THE NECESSITY AND FUNCTION OF THE DRAMATURG IN THEATRE

A Thesis

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

Melanie J. Slabaugh

August, 2017 THE NECESSITY AND FUNCTION OF THE DRAMATURG IN THEATRE

Melanie J. Slabaugh

Thesis

Approved: Accepted:

______Advisor School Director James Slowiak J. Thomas Dukes, Ph.D.

______Faculty Reader Dean of the College Durand L. Pope John Green, Ph.D.

______Faculty Reader Dean of the Graduate School Hillary Nunn, Ph.D. Chand Midha, Ph.D.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….. 5

II. HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF DRAMATURGY ……………………… 3

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and the Hamburg National Theatre ……… 4

Lessing’s Influence on the Dramaturgical Movement …………………. 8

Dramaturgy in American Theatre ……………………………………….. 16

III. PRODUCTION DRAMATURGY ……………………………………………. 13

The Production Dramaturg/Director Relationship ……………………. 15

New Production Dramaturgies …………………………………………… 18

IV. NEW PLAY DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………… 20

The Role of the Dramaturg in New-Play Development …………..…… 22

The Dramaturg as Supporter ………………………………………..….… 22

The Dramaturg as Guardian ………………………………..………….…. 26

The Dramaturg as Questioner …………………………………..……….. 29

V. DEVISED THEATRE ………………………………………….…………..……. 32

The Tasks of the Dramaturg in Devised Theatre ………………….….… 34

iii

Dramaturgy and the Saratoga International Theatre Institute …..……. 36

Other Methods of Dramaturgy in Devised Theatre ……….….………… 38

The Actor as Dramaturg …………………………………….………..……. 39

The Director as Dramaturg ………………………………………………… 44

Production Staff as Dramaturg ……………………………….…………… 48

VI. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………. 55

Suggestions for Further Research ………………………………………… 55

Summary ………………………………………………………….…………. 51

iv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The dramaturg in western theatre, especially American theatre, has always been a difficult role to define. The dramaturg does so many different things, ranging from selecting plays for production and helping to write new ones, to translating foreign plays, to adapting literature for the stage, to research and education. Oftentimes a dramaturg herself may have a hard time saying exactly what it is she does, because the role is so diverse and fills different needs within different organizations. Traditionally, the role of dramaturg has also been thought by others to be one of passive and distant critic and researcher, an aloof and rarely-seen presence in the life of a production. However, dramaturgy in western theatre, especially in the United States, is currently expanding to many different roles beyond the traditional as the world simultaneously expands and contracts. Thanks to the internet and the explosion of social media, YouTube, and other communication platforms, people are more aware of cultures and peoples beyond their own geographical borders and can also freely interact with

1

these cultures and peoples digitally and in real time. People have more and more access to others’ lives through texting and messaging, video, Skype and

FaceTime, and other up-and-coming media that previous generations would never have been able to imagine.

In the world of theatre, this increased global connectivity means anyone can log onto an electronic device and access thousands — if not millions — of videos and pictures of theatrical productions, both amateur and professional; scripts and cuttings of scripts from any country or culture; and chats, listserves, and entire websites dedicated to theatre and performance. Performers can create collaborative projects across cultures, languages, and time zones. Playwrights can weigh in on productions from half a world away, and anyone can have access to the most influential people alive in ways that weren’t available twenty, or even ten, years ago.

This myriad of means to access people and information across the globe expands individual worlds beyond places that can easily be accessed physically, but also shrinks the world with the far-reaching arms of the digital age as people are able to pull these cultures and people closer to them. Does this change the way dramaturgy works in today’s American theatre? If so, how? Is it necessary

2

to shift the function and role of the dramaturg in American theatre as culture shifts to a more global and more culturally aware frame?

Dramaturgy itself is an inexact role. The word itself translates from the

German language to “play-making,” but the role is not so simple. Those who practice dramaturgy have a hard time defining it as well, and it is often used synonymously with the term “literary manager.” Dramaturgy has evolved throughout theatre history along many far-reaching branches, and according to the needs and desires of the individual organizations and directors who work with a dramaturg. The journey of this paper will explore several of these arms, but the role of dramaturgy remains vague.

This paper will first lay the groundwork of the history of dramaturgy and attempt to explain and describe the field and its place in the theatre. An exploration of the traditional function and role of the dramaturg in several aspects of western — mainly American — theatre, especially in the realms of production dramaturgy, new-play development, and devised theatre will follow.

The shifts within those realms will be addressed in relation to how the world and culture changes. This study will attempt to answer the question: why is the dramaturg important in theatre today?

3

CHAPTER 2

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF DRAMATURGY

The formal role of dramaturg as a separate theatrical function began officially in 18th-century Germany, when playwright Gotthold Ephraim Lessing was first employed at the Hamburg National Theatre as in-house critic and published his Hamburgische Dramaturgie, or Hamburg Dramaturgy, a collection of his essays and critiques. It was in fact Aristotle, with his The Poetics, who was truly the first Western dramaturg (“Introduction” 1). Dramaturgy essentially is concerned with “well-structured drama,” which is also Aristotle’s main concern in The Poetics:

Trying to find the optimal recipe for a successful piece of dramatic work, Aristotle deconstructed all its components, including plot, character, theme, language, rhythm, and spectacle. In The Poetics, he considers plot . . . as the most important element of drama, defining it as ‘the arrangement of the incidents.’ A plot must have all the necessary elements: unified and logical beginning, middle, and end . . . A successful plot has all the elements in the proper order . . . A plot is not a story or a narrative but rather a dramaturgical scaffolding that arranges the order of storytelling incidents in an order that culminates in cathartic release. (1-2)

4

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and the Hamburg National Theatre

Artistotle’s theory of dramatic structure was supported formally by

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, during his tenure at the Hamburg National Theatre.

Already a celebrated playwright, Lessing took the position of resident critic in

1767. Lessing had first hoped to gain employment at the Royal Library in

Berlin, but the king granted the job to someone else, and Lessing settled for the position at the theatre out of financial necessity. The consortium that was behind the Hamburg National Theatre actively pursued Lessing, believing him to be a welcome and necessary addition to the staff in order to achieve their goals for the organization. Lessing agreed to join the theatre after much negotiation and reconfiguring of the position. Thus, the field of dramaturgy began almost accidentally.

It is important to understand the make-up of the Hamburg National

Theatre, along with its goals for reforming German theatre, before exploring

Lessing’s role both in the organization and in the larger scope of German theatre. At this time, Germany was not a unified country; rather, it was comprised of more than three hundred small units. One of the main focuses of the Hamburg National Theatre was to help cultivate a German theatre tradition that would be a stepping stone to creating a unified country. Previously, theatres

5

consisted of a troupe of actors led by a principal, or main actor, who made the decisions for productions, casting, staging, and publicity. Because the actors -- and not an artistic director or similar person -- selected the repertoire, the trend among principals was to choose plays that had little literary merit, but that would instead showcase them in the roles they were most known for and had already played many times. Lessing later described these plays as “mediocre,” produced only to show off the actors’ talents and fame, and not to promote quality theatre or even to challenge the theatre artists or their audiences

(Luckhurst 26).

The consortium of the Hamburg National Theatre – along with Johann

Friedrich Lowen, the theatre’s managing director – had some very specific goals regarding the organization, designed to change the way theatre was “done” in

Germany. First, the consortium wanted to provide a “stimulating and disciplined” training ground for German playwrights and actors. To do this, they reconfigured the principal role, choosing instead to defer decision-making to a consortium made up of twelve Hamburg businessmen, similar to today’s organizational board of directors in non-profit theatres. They also hired Konrad

Ekhof, a famous German performer, to train the resident actors in stage techniques. Lowen and his consortium wanted the Hamburg National Theatre

6

to be an educational institution and a literary center that would give playwrights a place to write and win awards for their newest works, in an effort to begin to form a new German theatre tradition. They desired to raise the standards of dramatic literature and stage production, and eventually branch out into the re- education of theatre spectators in Germany.

Gotthold Lessing’s role in this reform was originally that of resident dramatist. Lowen and the consortium were convinced he would fill this role well, but Lessing himself was less sure. Lessing was expected to provide the organization with a steady catalog of new plays that would pioneer the reformation of German theatre, and also to translate plays from other languages.

Another reason the consortium specifically sought Lessing to be resident dramatist was simply for his name. Lessing was already an established playwright and critic and attaching his name to the theatre was a smart public relations move. Lessing was certainly qualified to do the job, but he did not trust his abilities enough to be the great reformer for which Lowen was hoping, especially when it came to the commitment of regularly writing new plays. He negotiated with the consortium, and they instead agreed that Lessing take the position of resident critic.

7

Lessing’s main duty as resident critic was to critique the plays and productions at Hamburg National Theatre. The consortium, however, also saw him as a publicity agent—someone who, through his name and notoriety, would bring in new audiences and more money. While the original understanding between Lessing, Lowen, and the consortium was that he would serve also as an advisor during the creative processes, this aspect of his work with the theatre never materialized. His role was diminished to simply that of critic, and his advice and influence on the theatre’s rehearsal process and training was largely ignored.

Lessing’s critiques were published twice weekly as the Hamburgische

Dramaturgie, or Hamburg Dramaturgy (later published as an entire collection of critiques and essays). Much to the chagrin of the Hamburg National Theatre,

Lessing did not use the Hamburg Dramaturgy as a vehicle to praise the actors or the productions. Instead, he truly did critique what he saw as the laziness and triviality of the actors and the mediocrity of the plays and productions at the

Hamburg National Theatre. His approach to criticism caused dissension between the actors and him, as he clearly and unequivocally “believed the playwright was more important than the actor” (Luckhurst 32) and that the main function of the actor was to serve the playwright’s text. Several of the

8

actors complained to the management about Lessing’s public criticisms. The theatre sided with the performers, throwing the organization back to the former method of the principal-led troupe. Lessing did not write about acting at the

Hamburg National Theatre after his twenty-fifth essay in the Hamburg

Dramaturgy; he focused instead on the theory behind dramatic literature and theatre, and criticism of the text. Lessing’s writings were mainly literary, and he often attacked German audiences for demonstrating taste for the low-brow and commonplace.

Through his publications in the Hamburg Dramaturgy, Gotthold Lessing saw himself as an educator of the public, and not as a publicity agent. In addition to his criticism of theatre audiences, he also condemned German theatre organizations for copying the ideas and plays of foreign traditions, especially French theatre, instead of forming a national theatre tradition of their own. Lessing also disapproved of the continuing mediocrity of theatre productions and lamented the lack of Shakespeare’s works on the German stage.

Lessing’s tenure with the Hamburg National Theatre lasted only two years, until 1769, when the organization went bankrupt. He never again took on the role of dramaturg, but his time spent as resident theatre critic inspired the field of dramaturgy, especially in Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia.

9

Lessing’s Influence on the Dramaturgical Movement

The ideas generated by Lessing’s writings in the Hamburg Dramaturgy spawned the dramaturgical movement in mostly German-speaking countries.

Very soon after the demise of the Hamburg National Theatre, other theatres throughout Germany and Eastern Europe began seeking out and employing dramaturgs. These organizations saw the advantages of housing a resident dramaturg who was already well-known. Lessing’s name and position had bestowed a measure of prestige on the theatre, which was a distinct advantage.

His knowledge of drama and playwriting made him ideal for screening new plays, recommending new playwrights, and improving the quality of the theatre repertoire.

Lessing would have been more effective in these areas, however, if the management had actually acted upon his suggestions and advice. Sadly, they did not (Schechter, “Lessing, Jugglers, and Dramaturgs” 38). However, several dramaturgs during and soon after Lessing’s time at the Hamburg National

Theatre worked for management teams that did heed the dramaturgs’ advice, and therefore were responsible for the premieres of plays by now-famous

German playwrights, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Heinrich von

10

Kleist. The efforts of these dramaturgs began to bring about the new German theatre tradition that Lessing so desired to see.

Theatres also realized that employing dramaturgs came with some disadvantages: like Gotthold Lessing, dramaturgs often made enemies with actors, playwrights, and theatre management, due to the criticisms they published. Despite these situations, however, German theatres realized the overall importance of employing dramaturgs, as they provided a needed measure of reflection and evaluation to the theatres that was previously lacking.

In his approach to dramaturgy and play development, Lessing considered himself a public educator and critic, intent on enlightening the masses, a dramaturgical function still present today. Several other figures in dramaturgical history took up Gotthold Lessing’s efforts in this domain and furthered them, while adding different dimensions to the job. German poet and critic Ludwig

Tieck (1773-1853) translated Shakespeare’s works into German, thus

“widen[ing] the scope of the dramaturg’s functions to further include translation and adaptation” (“Introduction” 2). In addition to Tieck, Bertolt

Brecht (1898-1956) influenced the field and expanded the definition of dramaturg after World War II. He introduced the concept of the production dramaturg who collaborates with the director in conceiving and researching the

11

production. Joel Schechter quotes Volker Canaris, who says:

Dramaturgy in Brecht’s sense comprises the entire conceptual preparation of a production from its inception to its realization. Accordingly, it is the task of dramaturgy to clarify the political and historical, a well as the aesthetic and formal aspects of a play, and to convey the scientifically researched material to the other participants. (21)

Brecht’s dramaturgs researched the politics and history surrounding a play, attended rehearsals, and shared their findings with the production team, especially the director. They also educated the audience with program notes, articles, and other writings (“Introduction” 3).

Dramaturgy in American Theatre

As for the introduction of the dramaturg into American theatre,

“[d]ramaturgs in America first appeared in many places across the country, independently and simultaneously, during the ‘70s. Perceptions differ as to why and how the profession emerged” (Rudakoff and Thomson 165). Thomson, of course, credits Gotthold Lessing’s influence on the position, but believes that

Lessing’s function as a critic is not true to the modern-day understanding of

“dramaturg,” and that there are numerous others whose influences have been more instrumental in shaping dramaturgical function than Lessing.

Thomson also points to the “resurgence of new plays in the ‘70s” as an inside influence on the appearance of the American dramaturg (165). The

12

emergence of new playwrights and the social upheaval prominent in the 1970s led to many changes in the theatre and drama in the USA. These first dramaturgs — or “literary managers,” as they were first called — were certainly needed to sift through new scripts that were continually arriving at theatres, and they were needed to help shape the future of American theatre. New-play development was not the only role dramaturgs were asked to fill:

[D]ramaturgs in America took on many other tasks: translation, adaptation, and production dramaturgy on new readings of classic texts, as well as, on the other extreme, non-text based work . . . [They] roamed, one way or another, between new and old plays, or new approaches to performances and studies in theatrical tradition. (Rudakoff and Thomson 166)

Throughout their conversations with dramaturgs, Judith Rudakoff and

Lynn M. Thomson emphasize and reiterate the importance and necessity of process and collaboration in the field of dramaturgy; specifically, Thomson writes in “Line Notes” about “. . . the centrality of process in dramaturgy, [and] collaboration as our goal and method” (166). Although many theatre practitioners cannot agree on exactly what a dramaturg does, as “the very nature of dramaturgical practice is resilient to definition” (Rudakoff and Thomson 167), the effective function of dramaturgy throughout its history and into modern times still rests solidly on these two ideas of process and collaboration.

13

CHAPTER 3

PRODUCTION DRAMATURGY

One branch of dramaturgy that seems to have its roots in the dramaturgy of Bertolt Brecht and Erwin Piscator is that of production dramaturgy. There is always some confusion about the differences in the roles of production dramaturg and literary manager, and often they are assumed to be identical.

However, in an interview with Mark Bly, who has served as dramaturg, artistic director, and playwrighting/dramaturgy professor at several prominent institutions, he speaks of the origins of production dramaturgy. Bly:

distinguish[es] the early history of literary managers from the rise of production dramaturgs. The former . . . were “office-bound” and . . . followed a critic model inspired by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing . . . [w]hereas the production dramaturg . . . emerged as a different model . . . deeply involved in rehearsal. (Rudkoff and Thomson 303)

Bly also says the history of dramaturgy in America is often confused with the history of Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas (LMDA) in New

York City, with many believing American dramaturgy sprang from the founding of this organization. He insists, though, that ‘[t]here is no ‘single origin’ theory

14

for production dramaturgy here; it originated in several places at once’” (Rudakoff and Thomson 304).

Bly believes a key component to being an effective production dramaturg is simply the attending of rehearsals. He credits one of his Yale professors, Joel

Schechter, with building the foundation of his beliefs about dramaturgy.

Schechter, he says, taught a “European model” of dramaturgy, and a key element of this is “[a] person who is in rehearsal all the time, involved in shaping the textual, design, acting, directing and aesthetic values on a production” (Rudakoff and Thomson 304). Mark Bly stresses the crucial practice of rehearsal attendance, along with the patience required to wait for a need:

There is a need every director has, a need every designer has, every actor, every playwright. A dramaturg has to search for that, and not lose hope. . . [Y]ou have to stay in the room . . . [and] watch, listen, and wait for your chance. (309)

Directors, actors, and production team members sometimes see a dramaturg as an intruder, an outsider, and not someone to be trusted. Only after he proves his worth as a resource and as a questioner who helps lead the artistic team to solutions is he allowed into the “inner circle” of a theatrical project. The key to making the utilization of a production dramaturg work best seems to be in his relationship with the director.

15

The Production Dramaturg/Director Relationship

Production dramaturgy, the oldest type of dramaturgical practice, has developed and changed as the form and function of theatre itself has developed and changed. In its development at the Moscow Art Theatre in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the role of production dramaturg began to take shape in ways recognizable to modern theatre-makers (Trencsenyi

115). Most important was the emergence of two key features necessary in the successful relationship between a production dramaturg and a director, features which were present in the relationship between Moscow Art Theatre co- founders Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko and Konstantin Stanislavsky:

. . . a collaborative, ensemble-led way of working, [and] a symbiotic and synergic relationship between ‘director’ and ‘dramaturg’ with the dramaturgical and directorial roles shifting between them. (Trencsenyi 115)

In the early days of the Moscow Art Theatre, Nemirovich-Danchenko and

Stanislavsky worked in tandem with a “mutual, synergic, dramaturgical relationship” that was flexible and mutually supportive, and that served the greater good of the production (Trencsenyi 114).

Michael Mark Chemers reiterates this statement about the importance of the relationship between director and dramaturg (151). Chemers provides a practical description of this relationship and how a production dramaturg

16

supports a director:

The director is responsible for the successful execution of the production. His or her primary job is to provide a vision for the production. The basic task a dramaturg does for a director is to help develop WTPN [“Why this play now?”]. In the best-case scenarios, the director and the dramaturg collaborate at every stage of the process, adapting the productions vision to emerging circumstances and research to ultimately create a powerful and relevant piece of theater. (151)

Chemers goes on to underscore the importance of the production dramaturg to make a wide variety of his skills available to the director, making it clear that he is present not to control the director or the production itself, but to “support, refine, and enhance the director’s choices” (152).

In another interview with Mark Bly, the dramaturg again underscores his belief that the purpose of the production dramaturg is to “support and complement the director” (Moore 108). While he offers opinions and advice about choices he would make in any given production, Bly willingly recognizes that the final decision on all aspects of a production lies with the director

(Moore 108). Bly asserts that this practice best reinforces the director’s vision, the vision the production dramaturg has been charged to assist in carrying out.

Despite social, political, and stylistic changes in theatre, however, this collaboration between director and dramaturg remains important. For instance, when Bertolt Brecht explored the function of theatre as a social and political

17

vehicle, he also explored the function of dramaturgy within this new framework, taking the idea of collaboration even further. As Brecht developed a theatre that moved the literary text from the primary material used to form a production to a more secondary priority, and as he pushed for more collaborative theatre-making

(in the form of collective development of the text, actors swapping roles to explore different character viewpoints, etc.), the dramaturg’s presence in rehearsal became more and more imperative (Trencseyni 123-124). When theatre becomes collaborative on this scale, the production dramaturg is a

“reliable professional . . . ‘a resident specialist with artistic, analytical and play development skills,’” to quote dramaturg Mark Bly (Trencseyni 124). The dramaturg becomes the recorder of everything that happens in rehearsal and the resident expert who knows the answers, or knows where to find the answers.

Additionally, a production dramaturg shifts during the process of a theatrical project from the dramaturgy of research to the dramaturgy of “how a play begins to work in time and space,” finding the threads and patterns of connection throughout a piece as it nears performance (Trencsenyi 125). The dramaturg’s role here is in connecting the “parts” of the performance together.

Trencseyni quotes dramaturgs Cathy Turner and Synne Behrndt, who expand on this idea:

18

the production dramaturg is aware of the inner logic of the performance, and is able to take a critical stock of whether the production follows its own logic. Consequently, the dramaturg’s feedback and presence might also help to establish ‘red threads’ (lines of connection) through the work. (125)

New Production Dramaturgies

The shift in theatre in the 1960s and ‘70s, which coincided with experimental movements in other artistic genres, also marked changes in production dramaturgy. These “new dramaturgies,” as they became known, developed to support explorations in dance, performance art, devised theatre, and more, not to mention more recent developments in social media performance and the like, and “this new dramaturgy has shifted from the interpretation and composition of the text to overseeing a much larger entity: the performance itself" (Trencseyni 127). This “new dramaturgy,” with its explorations of what makes theatre and performance, has led to a rethinking of the meaning of not only the processes of theatre, but also the roles of spectator and performer (Trencseyni 127). This movement has led to an increasing emphasis on non-text-based theatre performance, and production dramaturgs are finding it necessary to collaborate with other types of dramaturgs, such as those who work with devised theatre.

19

Chemers also stresses the importance of the dramaturg’s collaboration with designers. He draws a parallel between the work of a production dramaturg and the work of a designer, stating that both types of theatre practitioners “rejoice in the redundancy of research” because research reveals thematic patterns (153). As a result, the production dramaturg can help the designers bring out these patterns in set design, costumes, and the like, as well as bringing depth and focus to the designer’s research “in order to help construct a conceptual framework for production” (Chemers 153). The production dramaturg also serves the very practical function of helping designers find tangible solutions to questions that arise during the research and design process, such as historical accuracy in props, set pieces, and other elements.

In an interview with Mark Bly, the dramaturg states the essence of his function as a production dramaturg in two words: “I question” (Moore 110). He goes on to say that the “questioning spirit informs the work of the best dramaturgs,” an attitude demonstrated throughout the course of his career.

Whatever shifts and changes occur in the future of theatre and other performance forms, production dramaturgs will find it necessary to adapt themselves to these new ideas and to adopt methods from other types of

20

dramaturgs. Based on the evolution of the role of the production dramaturg over the past 100 years, those who fill this important role in the theatre will continue to evolve, grow, and stay relevant.

21

CHAPTER 4

NEW-PLAY DEVELOPMENT

The dramaturg’s role as a partner to the playwright has become increasingly essential to the new-play development process. The new-play dramaturg serves not only the text, but also the playwright, and that she must give both equal attention (Borreca 157). Dramaturg Susan Willis corroborates this statement in Lenora Inez Brown’s article “Is There a Dramaturg in the

House?” when she says, “Everything in a new-play project is designed to serve the playwright” (74).

The dramaturg’s focus from the very beginning of the role is “‘home- grown,’ contemporary drama” (Trencseyni 68), and this is precisely the aim of new-play development. The end of World War II is where “we can see the evidence of investment in culture and recovery, resulting in the emergence of new festivals and theatres, encouraging the creation of contemporary theatre with the playwright at their heart” (Trencseyni 69). Indeed, the “golden age” of modern American drama began during the war and immediate post-war period, with many recognizable American classics from the era still being performed

22

with regularity today in professional theatres, as well as regional, community, and even high school theatres.

The beginnings of a more collaborative theatre approach began sometime in the late 1950s or early ‘60s. During this era, theatres began inviting playwrights into the work of staging new plays, rather than keeping them separate and isolated. As these theatres became more involved with the playmaking process before a final draft or publication of a play, the theatre community stepped up to take a more proactive role that helped direct and shape a contemporary art scene. As a result, individual theatres became “a partner, a laboratory, or a workshop where playwrights [could] grow and test their new work, and develop their craft” (Trencseyni 69).

The Eugene O’Neill Theater Center is credited as one of the first

American theatres to delve into this method of new-play development outside of

New York. Its organizer George C. White and artistic director, at the time, Lloyd

Richards gave the name “dramaturg” to a specific role within the scope of new- play development. White recalls that Richards’ conception was

a function which was to use an especially skilled critic as a sort of ombudsman between the director and the dramatist. I suggested that the name for this person might be stolen from Bertolt Brecht’s theater and we might call them ‘Dramaturgs.’ (Trencseyni 69)

23

The Role of the Dramaturg in New-Play Development

What exactly is the role of the dramaturg in the development of new plays, and how does, or should, this person work with a playwright? Chemers discusses the ongoing debate about a dramaturg’s role in the new-play development process, particularly whether she is “the writer’s pal, nurturing him or her gently along to production,” or “an acknowledged authority, like a professor, there to give direction” (126). Neither of these is the best answer; rather, the playwright needs “neither a buddy nor a teacher but an ally” (126).

The word “ally” indicates a comrade, someone who is fighting the same battles; and indeed, that is what the dramaturg does. The exact ways in which a dramaturg supports and allies with a playwright are varied and are specific to each partnership. There are some commonalities, however, that most playwrights and dramaturgs find work best, especially when the new-play dramaturg takes the roles of supporter, guardian, and questioner.

The Dramaturg as Supporter

First, the dramaturg is a supporter. To be a supporter does not mean that the dramaturg is an equal to the playwright. The play ultimately belongs only to the playwright and a good dramaturg does not attempt to force the piece in the direction she believes it should go. Dramaturg Tanya Palmer states: “. . . our job

24

is figuring out where the play is right now, simply listening to it and allowing ourselves to be in the moment” (Brown, “Is There a Dramaturg” 74). A new- play dramaturg must maintain a condition of “engaged objectivity” (Chemers

133). The relationship between dramaturg and playwright is of utmost importance for the development of a new play to be successful. Dramaturg

Susan Willis says of her relationship with playwright Keith Josef Adkins: “. . . dramaturging a new play really depends on the relationship you have with the playwright and on what the playwright needs” (Brown, “Is There a Dramaturg”

74).

Playwrights have told stories of dramaturgs who have taken over the reins of a play, have pushed their own ideas and agendas, and have forced a developing play into the shape they see, rather than the shape the playwright originally saw. Adkins says he has found himself in situations in which he is working to fit the dramaturg’s expectations of a play and that he “left that experience not knowing what the play really was” (75). He reveals that his relationship with Susan Willis has been ideal in that she works to help him fit his own expectations of his plays. Playwright Carlyle Brown tells of a conversation he once had with a playwright who was literally hiding from his dramaturg at a new-play development workshop:

25

The dramaturg was interested in something totally different than the playwright. The play as written was surreal and difficult even for the playwright, really, to understand. It had an odd structure. This dramaturg was actually ignoring the playwright in an effort to put order in a play that was meant to communicate disorder. He obviously wasn’t able to come out of himself in a way that should serve the playwright. (Brown, “Is There a Dramaturg” 75)

Some dramaturgs view a finished product as a joint writing effort, rather than something that belongs solely to the playwright. This kind of imposition is not the function of a good dramaturg. In new play development, the dramaturg is always present, waiting in the background, ready to intervene when the moment is right. She maintains the boundary between her role as dramaturg and the playwright’s role as creator of the text. At times, however, this boundary may seem fluid.

A dramaturg must be trustworthy in order to truly support her partnership with the playwright. The two must have a connection that allows their working relationship to flourish. Greg Romero, dramaturg and resident artist with The Cardboard Box Collaborative in Philadelphia, believes the key to building trust is communication: “knowing what to say, when to say it, how to say it and who to say it to” (Brown, “You Can’t Tell a Dramaturg By Her Title”

24). The dramaturg must find the best approach to working with the playwright, and must not steamroll her to reach a goal the playwright may not

26

even have. They must develop a kinship. University of Puget Sound professor and dramaturg Geoff Proehl also believes that “at the heart of dramaturgy is the building of relationships that allow directors, writers, actors and dramaturgs to confront the loneliness and difficulty inherent in making a serious work of art” (Brown, “You Can’t Tell a Dramaturg By Her Title” 23). Relationship is key, and trust is the most important element of that relationship. These relationships may be short or may last many, many years. No matter the length of the relationship, trust is key to supporting the playwright. Anne Cattaneo, who has served as a dramaturg at New York City’s Lincoln Center and has taught dramaturgy and dramatic literature at several prestigious theatre schools, underscores this key idea of trust within the dramaturg-playwright relationship.

She stresses that “a dramaturg must talk with the writer in an atmosphere of encouragement and support” (Rudakoff and Thomson 227). She quotes British playwright Tom Stoppard to paint a picture of a dramaturg’s role in rehearsal:

“‘What do you need? I’m here for you’” (Rudakoff and Thomson 232).

When a playwright trusts her dramaturg, the dramaturg then has a framework in which she can help the playwright find the problems, and ultimately the solutions, to a new work. As dramaturgs develop relationships with playwrights writing new works, they can take new risks to find those

27

problems, and also introduce new players into the process to help this happen.

An example of this very situation is at the Finborough Theatre in London, where

2010-11 resident dramaturg Van Badham gave many dramaturgical duties to a group of actors. She workshopped new plays with this group and facilitated discussions between the actors and playwrights, who came to trust her and her actors as practitioners who could help find problem areas within the works

(Trencseyni 87). Without this level of trust, this collaborative method of playwriting and dramaturgy would not be possible.

The Dramaturg as Guardian

The new-play dramaturg also plays the role of guardian of the text, the playwright, and the playwright’s ideas:

The playwright may be trying to figure out the shape of the piece and want to forget about the intricacies, the dynamics of the character for a while. Other times, the writer knows where she wants the play to end up, and it’s up to the dramaturg to juggle all the themes during the discussion — it’s the dramaturg with whom certain ideas rest. (Brown, “Is There a Dramaturg in the House?” 74)

The dramaturg sees and understands the playwright’s vision and acts as a guide to help her bring that vision to fruition. Rather than seeing problems in a developing work, the dramaturg sees the possibilities and leaves the playwright with options and possible paths, not a list of judgments or criticisms (Borreca

28

166). The dramaturg makes suggestions and offers options, and then allows the playwright to consider and, finally, choose a solution. She, along with the playwright, has the responsibility of protecting the development of the play, ensuring its proper emergence (Brown, “Is There a Dramaturg” 76), and “[t]he dramaturg’s job is to keep all of the related balls in the air — to keep hold of whatever it is that the playwright said” (77).

As guardian, the dramaturg helps the playwright structure the narrative arc in any new play. She maintains the vision of the whole while the playwright concerns herself with the details of character development, the shape of the story, the dynamics of conflict. She recognizes that each of these details will fit together as a whole, but she does not dictate how it will happen. Instead she

“keeps the whole in mind” (Switzky 173), and helps the writer to gently guide the new work in the direction intended by the playwright all while “speaking in the voice of the play” (Brown 77). There is also the idea of the dramaturg being most concerned with the structure of a play’s plot according to the Aristotelian

“rules” of a well-structured drama, as “[d]ramaturgy requires the analytical skill of discerning and deconstructing all elements of dramatic structure,” and defines plot “not [as] a story or narrative but rather a dramaturgical scaffolding that arranges the order of storytelling incidents in an order that culminates in

29

cathartic release” (“Introduction” 1-2). Diane Paulus, who collaborates on and directs new opera works, echoes this same sentiment: “[T]he top priority in

[new opera] development is working out the right structure for the piece as a whole” (Eggert 357). Anne Cattaneo as well views her work in new-play development as helping the playwright “discover where the play [is] going and what [is] needed” (Rudakoff and Thompson 240).

An additional example of a dramaturg acting as supporter and guardian comes from Trencseyni’s exploration of the Nightswimming organization in

Toronto. This company commissions new works that reflect and enrich

Canadian theatre and performance, and specifically structures work sessions, playwright support, and performances, according to the needs of each individual artist. Nightswimming “offer[s] artists an opportunity (and the resources) to explore new forms, and provid[es] them with an extended development process”

(72). The organization’s artistic director, Brian Quirt, states, “The relationship between the playwright and the dramaturg is about three things: ideas, communication, and process” (78). These new works commissions provide extremely generous time frames for artists to work without deadlines.

Nightswimming also acknowledges that some work is explorative only and may never result in a final product (74). This freedom to fail is essential in the work

30

of an artist and allows her to be completely creative and to immerse herself in research and exploration, further reinforcing Quirt’s philosophy of ideas, communication, and process.

The Dramaturg as Questioner

Ultimately, the new-play dramaturg becomes a supporter and a guardian by questioning and investigating, rather than judging, the new work. Mark Bly says his most important activity as a dramaturg is “‘I question’” (Switsky 173).

The dramaturg asks the necessary questions of the playwright, anticipates and identifies the problems in the piece, and encourages the playwright without

fixing the problems in the play. Her questions are “pointed, direct, and constructive, designed to help the playwright clarify what he or she is trying to say, and why, and how best to say it” (Chemers 129). She does not offer solutions, but instead asks the necessary questions to help the playwright reach her own conclusions and solutions. Keith Josef Adkins discusses the qualities of the most effective new-play dramaturgs, one of which is the ability to sense innately the immediate needs of a playwright and to know what questions to ask. Playwright Carlyle Brown says, “The dramaturg can say what’s wrong with a play, but usually it’s up to the playwright to figure out how to fix it” (Brown,

“Is There a Dramaturg in the House?” 75).

31

Lynn M. Thomson interviews Morgan Jenness, a veteran of the dramaturgical craft who is well-respected amongst her colleagues and who has been practicing dramaturgy for over thirty years. Jenness has received several awards for her accomplishments and has been at the forefront of many changes in American theatre, especially in the area of new-play development. Thomson says that “[t]wo essential components of dramaturgy are understanding what a play is and championing what it wants to become,” and she postulates that

Morgan Jenness does just that in her work with playwrights (61). Jenness stresses the importance of constant questioning when she works alongside a playwright, and she often finds herself posing the question “what happens if?” (61).

The dramaturg asks questions not only about the playwright’s work, but also regularly questions her own aims, devices, and tactics. These questions are driven by the “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “how,” and “why” that help define human action. Questions such as, “How should I intervene?, In what ways?, When and where?, and, above all, why at this time?” keeps the dramaturg’s work vital (Borreca 159). The dramaturg “pos(es) questions and mak(es) observations” to keep the direction of the work in the forefront of the minds of the collaborators (Borreca 159). Questioning also involves

32

“interrupting, reminding, and, now, looking from several perspectives at once” (Switzky 177), as the dramaturg is another set of eyes in the development and eventual production of the new play. She supports and guards both the developing text and the playwright, while guiding the birth and growth of the new piece through questioning.

No matter the growth, changes, and developments in the world of theatre, there will always be a call for new scripts. As long as audiences are willing to fill the seats of a theatre, playwrights will write new works. And alongside these playwrights will be dramaturgs who will work to fill this traditional, but still vital, role of assisting and supporting the playwright.

Dramaturgs are needed to be supporters, guardians, and questioners in the arena of new-play development.

33

CHAPTER 5

DEVISED THEATRE

The practice of devised theatre dates from the late 1800s. One definition of devised theatre is “a collaborative effort by a group that is involved in creating the script and staging, from inspiration to performance” (Stankiewicz 192).

Another definition of this movement is “generating performance ‘scripts’ in a collaborative, ensemble way” (Chemers 133). Antonin Artaud (1895-1948),

French director, critic, theorist, and visionary, was among the first to experiment with devised theatre in his Theatre of Cruelty, and founded this movement on the belief that the function of art in society should be “a sort of communion ritual to be participated in”; Artaud wanted his theatrical experience and dramaturgy not to rely on “texts nor on intellectual interpretation but instead . . . on inspiration and transcendent spontaneity” (Chemers 133).

Since Artaud’s time, many European and American groups have adopted his vision of devised theatre; such companies in America include the Open

Theatre, Living Theatre, Ontological-Hysteric Theatre, Bread-and-Puppet

34

Theatre, and the Wooster Group. Each of these companies has developed its own ways of formulating new works as collaborative ensembles, rather than relying on one authorial playwright. Cathy Turner and Synne K. Behrndt discuss the development of the text in devised theatre: “the performance text is, to put it simply, ‘written’ not before but as a consequence of the process” (Chemers 133).

The text is created in the process of rehearsal, rather than the text directing rehearsal. Devised theatre has grown in popularity and recognition over the last

fifty years or so, and has become more and more established and visible in the world of traditional theatre. This growth of devised theatre “expand(s the) practice of dramaturgy (and) encourages dramaturgs to perform their function in new, more performative ways” (Applebaum 197).

Some devised theatre groups use one person (or a team of persons) in the role of dramaturg. Each devised-theatre company has its own process, needs, and methods, therefore it is not possible to pin down exactly what the dramaturg’s function is within every group, as “[t]he role of the dramaturg depends on the situation and the people involved in the production” (Stankiewicz 195).

35

The Tasks of the Dramaturg in Devised Theatre

Dramaturgy is absolutely essential to the devising process, no matter what that process looks like. The common points and tasks a dramaturg — or someone acting as a dramaturg — must keep in mind while working in a setting of this nature are to guide exploration, to note emerging patterns, to record the journey, to keep in mind the future audience, and, of course, to ask questions

(Chemers 134-136).

In Ghost Light, Chemers reinforces each of these five tasks. Guiding exploration can take many forms, often including the work that traditional production dramaturgs do, such as historical research into events, people, or ideas (135). Research for a theatrical work — whether already scripted, newly developing, or devised — is absolutely important, and is a dramaturgical task that cannot be overlooked. It is especially important in devised theatre, however, because the research itself is the basis for exploration, physical action, and dialogue. Someone must do this work in order for the ensemble to have a starting place, a runway for their creative flight.

Looking for the emergence of patterns is a crucial dramaturgical function as well. It is important to keep one’s eyes and mind open to seeing the similarities; the repetitions of themes, ideas, and images; and the hidden

36

connections present in an ensemble’s work. Through these patterns, the structure of the newly-devised piece will emerge, if the dramaturg is willing and able to recognize it when it does (Chemers 135).

It is imperative to record the journey as it happens. This is the most crucial task the dramaturg completes. Often while devising, the ensemble may have to revisit previous work, backtrack, and find a new direction. The dramaturg’s records are invaluable at this point, and provide a framework for the group to remember previous explorations and not waste time reinventing processes and revisiting areas they have already explored but of which they have no record. The dramaturg is “the company’s mapmaker as well as navigator” (Chemers 135). And no matter who is acting as dramaturg at any given point in time, this element of recording the journey — whether in writing, photography, audio recording, or video recording — should not be overlooked.

A fourth all-important task is to keep in mind the understanding of the future audience. As the previously-mentioned navigator, the dramaturg has the necessary job of viewing a devised work through fresh eyes, as someone who has never seen the work before and who has not been privy to the creation process

(Chemers 136). A theatrical piece, no matter how much work has been put into it, is lost if the audience cannot make sense of it.

37

The final necessary task is the all-too-familiar task of asking questions.

The overarching question a dramaturg should ask of everyone involved, including himself, is what he terms “WTPN,” or “Why this play now?”:

Why are we doing this? What do we hope to achieve? What is this going to mean to an audience? What does it mean to us? Does this choice make sense in context with these other choices? Where have we been? Where are we headed? What’s working? What’s not? Are we faithful to our original ideas? Have we moved on to something better, or do we need to go back to our first principles? (Chemers 136)

Dramaturgy and the Saratoga International Theatre Institute

The Saratoga International Theatre Institute (SITI) based in New York, and led and directed by Anne Bogart, uses dramaturgs and dramaturgy within the group expressly devoted to devised theatre. This group exemplifies both approaches by a devising company: at times SITI incorporates a separate dramaturg, and at times the role is woven within the ensemble (Stankiewicz

194).

When using a delegated dramaturg, the dramaturgs serving SITI research the topic, idea, or question Bogart poses to the group for their next exploration.

These dramaturgs find historic and background research in articles, stories, other texts, photographs, anything that serves as inspiration for the question at hand. This period of research relates to the first task listed earlier. The

38

dramaturg presents this information to the ensemble and, at this point, the physical work begins (Stankiewicz 192).

In this type of setting, the dramaturg can then begin the remaining tasks previously outlined: recording, watching for patterns, questioning, and keeping the audience in mind. As the director and actors explore themes, memories, story arcs, actions, and soundscapes, the dramaturg watches and records. This person may film initial rehearsals or improvisations, or perhaps he creates a written record of the journey taken in these rehearsals. He watches for commonalities throughout the exercises and rehearsals, such as themes, character types, and events. As the actors play, he begins to see the possible directions a new piece could take. He questions the physical actions, the themes, the ideas. He watches the devising process with fresh eyes for the benefit of the future audience, and he questions all the material on behalf of this audience as well.

The dramaturg shares his records with the director, actors, and other production staff, and together they begin to select the elements they feel will best serve the new piece they are building. The director and ensemble begin with certain themes or ideas in mind, of course, but, as stated before, sometimes

39

the piece ends up taking a different route based on the explorations in initial rehearsals.

As the devised piece begins to take shape and the actors and director continue to define the shared vision of the new work, the dramaturg continues to watch and observe rehearsals. At this stage, he continues his job of recording, but now he is beginning the task of shaping a text that reflects the work. He is helping to guide the development of the work and shape it into a more cohesive whole. Exercises in emotion, memory, and character exploration become more fixed as the piece develops further. The piece grows and expands, encompassing more and more of the ideas and themes the ensemble has explored and chosen for the new work, and the dramaturg records this growth.

He records actions, dialogue, character development. He recognizes the dramatic structure as it emerges through the company’s collaborative efforts, and he creates the text based on these experiences, patterns, and structure.

Other Methods of Dramaturgy in Devised Theatre

Other devised theatre ensembles — either as a general rule or simply on a piece-by-piece basis — do not employ a separate dramaturg in their devising work. Rather, those who fill other positions within a group also act as dramaturg. At times these others fill the position during the entire experience;

40

at other times, the role is filled at different times and during different stages by these others. Jessica Kaplow Applebaum puts forward the idea that all those who work on a devised piece fulfill what she calls a “hyphenated” role: their own plus that of dramaturg (198). Examples include dancer-dramaturg, scenographer-dramaturg, and director-dramaturg, and all devised-theatre practitioners contribute to the expansion and practice of dramaturgy (198). The

“hyphenate-dramaturg” has the further ability to contribute to the project through play, an action not usually ascribed to a dramaturg but a critical component to devised theatre (199).

The Actor as Dramaturg

One such “hyphenate-dramaturg” is the actor-dramaturg, as “performing is . . . an act of dramaturgy” (Applebaum 197). In fact, actors fill the role of dramaturg regularly, even when a dramaturg who is separate from the cast is active in the work. In the instance of having a delegated dramaturg, the actor explores and learns her part and she begins to see the ways in which a certain turn of phrase, or action, or idea may be extraneous; she develops her own ideas about the direction of her character and how it serves the text; she makes suggestions from her own notes and records; she justifies her character’s actions, thoughts, feelings, beliefs — and thereby existence — through her

41

analysis and embodiment of the text; she is a dramaturg to the work, as are the other actors in a production.

Within a company or ensemble without a separate dramaturg, however, an actor is asked to perform several dramaturgical functions, especially in the early stages of devising. Stankiewicz describes director Eugenio Barba’s method of asking his actors to serve as dramaturgs while devising. The actors conduct research on their own before collaboration begins, and form individual improvisations that they then bring to rehearsals and repeat for Barba, who

“pulls the movement, speech, or expression that he wants to assimilate into the play” (194). This type of dramaturgical practice allows the actors to participate in the work while the director makes the final decisions as to what to include.

This type of practice embraces several types of dramaturgy: the actors operate like production dramaturgs in the research step of devising, and they also act as new play dramaturgs as they document and record the process and finally work within a framework that will speak to the audience (194).

In another devised-theatre group, The Dell’Arte Company, the actors collaborate on their devised pieces and on the role of dramaturgy. The ensemble agrees on an idea for a new piece, and identifies the themes they wish to explore. One specific example is Dell’Arte’s piece Slapstick, in which the actors

42

wanted to devise a piece to explore gender tensions through classic slapstick routines. As they delved deeper into these routines, the direction of the piece changed and a new theme emerged: family violence. The entire Dell’Arte

Company filled the role of dramaturg in this process, serving first as production dramaturgs — in the form of research into slapstick, etc. — and then as new play dramaturgs—when the exploration revealed a new theme, which the group agreed to pursue instead (Stankiewicz 194).

Dramaturg, instructor, and playwright Claire MacDonald continues this idea of actors and performers filling the role of dramaturg in her record of her experience with student performers at George Mason University in Virginia near

Washington, D.C. MacDonald guided students in an introductory performance art class toward a culminating project, eventually titled In Bed. Through these guided explorations, student-actors served as dramaturgs from the beginning, when they spent time writing about relevant experiences, found and took photographs, and recorded stories centering around the theme (96-97).

Student-actors spent rehearsal time exploring the set objects — two single beds covered in sheets — and “noting, marking and scoring what had happened” in each investigation and rehearsal (97). As the actors brought their recorded, written, and exploratory items and physical actions to rehearsals, the piece

43

began to take shape; the actors chose the direction of the piece, decided what would best serve the themes and ideas proposed, and decided on the dramaturgical structure and dramatic form of the final product through their collaborative rehearsals (97, 99). MacDonald helped to provide and guide the ideas, themes, and structures, but the actors performed the dramaturgical functions of the new piece as they researched, recorded, and finally made the decisions necessary to formulate the piece In Bed.

Eugenio Barba — creator and director of the theatre laboratory Odin

Teatret in Denmark — relies on his actors to work as dramaturgs as well, albeit in a different capacity than previously discussed. His definition of dramaturgy in this case is “the way the actor’s actions enter into work” (8). Barba approaches dramaturgy not just as something applied to the text or literature of a play, but also something woven into all the parts of a piece. In the case of his actors, he refers to this level of dramaturgy as the actors’ “individual creative contribution to the growth of a performance, and to an ability to root what they recounted into a structure of organic actions.” He defines organic action as action done by an actor that evokes a kinesthetic response or impulse in the spectator, no matter how imperceptible (23). Organic dramaturgy is the most basic level of dramaturgy in the work of Barba and his actors. Organic dramaturgy, in Barba’s

44

terminology, “concerns the way of composing and interweaving the dynamisms, the rhythms and the physical and vocal actions of the actors in order to stimulate sensorially the attention of the spectators” (10). It is the work of determining what the spectator sees and hears in a performance.

Barba’s actors base their movement — and therefore their dramaturgy — on the basic building block of what he calls real action: “a minute dynamic form which nevertheless [has] consequences for the tone of the whole body” (26). A real action, he says, changes the actor’s body in ways that change the way a spectator views the actor, a kinesthetic mirroring of sorts (26-27). As actors string together a series of real actions, they create a score of real actions, which

Barba refers to as:

• the general design of the form in a sequence of actions, and the evolution of each single action (beginning, climax, conclusion); • the precision of the fixed details of each action as well as of the transitions connecting them . . . ; • the dynamism and the rhythm: the speed and intensity which regulated the tempo . . . of a series of actions . . . ; • the orchestration of the relationships between the different parts of the body . . . (Barba 27-28)

As the actors create and rehearse their scores, it becomes fixed. At this point,

Barba says an actor can begin improvising, or infusing life into, the score with various nuances and interpretations. These improvisations by Barba’s actors

45

create the organic dramaturgy necessary for the truthfulness and reality of character necessary to evoke kinesthetic response in the spectator (28).

Barba also outlines the importance of the subscore to the actors’ dramaturgy; this is the:

. . . inner support [or] hidden scaffold which actors sketch for themselves without intending to act it out. The subscore should not be confused with the meaning the score will assume for the observer. Without a subscore, what the actor presents is not the creation of a subjective stream of reactions, an organic line driven by an inner coherence, but gesticulation, movements and random displacements. (30)

He cites other giants of theatre tradition and the presence of subscore in their work, including Stanislavski and Brecht, as well as the movements that occur in classical Asian theatre and classical ballet. Subscore is an important component of each of these, although each approach is certainly different (30). In order for the dramaturgy to be present, the subscore must be present for the actor, and formed individually by material that may be nonsensical to anyone but the actor.

Then, and only then, do Barba’s actors fully create an organic dramaturgy that effectively reaches and relates to the spectator (30-31).

The Director as Dramaturg

Oftentimes, it is the director who doubles as dramaturg. It is natural for the director to fill the role as she is already largely outside the action of the

46

ensemble, has the vision of the piece, and investment in the success of the final product. It is certainly true that she works most closely with the dramaturg in theatres where a dramaturg is present, and so these duties are often appropriated by the director when there is no dramaturg associated with the process.

The director fulfills the five tasks proposed above as part of her most basic dramaturgical duties: guiding exploration, noting emerging patterns, recording the journey, keeping in mind the future audience, and asking questions (135-136). The director often proposes the question, theme, or idea that becomes the catalyst for the devised piece, and guides her actors as they physically, mentally, emotionally, and verbally explore the possibilities. The director notes and records the exercises and play of the actors she works with, and guides them in the direction of hers initial idea or vision, or of a new vision that organically grows out of the work they do. As a dramaturg, she notes the patterns she sees emerging throughout the work, and helps the actors to clarify the patterns in order to better focus the theme. She always keeps in mind the audience—what it will see, hear, and understand. Finally, as always, she asks questions: of herself, the actors, and the piece.

47

Eugenio Barba also refers to his work as a director-dramaturg. As previously noted, Barba depends on his actors to conduct and establish what he calls organic dramaturgy. When his actors have completed their scores and subscores, his work as a dramaturg begins. He calls this level of organization

“narrative dramaturgy,” which is “the intertwining of events which orientate the spectators about the meaning, or the various meanings, of the performance” (10). In other words, this level of dramaturgy is concerned with storyline, character development, characters’ relationships to themselves and each other, etc.

Barba thoroughly explains his dramaturgical process at this level, which is possible only after his actors have spent significant time on their individual organic dramaturgies. Barba meets with each actor and closely watches the score each one has constructed. He closely scrutinizes each actor’s work, and then he begins the process of narrative dramaturgy. Barba compares himself to a surgeon, cutting, splicing, sewing together pieces of an actor’s score. He may eliminate superfluous actions and gestures, anything he feels is false and not a real action. He may rearrange the actor’s actions within her score to create a new score in which an actor uses the same real actions, but in a different order

(53-54).

48

Through this process of what Barba calls “distillation,” during which he spends several days with each actor, he watches his actors connect their new actions and scores with their already-existing subscores (55). When the actors each have accomplished these tasks, Barba leads them through a new exploration in which he relies on serendipity — “the technique of finding that which is not looked for” (55). Here he begins his narrative dramaturgy with the trial and error process of finding connections or correlations between his actors’ scores, which he terms the “level of relationships” (56). Here he works with two or more actors, looking for relationship by constructing a montage of their scores: “[a]n actor execute[s] an action from his score, and his companion answer[s] with one or more actions from her own score. An actor’s action provoke[s] the immediate reaction of a companion” (56). Here is where Barba looks for emerging patterns through the synchronization of the action-reaction dynamic. Here is where he sees “the first rhythmic, associative and narrative correlations emerge” (56).

When he finds and elaborates these relationships and scores of action,

Barba continues the narrative dramaturgy by placing the actors and their scores into a scenic structure of some kind. As the actors work within these constraints, Barba watches for more patterns to emerge that will guide him and

49

his actors toward the narrative hidden within the action; he “file[s] and refine[s] details and rhythms, trying to make out what they might be saying to [him] or adapting them to a narrative episode” (56). He continues his scrutiny in the belief that “even the simplest action contain[s] a dramatic kernel, a presence of antagonistic forces” (57), the basic components of any narrative.

Barba spends months on this level of narrative dramaturgy, continually inspecting and examining his actors’ scores, rearranging the actions and combinations of actions, looking for new possibilities and solutions to problems.

Through his dramaturgical methods, he pushes his actors to their limits of physical and mental creativity, as they work together toward the common goal of a new devised piece. Barba’s work on the narrative dramaturgy of a piece consists of “orchestrating the actors’ dramaturgies — their scores — in a structure of sats, impulses and counter-impulses which radiate allusions, clear meanings, associations and oxymora” (57). The goal of this kind of intricate, piecemeal work is that future spectators will sense the overall completeness of the piece.

Production Staff as Dramaturg

Lastly, some devised-theatre ensembles utilize as dramaturgs those who work within a technical or organizational scope. A sound or lighting designer,

50

choreographer, or stage manager, for example, provides a very different perspective in the devising process, and has a unique view of a new piece from outside the immediate directing and/or performing of it. This kind of person also can see the product through the lens of his or her personal expertise.

The SITI group, at times, practices this method by utilizing the stage manager as dramaturg (Stankiewicz 193). As actors begin to physically explore an idea, relying on nonverbal work, a stage manager notes and records the work done in these rehearsals. As the actors continue honing their actions and pre- dialogue scenes, the stage manager continues making a record of these choices, adding and eliminating ideas and actions as needed, until this step of the devising process is complete ( Stankiewicz 193). The SITI company has also been known to include their sound designer Darron West in the dramaturgical process. West meets with the acting ensemble in the early stages of discussion, and adds suggestions and ideas as the group continues its work of finding physical action and dialogue. He begins experimenting with and incorporating musical pieces and sound cues at this time as well. Just as he has the freedom to make suggestions and critique the actors’ and director’s choices, they, too, have the freedom to do the same with him, making this a truly collaborative partnership (Stankiewicz 193).

51

From these various accounts of the creative process, it is obvious that devised theatre relies heavily on the dramaturgical process, if not on the role of a separate dramaturg. It seems that no matter how the tasks of the dramaturg are executed, the role of the dramaturg in contemporary theatre has become even more vital and necessary than in previous eras.

52

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Suggestions for Further Research

After conducting research in and studying the field of dramaturgy and some of its facets, I find I have barely scratched the surface in learning about the function of the dramaturg in various settings and organizations. I have learned much throughout this process, but there is still much I do not know.

For anyone wishing to do further research, I have several suggestions:

• a comparison of European and American dramaturgical history and

practices;

• a deeper look at dramaturgy programs at several major American or

European universities;

• each chapter of this paper could be expanded into an entirely

separate paper;

• a survey of existing American theatres that employ a dramaturg and

in what capacity;

53

• a list of LMDA (Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the

Americas) projects currently underway;

• the education and experience needed to become a dramaturg;

• the future of dramaturgy in America, where the threat of reduced

federal funding for the arts is always looming ahead.

In my initial research when choosing a direction for this paper, I found a lack of information on the European spectrum of dramaturgy that was written in

English. I had originally planned to compare American and European dramaturgical roles, and was not able to do so because of the lack of sources I was able to read. I also researched dramaturgical programs at major universities in America and Europe, but this angle brought me to the same place: there were many sources written in other languages, especially German, which I do not read. I found I had to limit myself to American theatre, with some Canadian and other English-speaking areas.

I also found many sources that discussed hypothetical situations and theory in dramaturgy, but I would have liked to have found more sources that gave specific, concrete examples of these ideas put into practice. I feel this would have been a good addition to my research, understanding, and writing.

54

Summary

Every theatre is different. Each one functions in the way best suited to its mission, the personalities of those who run it, and the people it serves. The function of the dramaturg within each individual theatre is also very different, and often is adapted to fit the needs of the organization. The roles and functions of the dramaturg as discussed in this paper are hardly complete and exhaustive, because the field of dramaturgy is a hard one to define and pin down, even amongst its practitioners. And yet it continues to be an important cog in the wheel of theatre.

Is dramaturgy necessary? Is this role — often the first to be cut from a staff or production and filled by other theatre practitioners, or is mistrusted by directors, actors, and designers and left out of the process altogether — worth integrating into the life of theatre-making? The research and history speaks for itself, and the answer is yes. There are always questions that need to be answered, research that needs to be done, rehearsals that need an extra set of eyes, directors and designers who need the objective input of a knowledgeable supporter. This is where the dramaturg belongs. Many theatre organizations choose to do without a dramaturg. There are many reasons for this choice. As can be seen in this paper, however, another person (or persons) within the

55

production inevitably do the work a dramaturg would. Even if the person herself is not present, the work she would do is still recognized as a necessity, and the work still gets done. Dramaturgy, no matter who is filling the role, certainly enriches the life of a theatrical production.

Dramaturgical practices, at first glance, do adjust and adapt in the ever- changing cultural times of the world and culture. Theatre is a reflection of the world where it exists, and the function of the dramaturg is therefore a part of that growth. As technology and mindsets change, so do the approaches and boundaries of directors, actors, designers, and theatre spaces, and so do the ways that audiences access theatre. The dramaturg must, therefore, practice resilience, and be willing to reach beyond her comfort zone and remember her foremost function: to serve and support the production in whatever means necessary.

If one is to look again, however, at the adaptations of dramaturgical practices to reflect today’s theatre-making culture, one can see that, in fact, the function, role, and practice of the dramaturg does not actually change all that much. Yes, there are new methods of research available, new approaches to devising theatre and understanding story, new plays to be written and produced with new methods of doing so. The basic function of the dramaturg remains

56

the same: to observe, to question, to discover, and to support the text and the playwright.

57

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Applebaum, Jessica Kaplow. "Finding Our Hyphenates." The Routledge Companion to Dramaturgy. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. 197-201. Print.

Barba, Eugenio. On Directing and Dramaturgy: Burning the House. London: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Bly, Mark, ed. The Production Notebooks: Theatre in Process. Vol. 1. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1996. Print.

Bly, Mark, ed. The Production Notebooks: Theatre in Process. Vol. 2. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 2001. Print.

Bly, Mark. New Dramaturgy (Focus on Dramaturgy. London and New York: Routledge, 2017. Print.

Bly, Mark. "New Play Explorations in the Twenty-First Century." The Routledge Companion to Dramaturgy. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. 313-16. Print.

Borreca, Art. "Dramaturgy in Two Senses: Towards a Theory and Some Working Principles of New-Play Dramaturgy." What Is Dramaturgy? New York: Peter Lang, 2009. 157-73. Print.

Brown, Lenora Inez, ed. "Is There a Dramaturg in the House?" American Theatre 21.9 (2004): 74-79. Print.

Brown, Lenora Inez. "You Can't Tell a Dramaturg By Her Title." American Theatre 18.1 (2001): 23-25. Print.

Chemers, Michael Mark. Ghost Light: An Introductory Handbook for Dramaturgy. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 2010. Print.

58

"Dramaturgy -- Dramaturgy Discussion." LMDA: Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas. Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas, n.d. Web. 28 June 2017.

Eggert, Andrew. "The Role of the Dramaturg in New Opera Works." The Routledge Companion to Dramaturgy. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. 354-58. Print. "Home." American Theatre. Theatre Communications Group, n.d. Web. 28 June 2017.

"Home." Contemporary Theatre Review. Ed. Maria M. Delgado, Maggie B. Gale, and Dominic Johnson. Routledge Journals, n.d. Web. 28 June 2017.

"Home." HowlRound. Emerson College, n.d. Web. 28 June 2017.

"Home." TCG: Theatre Communications Group. Theatre Communications Group, n.d. Web. 28 June 2017.

"Introduction." The Routledge Companion to Dramaturgy. Ed. Magda Romanska. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. 1-15. Print.

Lessing, G. E. Hamburg Dramaturgy. New York: Dover Publications, 1962. Print.

LMDA: Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas. Facebook.com, n.d. Web. 28 June 2017.

Luckhurst, Mary. Dramaturgy: A Revolution in Theatre. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print. CHECK THIS SOURCE

Moore, David, Jr. "Dramaturgy at the Guthrie: An Interview with Mark Bly." What Is Dramaturgy? Ed. Bert Cardullo. New York: P. Lang, 2009. 105-17. Print.

"Resources for Dramaturgs." Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas | LMDA. LMDA, n.d. Web. 28 June 2017.

59

Romanska, Magda, Ph.D. "Handbook for Student Dramaturgs." Handbook for Student Dramaturgs | LMDA. Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas, n.d. Web. 28 June 2017.

Rovit, Rebecca, ed. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism. Lawrence, KS: U of Kansas, n.d. Print.

Rudakoff, Judith D., and Lynn M. Thomson. "Line Notes." Between the Lines: The Process of Dramaturgy. Toronto: Playwrights Canada, 2002. 165-70. Print.

Schechter, Joel. "In the Beginning There Was Lessing . . . Then Brecht, Muller, and Other Dramaturgs." Dramaturgy in American Theater: A Sourcebook. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College, 1997. 16-24. Print.

Schechter, Joel. "Lessing, Jugglers, and Dramaturgs." What Is Dramaturgy? New York: Peter Lang, 2009. 27-41. Print. CHECK THIS SOURCE

Stankiewicz, Teresa. "Who Is the Dramaturg in Devised Theatre?" The Routledge Companion to Dramaturgy. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. 192-96. Print.

Switzky, Lawrence. "Dramaturgy as Skill, Function, and Verb." The Routledge Companion to Dramaturgy. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. 173-77. Print.

Thomson, Lynn M. "Morgan Jenness: Acts of Dramaturgy." American Theatre 21.2 (2004): 60-62. Print.

Trencsenyi, Katalin. Dramaturgy in the Making. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Print.

60