly Rquired"--a play that was a big hit at our festival three years ago, has had several subsequent productions, and was nominated for a Governor General's Award last year. In rehearsal yesterday, we cut a couple of speeches and added some new text.
Back to the questions

Once in rehearsal, when should revisions on a new play stop?

See above. As some wit observed, "Plays are never finished. They just open". Practically speaking, I hope to have a frozen text by the last few days in the rehearsal hall, so that through tech and up to the first preview we're all on the same page. After the first preview, anything can happen.
Back to the questions

What do you do if you think the writer's revisions are actually -un-improving the play?

Run for the hills. I try and have a frank discussion, and carefully explain my point of view. These kind of "panic" rewrites usually occur when a writer is trying to compensate for lacklustre performances or something "wrong" in the production. I promise to try and correct the problem.
Back to the questions

Bob, I think most playwrights (at least in the U.S.) would agree with me that it is much harder to get a SECOND production than a first production (particularly in the "development" context). Development, from this perspective, often becomes a dead end street leading to a single production - and then zilch. Any comments?

Securing a second production is very difficult. I suspect it is a world wide phenomenon. Part of the problem is that producers interested in new work--especially those working at not-for-profit theatres--have a vested interest in developing their own work and therefore a lot of these guys and gals suffer from "premieritis". It is difficult for them to invest--emotionally--in material they haven't developed. It is very stupid, and is depriving our audiences of a lot of interesting work.

On the other hand, most new work isn't very good--or doesn't connect with an audience-- and doesn't deserve further exposure. I do believe, by and large, the real good stuff does surface and receives the attention it merits.
Back to the questions

Another question from down under. Coming to playwriting from a literate direction I sense that a lot of actors are movement-centred folk. They might be happy to be the centre of the attention and don't care much what they might say as long as they look good -- at least, that's how I might explain 'Melrose Place' . . .

I don't think it's a question of looking good. It's a question of very large pay cheques.

. . . Can we have literate theatre?

So, we want to initiate a discussion on the state of art at the end of the millennium, do we? I don't think we have the bandwidth to address this issue.

I love pop culture, even when it's despicable, because it tells you an awful lot about the world you are living in and if you are going to be involved in such a public art form as theatre, you'd better have a good grasp of what you're fellow citizens are up to. How their dreams, fears, joys and the whole shebang is finding expression in the world.

My recent experience of having 500 people a night jammed into our theatre to experience Tony Kushner's very literate examination of our lives and times in "Angels" gives me much hope. I think our audiences are desperate for soul-filling entertainment. And the more junk on television, in the movies, or on the Internet they are subjected to, the more they are going to need us.

I doubt there is going to be a mass audience for "quality" work. But you have to try. What's a life for?
Back to the questions

How come you direct so many new plays? Is this a special directorial skill?

It's become one, in my case, I suppose. In Canada, at least, one gets quickly labelled as a "new play guy" and it's very difficult, it seems, for producers to see me directing Shakespeare or Moliere or Tennessee Williams. In recent years all of my "non-new-play" work--on Mamet, Guare, Kushner, etc--has taken place in Calgary. Far from the media glare of Toronto, and if it ain't happening in Toronto, you might as well be on the moon as far as forging a national reputation.

More importantly, though, is the fact that I have a good directorial personality for working on new plays. I come to a project with no grand concepts or intent on putting my stamp on a play. My ego doesn't seem to require that kind of stroking. I love figuring out what a text is about, and just mounting that text to the best of my ability. I love working with playwrights: the partnership I have on an ongoing basis with several writers is one of the joys of my life. A terrific director/writer relationship is very fulfilling. You've taken on the enemy together. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But you've been part of creating something that didn't exist before, and outside of parenthood, I don't think life offers one that opportunity very often.

Back to the questions
On to page 3
To the Good Stuff menu
To the E-script main page

The Theatre Banner Exchange