Don't Shoot The Dramaturge! (Written specifically for Dramaturgy 1021)

According to American playwright, Richard Nelson, dramaturges and new play development cause more harm than good to playwrights. This means of support, Nelson argues, weakens the playwright as it causes a dependence on others to support them. Despite acknowledging the benefit of readings and mentorship to young writers his speech is dominated by reminiscing about the good old days, before the workshop process infiltrated the scene, where writers took charge of their plays and wrote what they wanted, not what audiences, actors, or dramaturges told them to write.

Lying at the core of Nelson’s argument is the question of ownership. He believes the playwright loses creative control over his/her work. He romanticizes the beauty of the writer sitting alone at his or her typewriter furiously leading the process of development through rewrites. He is petrified of outside eyes peering in to the play’s soul and seeing something the writer has not fully explored, a one-dimensional character, for example, that needs to be developed or moved to another play altogether. Surely, Nelson exclaims, the playwright must have a better understanding of his/her work than any outside dramaturge does.

Not necessarily. I recently saw a staged reading of Tony Kushner’s A Bright Room Called Day. While I appreciate some of the exploratory experimentation of playing with time; conjuring ghosts; and the image of a Devil on the verge of a heart attack; for the most part the work left me wishing he either had artistic distance to see what worked and what didn’t or had someone he could trust tell him he didn’t need to put the kitchen sink in the piece. Particularly troubling is his inclusion of the character of Zillah who doesn’t push the story forward, but rather takes time away from the central story: that is of Agnes Eggling and her friends attempting to deal with Hitler taking power in Germany and the desire to live versus dying as a martyr. While it is fascinating to see the parallels between Reagan and, the updated rewritten inclusion of Bush Jr., and Hitler, Zillah represents a thesis not a story. His essay interrupts the play.

Granted, Nelson would no doubt be furious that I watched a staged reading rather than seeing the play in a fully financed production. That somehow lights, costumes, and sets can tell the story better than the words can. However the benefit from stripping the theatricality down to its core: the words, the ideas, allow an audience to truly see the beauty while also exposing the flaws of the writer’s play.

While Nelson is a writer with over thirty plays to his credit, I have had similar discussions with writers just starting out. They too want to be left alone to create their masterpieces without assistance. Stop funding developmental programs they say while calling for the elimination of the dramaturges and literary managers, while they toss and turn in their beds, the nightmare of their being discovered to be artistic weaklings forever haunting them in their dreams.

Dramaturgy is not about telling a writer how to create their play. It’s not, as Nelson implies, about fixing a broken play. It’s about understanding what the writer wants his/her play to say, to do, to impact the audience who sees the work. The dramaturge is a sounding board for ideas. To hear or read the piece and then ask the playwright questions. To let them know what resonates and what is still confusing or needs development. Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure there are a lot of terrible dramaturges out there. People who bully writers into creating the play the dramaturge wants rather than the piece the playwright dreams of writing. It is a special relationship based on trust. The dramaturge is not an editor whose job is to come in at the end of the process and cut the piece into fitting into a specific market or time slot.

Nelson is right when he suggests authors need to take more control over their work. He talks about a trend developing where writers are sending unfinished plays to Theatres and young writers leave chunks of the play unfinished or poorly written so they can focus on the bits they care about. So they can openly appear interested in help. Its one thing if the writer and dramaturge have a personal connection and trust however it is extremely dangerous for writers to blindly send their unfinished scripts to companies as it exposes them to manipulation. It immediately puts them in a subservient position as it implies they cannot finish the play without help. Isn’t it better to wait until you have an understanding of what the play is or at least what you want to do with the play before you send it off?

My problem is not with dramaturgy or new play development, but rather with our fascination and dedication to funding development programs without funding the actual productions of the play. Here in Canada it seems we love throwing money at new plays as long as we never have to see them actualized on stage. That our Culture Ministers have it in their minds that simply funding people to create write the plays and hear them read once or twice somehow creates a cultural landscape. Canadian Stage is possibly the most blatant example of a company who has given up on developing Canadian work because it doesn’t sell as well as American or British imports.

I could be wrong but it seems like a lot of companies are doing this only in a slightly less honest fashion. It seems every theatre company in this country has at least two different playwrights units (targeting different age groups, gender, sexual orientation, political afiliation, favorite food, etc.) and yet how many of these shows actually see the light of day? How many of the plays chosen to be a part of these companies will actually be produced versus how many are trying to look good for the development area of the granting process.

Maybe we need to start looking at hockey and baseball for guidance. The way teams foster young players might be an interesting way to view new playwrights or new plays. Draft/choose wisely, what looks like a good fit, one to three years down the road, and sign him or her to a contract and dedicate your resources to developing that play. This allows independent play development projects not only to continue developing new work but it gives them a place in the system. Primarily that of showcase for new work...they become the OHL and/or AHL of the Theatre world. Another benefit is playwrights can still work on other projects but at least they know their play will be produced because they've gotten it in writing. Teams don't draft players just to release them the next year - unless they're terrible or do steroids or have massive personality problems like Terrell Owens or bet on how my dog can kill your dog. Instead they draft players in the hopes that each of them will develop into a star. Theatre companies and funding bodies need to buy into long-term development plans. If this means more money for fewer projects, than maybe that's the way it needs to go.

The issue is not about weakening the writer. In the theatre, the story is still essential to the strength of a piece. Dramaturges and play development are an amazing resource and should be used for good. This doesn't mean there aren't tremendously gifted writers who can write without assistance, of course these artists still exist. We just need to develop some kind of system that will ensure writers talents will continue to be fostered, developed, and nurtured.