When directing a play, it is helpful to create a concept that is clear and firmly rooted in the text of the play. For example, if the play is called “Alice in Wonderland”, chances are that if the concept of the production does not revolve around Alice’s experience, then the “concept” is probably not going to work (or at least not for the entire play). The same is true of an arts in education program: At Roundabout, we are rooted in using theatre as a tool for learning in the classroom and Roundabout’s theatres. If I suddenly directed the play that is this program as if it were a conservatory program, my actors and designers would be hating life and me, my audience would be confused and my play would fail.
Furthermore, throughout a production it is incredibly helpful to return to the concept. From the macro to the micro choices, the concept should be the guiding principle for decision making. When designing the set, we may find a great lamp, but we always have to ask ourselves as a creative team, “Is it a great lamp or is it a great lamp for this play?” When directing a program, we may discover a great new project to pursue, but as a team we may ask our selves, “Is it simply a great program or is it a great program that furthers our mission?”
And, of course, if the concept has altered over the course of pre-production and the team has learned an essential truth about the concept that is spot on, the concept should be adjusted accordingly, but only if necessary. Program missions evolve over time; the mission statement should accurately reflect the intention and activity of the company and visa versa.
What are these Radical Rules? Read the introduction to Radical Rules.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Nancy // Jan 13, 2008 at 9:06 am
Hey, David!
I am looking forward to reading more of your “Radical Rules. The theater artists at DreamYard are exploring this topic (in a sense) in February as a department.
Why do you think it is that educators often abandon their concepts or don’t fully develop one at the start of a new project or year? Is it merely the lack of time? Competing agendas? Lack of confidence or support? And how do we encourage and support what you propose here?
Keep on keepin’ on,
n
2 David // Jan 14, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Nancy,
Great questions… I think keeping one’s self (or one’s program) on task with an articulated mission is a challenge, particularly in the face of “just having to get it all done.” Taking time out to do *anything* that feels to be something *other than* direct programming activity or direct support of programming activity stays on the backburner. There needs to be more incentive perhaps to making this happen…
A couple of thoughts about possible incentive: Like New Year’s Resolutions, we often do not set goals because we fear that we will only set ourselves up to fail. We don’t often focus on the celebration that might come with the realization of those goals! Or even the movement towards those goals. Also, we often forget that goals, like the directorial concept, are not set in stone for all time. They can and should be revisited and revised as appropriate.
Off the top of my head, here are some tips that I think might make the process more satisfying:
- Find the joy in goal creation (as opposed to goal “setting”) and mission articulation. Starting sentences with “Wouldn’t it be great if…” rather than “We will…” in intial conversations always makes breath a little easier…
- Set a schedule for revisiting the mission statement and revisiting and revising goals.
- Make a plan for celebrating the achievements of the progress toward those goals.
- Enlist collaborators for your goal making and your progress celebrations. Although feeling satisfied yourself may be great, somehow raising a glass to the achievement with a colleague is even more celebratory!
Thanks for getting the wheels turning, Nancy.
David
Leave a Response here