Bob: what do you think makes for good dramaturgy (and here I'm referring to the the new-play-development half of the term -- ie., working with a writer to develop a script), and what makes for bad?

I'm hoping this question will hold some interest for the screenwriters as well, as, in my experience, the principles of good dramaturgy and good story editing are pretty much the same.

Oh, the really big question, eh?

The bad part is easy. A monumental ego that thinks he/she knows more about the script than the writer, and proceeds to prescribe ways to fix the poor little thing. "What you should do is . . ." And then this fool begins to list off cliches about exposition and conflict and turning points and climaxes. Unfortunately, a lot of dramaturgs (especially with academic backgrounds) always seem to operate as if they are marking a term paper and the playwright inevitably leaves one of these sessions feeling like a naughty child who has failed to live up to mom and dads' expectations.

Good dramaturgy starts with respect and admiration for the fact that someone is trying to create a work of art. Dramaturgy is not a profession like acting, or directing, or playwriting. It is a task that gets done, one way or another, on every new play--even if it is an audience sitting on their hands at the end of opening night. They've just told you the thing doesn't work. Really painful dramaturgy, for sure, but you have an answer.

In my dramaturgical work now, I try to describe my feelings based on the material presented to me. I articulate where I laugh, cry or am confused. I think I have a good sensitivity to when things are too long, too short, or what have you. But I always stress that these are just my opinions and feelings. Someone else might have a completely different response.I think the job is to develop a dialogue with the writer where you are just basically talking about what's on the page. Over time one hopefully learns to trust one another and the work proceeds from there.

Respect. Trust. Sensitivity. I realize these words don't describe a working method per se, but they seem to me the qualities that define good dramaturgy. The best methodology is to ask questions: of the play, the playwright, but maybe even more importantly, of one's self.

***

I'm operating on the basis that there are no dumb questions ... I'm self taught and new to a lot of this. So: please define "Dramaturg". What does a Dramaturg do?

(E-script Executive Director Frank Moher, who'd used the term in his post previous - see above - answered first):

Traditionally, according to the European (German?) origins of the role, the dramaturg would prepare notes for a theatre's acting company and directors on the literary and historical contexts of a play they were producing; he/she might also help find plays to go into the company's repertoire, and prepare program material.

These days, particularly in North America, the phrase has tended to become interchangeable with literary manager or new play development director; ie., a person who works to find new scripts for a theatre to produce, reads ones that are submitted (and may respond to the writer), and works with writers on the development of new plays the theatre is interested in producing (either one-on-one, or in "workshops", where actors, director, dramaturg, and playwright convene to read and discuss the play). In other words, it's roughly analogous to the job of a story editor in film.

Frank

(Then Bob added:)

Frank's pithy response is on the money. If you want some more definitions and exploration of the topic point your browser to the Dramaturgy NorthWest web site at

http://www.ups.edu/theatre/dramaturgy/index.html

Maintained by some Seattle 'turgs, it is a good primer for dramaturgical activities sponsored by the Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas. (Yes, we have our own club!!)

Of course, the best definition of dramaturg is that provided by your own Frank Moher: "A sad song sung at the funeral of a playwright."

***

Some people say once you've changed the script you may as well send it again to the same theatre. The literary manager or director might have changed, or the programming is new, etc. If you see a script from Finland called THE VIRTUOSO for the second time waiting for your perusal in the pile on your desk, hand on your heart (?), will you read it? or do you check the files to see what was said about it last year. Are rewrites important or do you kinda remember "Oh, that, yes, but no, no, it's not for us." And you return it politely? Does it depend on your workload?

Yes, to all of the above! The amount we can read is determined by the workload, and revisiting work that has been determined to be "not right for us" really is a luxury. However, if there was a glimmer of something in the first version, I do try to find a way to have another look. At Alberta Theatre Projects, though, we are looking for plays that we want to produce, so we engage in very little developmental dramaturgy, ie. working with a writer through several drafts for development's sake alone.

I know also that things like the local audience, the size of your cast available, financial standings (ie. too many Equity actors needed, too many middled age or older roles in the play). Surely not the set requirements?

No.

Or you read two first pages and think: "No, I don't like middle class old hippies running an orphanage themes. I want TODAY'S ISSUES!"

I may not like plays about middle class old hippies running an orphanage, but our audience might. We have produced many plays in the festival that I don't personally care for, but that are well written and worthy of production and I have felt that they would strike a chord with our audience.

I expect most of the rejections are easy to decide upon.

Oh yeah.

But do you see sometimes that this playwright knows his/her job?

Most of the time playwrights know their job. They may be struggling with form and structure, or the proper articulation of theme, what have you, but I have to say that I read very little these days that is totally inept. Theatre is such a minority art form, that it seems to me that writers who stumble into it have a clear sense of why they want to write for the stage. Those who don't must be sending scripts on spec to sit-coms in Hollywood. Now there's a job you couldn't pay me enough to do!

***

Being someone someone who is always close to a steady stream of new plays, maybe you could give some idea of the current trends that you see emerging.

I really think you need a Faith Popcorn type to do the trend-spotting, but if you'll forgive some huge generalizations, I'll essay a few pronouncements. Writers in their late teens and early twenties continue to be fascinated with the idea of suicide and big-time alienation from the world around them. No surprise there, I suppose, but in recent years I feel that I'm seeing more and more violence in the work. Which brings us to the next category--plays by guys in their twenties and thirties--where Quentin Tarentino has a lot to answer for. Big time blood-letting and a cool, ironic tone that it is often quite exhilarating writing, but the morality of which I'll leave to you. Women writers, thank god, are all over the map and I hesitate to even try to pin down themes there, but there continues to be strong feminist take on things.

Are there common aspects of a lot of newer plays that bother you? Or make you smile?

Well, obviously the Tarentino thing bugs me (I love his movies, by the way), but mostly plays that really want to be movies bother me the most, or, perhaps even more so, plays by folks who clearly want to be writing for "Friends".

And here it is, the last question: What are the small, almost irrelevant

Spelling/proofing

things that can turn you off a potential script right at the start? After reading stacks of play, which are the mistakes in the presentation that make you want to throw it immediately away? Dot matrix printers? Photocopies? Terrible grammar?

Dot matrix printers are right up there, and in ye olden days, a handwritten manuscript would send me though the roof. Not a few scripts arrive without pagination, and this can cause a nightmare in the office when the pile decides to do a Leaning Tower of Pisa and go south. These little things aren't really a problem. Ninety-nine percent of the manuscripts I receive are professionally presented. Most playwrights listened to their mothers when she told them how important a first impression was.

***

Directing new plays is much different from say, doing a production of A Doll's House. What do you perceive to be the differences, the delicate balances? And what about the relationship between the director and playwright?

I suppose the reason I enjoy directing new plays so much is the fact that it really is an adventure. You never really know what is going to happen. You spend so much time working on the script with the writer, trying to get the casting and design right, and so on, and then the first day of rehearsals is upon you and...anything can happen. The special thrill is when a show works and you can turn to the playwright after the first performance and share that smile.

Directing an established script is more of a trial, in some ways. If you are as insecure as I am, part of you is obsessed with getting it right (because it obviously has worked before). If the show suceeds, I heave a sigh of relief and whisper, under my breath, "Fooled them again!" On the other hand, working on a John Guare, or a David Mamet or--as I am at the moment--a Tony Kushner is inspiring. The work is so good that you feel privileged to have the job.

What advice would you give to a playwright, especially in these days when we can't necessarily pick and choose our director. We're just happy someone's doing our play?

I think the playwright has to be very proactive--and honest--in the relationship. You have to be upfront about the stuff in the play you have doubts about and learn to be very articulate about why things are there, if necessary. I think you have to be monitoring what's going on at all times, and feel free to confront the director with your problems with her production. But you must always be mindful of rehearsal room protocol. No matter how incompetent the director might seem in the room, you've got to give her status and authority. The production journey of any show is parlous, and I think the playwright has got to learn the theatre's greatest rule: timing.

Another question: Are you offended or put off when a playwright has submitted their script to many theatres at the same time. In publishing this is a definite no-no. But some people believe it's perfectly permissible in theatre, as long as the director knows.

Even if the director doesn't know, who cares! Send the bloody thing here, there and everywhere. Scripts are going to sit in piles for months. Life is short.

What production did you see that blew you away?

I don't go to the theatre, so I don't have any experiences to relate. Just kidding. In recent memory, the production of Angels in America at the Intiman in Seattle was truly exhilarating. And Anne Bogart's piece at this year's Humana Festival--a physical theatre take on Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf was inspiring. I tend to be blown away by shows that challenge my notions of what theatre is. And that comes from inspired writing and/or absolutely fearless direction.

Do you prefer fudge brownies over cheesecake?

Oh, brownies by a long shot. The only good cheesecake in the world is found at Dunn's in Montreal. The rest is silence.

***

If you'd like to be notified of upcoming E-script Virtual Q&As, why not join our mailing list? And if you're interested in our online playwriting and screenwriting workshops,click here.