Saturday afternoon, I spent a pleasant couple of hours in Burbank. You can step off the street into the Sidewalk Studio Theatre, and there you are… in one of the tiniest of theatre spaces just behind the door to the street. Who knew?
The occasion was the reading of the new play “The Heretics of Alexandria”, by Jon Bastian. The players: Jennifer Pennington, William Salyers, John DiFusco, Marc Ewing, Sean Corvelle Christine Krench, and Michelle Flowers. It was part of a series of readings put on by the Syzygy Theatre Group and the Los Angeles Writer’s Center Project. It was directed by Che’Rae Adams.
It was really excellent. It turned out to be a very well fleshed out examination of the ongoing (and everlasting) conflict between reason and faith, or, if you like (although this over-simplifies it), between science and religion. (It was not limited to the latter struggle, in fact. Far from it. There were some splendid internal reason/faith conflicts in a number of characters.) The synopsis:
This full length drama, set in Alexandria Egypt, 415 A.D. features the infamous Philosopher Hypatia, who has come into possession of a document that threatens the very basis of the new religion called Christianity; a document that some would do anything to destroy. Hypatia and a powerful Christian Bishop wage a fierce struggle for the soul of a young priest and for a document which tells a very different version of the life — and death — of Jesus. A true story.
The writing was excellent as was the cast, and Bastian should be extremely proud of himself. (It is a mistake to call it “a true story”, though. It is a story based around historical events, which should absolutely not be confused with being a “true story”. Writers of synopses should not encouarge people to mix up the two.) Jennifer Pennington really did a great job of bringing out the internal conflicts waging inside Hypatia as she the conflict between her and Cyril (the powerful bishop) threatens to continue the loss of reason, and the rejection of knowledge that had already destroyed the great library in Alexandria. (More on Hypatia here.) Marc Ewing’s Nestorius was played marvellously. He is the former student (and more) of Hypathia -now a Christian- who is called upon to act as an intermediary in the conflict. His own internal conflicts (he can see that Cyril is becoming blind with power as the Christians continue to rise and grow strong against the “pagans”, philosophers, and others) are well written and brilliantly acted. I’m very impressed with how well written and acted all the characters were, right down to the various members of Hypatia’s household, who play key roles in the elegant unfolding of the tale. I’m sure that the directing of Che’Rae Adams played a big part in how smoothly the various exchanges worked, creating an excellent illusion of the action, without the players doing much more than sitting (some key hand movements, and meaningful glances at various moments, for example, made a lot of it come to life).
After the reading, they wanted to do a question and answer session, to get feedback for the writer. At this point I got slightly annoyed. This is a very common practice in theatre on this side of the atlantic and I have heard it commented before by playwrights from the UK that it is quite a contrast to how things are developed there. In the UK, I am told (I don’t really have any firsthand experience of developmental theatre there), there’s just not so much worrying about the audience to the extent that you do so many readings and Q&A sessions.
I think that it can go too far. At some point, the writer is in danger of losing sight of what he or she is doing if there is far too much consultation of the audience…. at least to the level of detail that was going on here. There were questions about whether anyone was confused at any point. Whether so-and-so scene was really needed to help them “get” some point or other. They wanted to know what people thought the play was about…. There should be a touch more risk taking, otherwise you can end up with a very sterile product, like a movie or tv show that has been focus-grouped too much.
I think in the early stages of a play, or if a play is really trying to do something different, or work with difficult material, this process can be useful. But I think that this is one situation where the whole process was going a bit too far. The play clearly is fully formed and ready to go, being quite straightforward material, and (they said) having been through this process a number of times already. So my main thought when they started this process was that the playwright should just leave well alone. It’s done. Leave it. So I stuck my hand up during the Q&A and said “It’s quite brilliant. Don’t change a thing.” I was ignored of course. I don’t think that they thought this was helpful. Oh well. I probably just sounded like some arrogant British twit who’d wandered in off the streets. Well, you know, maybe I am.
-cvj
Also, if you will permit me, some further expansion and explanation linking to this post of yours, and the story. More on the setting.
with luck I’ll get to the point where somebody is willing to give it a reading
Wrong approach — if you want it to get a reading, then it’s up to you to make it happen. Find friends, find a living room or whatever — but, at this stage, you have to be the pimp for your own work. With luck, you’re already at the point where you need to hear it. The next step is to make that hearing happen.
The worst thing you can do as a writer is wait around for other people to notice you. The best thing you can do is shove it in their faces, Precisely the reason that a google search for my name led me back to this page.
To Jon Bastian: Figuring out how to make the audience see your vision, rather than adjusting your vision to them–that’s a good way to put it. I wish you well with your play.
This whole discussion has been meaningful for me because (as might be guessed) I’ve done some theater work in the past. And I hope it’ll have some resonance in the future, because I’m writing a play myself, and with luck I’ll get to the point where somebody is willing to give it a reading.
To John Branch: When I first wrote this play, it was just after I finished the first draft that I found out about Mac Wellman’s work. I freaked out, panicked, then read synposes and reviews, and realized that he and I took very different approaches to the subject.
And, on the subject of audience feedback — I have yet to have an experience in which I have not made rewrites based on previews. That’s what previews are for, and in every such case, things that the director and I thought were perfect and unchangeable just didn’t go over with breathing audiences, and so were altered.
Developmental readings are no different, and are a totally necessary part of the process. Again, if you’re not connecting with an audience, you’re not telling your story effectively. Certain arts — painting and sculpture come to mind — are different. They should emerge inviolate from the artist’s hands, because that’s how they work. But the living arts — theatre, film, opera, ballet, TV — always, always must include the audience at some point in the process because the audience is part of the production. That may seem like a sad thing, but it’s not. It just depends on how strong the artist’s vision is, and how they can figure out how to make the audience see it — rather than, as is far to common in TV and film, alter and castrate the vision to match what the audience wants. A big difference, but an important one.
I can think of one general reason for performances as well as readings to be followed by audience talk-back sessions: this helps differentiate theater events from movies, invites participation on the part of the audience, allows for a feeling of personal connection. Somewhere this year I saw a study reporting that people like interaction on websites, which helps account for the presence of things like polls all over the place, and reader forums at newspaper websites, and discussion threads at IMDB. If it’s true for websites, it’s reasonable to think it’s true for theaters. Come to think of it, blogs that allow comments illustrate the same idea. A related reason for talk-backs is that they look good to grant-giving organizations; they’re one sign that an arts group is trying to communicate with its community instead of dispensing culture from on high like priests bestowing benedictions.
It’s a separate question whether the people presenting a reading really want or think they need detailed feedback from an audience after the work has been presented. After all, most theater people are pretty highly attuned to the reactions of others; a writer and a director can judge some things about a script just by giving it to some actors, and they can judge more by putting the actors in front of an audience and seeing how it feels. (This is what previews are for, in the case of fully staged productions.) Whether you want to go one step further–invite questions from the audience as well as ask them questions–would depend, I’d think, on whether the writer or director wants it and also on what kind of audience they think they can count on. And there’s also Clifford’s point, which I agree with: that you can dull your edge if you’re not careful.
Incidentallly, a play by Mac Wellman on the subject of Hypatia (its title was her name) was produced in New York in 2000. A review I just re-read at the NY Times used words like “enigmatic” and “obscure.” It sounds as if Jon Bastian and company are eager to avoid those labels.
Hi Jon! Great to hear from you!!
You said:
This is extremely well put indeed. You’re clearly a writer who can usefully pick and choose, and make the process be one of true value. And yes, I do know those “I can’t hear my own work” moments….. sometimes I need to go sit on top of a mountain to hear it again though…. more voices sometimes confuse me. But you’ve infinitely more experience in this area than I, so I am watching and learning.
I’d be interested in hearing more of your or others thoughts on how the different (UK vs USA) traditions with regards the feedback process came to be so distinct (if indeed they are…I could be totally wrong), and how it affects the overall scene or “industry”, positively or negatively overall. It’s an interesting issue.
Do pop by from time to time…. there’ll be more chat of this type, I hope.
Best,
-cvj
Clifford:
Thank you for this insightful commentary on The Heretics of Alexandria and the development process — and be assured that I definitely did not ignore your comment to not change a thing. That seemed to be the consensus of the audience and, in fact, the reason for the “Did anything confuse you?” line of questioning is to determine precisely that. When we ask that question and get blank stares, it’s a good sign that the piece works. The question about whether the last scene is necessary is one that I’ve been asking myself from the beginning, and the only rewrites at this point are some line tweaks, because it was clear that audiences got some of the jokes one line earlier than I thought they would.
I would imagine that the difference in process between the US and UK has a lot to do with the general American attitude toward theatre, as well as the unfortunate Hollywood effect — everything must be commercial and served up on a silver platter. (It doesn’t, but going through this processes fools the money people into thinking it is.) However, I’ve been through this enough to know which comments to ignore. I’m sure you know that quite often in the process, the writer gets to a point where they can’t “hear” their own work clearly, because they’re so deeply involved with it, and external eyes and ears are necessary — not to give ironclad notes on how to rewrite, but to indicate whether the work is connecting with the audience. That’s exactly how the previous “Kind of, but not quite” draft of Heretics evolved to what you heard last weekend.
Che’Rae and the Los Angeles Writer’s Center have been invaluable for me in that regard for a number of works already. More information about us is at the website.
Hi Che’Rae,
Thanks! Actually I was not saying that the feedback process was useless. More that it can sometimes be in danger of being over-used. (I speak as someone who has audience benefitted from feedback at readings of my own work with the playwright Oliver Mayer: see here and here, and a post on this to come soon).
The point is that sometimes to take an audience to a new place you have to challenge them to get out of their comfort zones. Too much feedback that gets the writer seeking to put the readers in their comfort zone can take the edge off something. A writer therefore -indeed- has to pick and choose carefully. Good writers with a clear vision can do this well, I imagine…. but sometimes clarity can get muddied, even in the minds of the most skilled. So one must be careful.
So I am not saying it should be abandoned!! Just used sparingly.
Thanks… come back from time to time. I’ll be talking about theatre here quite a bit more.
Best,
-cvj
Clifford! Thank you so much for writing about the reading, I am thrilled that it effected you enough to write about it. I too think the piece is amazing and I loved working on it. I wanted to comment on the feedback process since you talked about it a bit in your blog. Your comment that the play was perfect, was not ignored at all. We have been talking about it ever since. However, the purpose of the reading series is to develop new plays, and indeed, most of them are fresh out of the computer. It is therefore imperitive that we get audience feedback, postitive or negative, so that the playwright can continue the development process. Jon is a brilliant playwright, one of my favorites in fact, and Jon and I both learned alot about the play from hearing the amazing actors read it and now know how to go forward with the rewrites. It is because of that question and answer session that we are able to do so. After directing and developing plays for over 15 years, and teaching writing for a few too, I have learned the audience is an esential factor in the development of new work. Ultimately, the writer has to take the notes and keep what works for him, it is his decision when he thinks the play is ready. However, it is audience members like you that help him get there. I thank you and all of the other audience memembers for thier insight and feelings about the piece, they are invaluable to our process at the Los Angeles Writer’s Center.
Mmmm. I have on my Todo list to see, somewhere, someday: “Lysistrata“. A political message drama (still contemporary) with a good dose of humor mixed in.
Thanks Clifford. It is reassuring to know that some people are not intimidated and threatened by the general socio-political climate in the US, and feel confident in writing plays about central core issues involved in the development of the history of western religions. We certainly need more of it. And i agree with you about the endless “conversations” following theatrical performances these days.