New writing vs New work?

Posted by Alex Chisholm at 10 January 2012

Back to list 9 comments

Back again in the office after the holidays - or rather I would be back in the office but my office has been moved in my absence. Have just now been reconnected with my computer but all my papers, files and ten years worth of accumulated stuff has been tipped topsy-turvy all over my old office. This is going to take me some time and effort to sort out so bear with me and my grumpiness while it happens. Grrrr....

 

Anyway, while I was out of the office I was having number of very stimulating talks with writery folk and reading some plays (I know, shocking...) including Dan Rebellato, Dan Bye and Dr Jacqueline Bolton. I am thinking about what would happen if we were to do away with the terminology and the catagories of 'new writing' and 'new work' and to create one cohesive, holistic approach to developing new plays/art which could include writers, directors, devisors or what ever you want to call yourselves. I'll expand on this more later but just to throw this out there (while my thinking is still as scrambled as my paperwork): I believe the models of development have been forcing artists down particular well worn grooves rather than allowing them to explore what it is they want to create. Or to put it another way, a lot of the plays I read have started to feel a bit similar to each other. Part of that is down to the ways that they are developed and produced. And the question is: are there another ways?  

Just to be clear I am absolutely still passionate about work by writers, this should be (I hope) about serving writers better than we do now.

 

One little example: two plays I have read recently (and no I'm not going to name names) which I know have been through lengthy  'development' processes have lost the theatrical magic that they had in the early drafts. They are altogether less: fewer characters, fewer storylines, less complex, less depth. I feel we run the danger of developing the theatre out of plays; making them safer, more 'workable' but less exciting.

 

This doesn't happen in all cases, of course, but I think it happens more often then we like to think. Thoughts, experiences, feedback please below and a quick reminder of the open meeting on Saturday January 28th 2-4pm at the Playhouse. I believe there are better ways to work but I need your help to find them.

Comments

  1. Alex Chisholm

    In fact just read this - at least as far as Chris Goode's comments - it says what I want to say but far better.

    DATE POSTED: 11/01/2012

  2. Jonathan Meth

    1. abolish new writing as a term, it has done its job 2. pay people properly, so uncouple development dripfeeding and see the impact on the work. This may mean fewer opportunities, better paid. 3. The rehearsed / staged reading aspires to the condition of the radio play. This is fantastic for radio plays, what might a corollary look like for live theatre? 4. Dramaturgy that knows how to not undermine the magic 5. Managements commit to artists, letting them xplore what they ant to create - not conditionally so that every step of the way someone maks another decision, but back them? now you can shoot me x Jonathan

    DATE POSTED: 11/01/2012

  3. Tyrone Huggins

    Alex, You touch on an issue that has been core to my problems as a theatre maker since I first identified it in 1994. I have great belief in theatre created from plays, but coming from a background in which a group of us created theatre without going through the process of writing a play I have tried to adapt my own playwriting to that fact. So I consider myself as a writer of theatre more than a writer of plays. This means that though they look like plays on paper, there are bits of them that I anticipate being addressed as visual or aural element, or even physical alternatives to the writing. What happens is that I am then pressed to make those bits that may appear as strange writing into 'play writing', when they are in fact word sketches or substitutes for some other theatre form to be explored and developed in rehearsal or workshop. The process then further limits my output by offering only 'play readings'. The issue you raise is core to the future of theatre if it is not to join opera and ballet as dominated by a narrow bandwidth of endlessly repeated plays. Its not about getting rid of the well written play - which is central to the English theatre tradition, its about giving more stage time to the well developed theatre creation processes. Tyrone

    DATE POSTED: 16/01/2012

  4. Conor Whelan

    Yes, since theatre is a collaborative form, I think it's only right that the writer collaborates with others in the process. As long as that is an open collaboration, neither the writer being told of changes s/he has to make (sometimes s/he knows why something needs to be in place for the overall structure), nor the writer assuming they know what's best for the piece just because they wrote it. I know we can be a protective bunch, thanks for bearing with us. Sometimes we need luring out of our shells and being shown that an element of our work can be tried in different ways that could turn out to be better. And sometimes we can see a change would bring the whole piece crashing down. It's a hell of a balance.

    DATE POSTED: 17/01/2012

  5. Alex Chisholm

    Jonathan - yep I agree 'new writing' has done its time. The pay better/fewer opportunities conundrum is one that I wrestle with constantly -any thoughts anyone else? Tyrone - thank you! Yes I really think our current way of developing work excludes many writers and theatre makers who just don't fit the formula. Conor - yes a hell of a balance indeed. Each process needs to be tailored to the artists involved at that particular time. Not easy which is why feedback and suggestions from writers so useful meeting on January 28th at Playhouse 2-4pm for anyone who can come along to discuss these and more issues. For anyone who can't make it we'll be live tweeting it with #makingplays see you there!

    DATE POSTED: 19/01/2012

  6. kaite o'reilly

    I'm tired of the distinction between new writing and new work... Maybe I'm fortunate, but I work as a dramaturg/writer/co-creator in some contexts, and the playwright with collaborators in other contexts. In the past few years I have worked on projects where I am a playwright under commission to building based theatres; where I am basically a co-producer with funding I have raised for a project I have written and want to realise with a company with match-funding; and as a co-deviser/writer on a project with a small independent company with r&d funding from the arts council - amongst other models. When I start on a project, I always ask myself and my colleagues what is required for the work we want to create to flourish - the answers often challenge existing norms of practice and process, but I am fortunate in that so far my collaborators have been willing to change structures and modes of operation if they are not conducive to US doing OUR work. Projects that haven't flourished or come to completion have been those where we are all sewn into strait-jackets of assembly and 'thisness' - this is how it is - - or where there is a regimented structure, usually hierarchical, where I and the work are being processed according to existing criteria rather than being in a new process where we may all learn something. Maybe I've just been immensely fortunate in my work, with the skills I have gathered and the colleagues I have sought, but I believe there is a false schism between so called 'new writing' and 'new work'. In my ideal la-la-land, we'd put away definitions and rigid procedures - and huge apologies if this sounds like a rant. Like Jonathan, you can shoot me, too, now.....

    DATE POSTED: 20/01/2012

  7. Tim Austin

    Like Kaite, I'm also a Dramaturg. I went to a fascinating meeting of Dramaturgs and Literary Managers in London many years back which morphed, very quickly it seemed to me, into a discussion about this very subject. A very vocal discussion it was too; I have a transcript of the entire meeting, if anyone would like it. For me, it's very much a matter of engagement with writers and finding out what it is that they want from their script. I've just finished a script review of a fascinating play but, having chatted for a good half an hour with the writer, what they wanted to get across wasn't actually what they'd written. Much of the script was written to fit a mould that they expected might make it more "sellable". By asking a few questions and challenging the writer, I feel that they've now broken an empasse that was holding them back. I also agree that, while they have their uses, rehearsed readings have their limitations. Many of the issues that I frequently encounter are missed in read through - mainly technical or physical issues. Might I suggest, as seemed a general consensus at the meeting I mentioned, that we need to step away from the commercial concept of the "new" (New writer! Premiere! Look at this!) It has often led to writers that have been "developed" by one company being ignored by another - they're used goods. Often writers' second or third plays are the really good ones!

    DATE POSTED: 24/01/2012

  8. Kaite O'Reilly

    I have a feeling I was also at that gathering, Tim... or one very like it. There was a spate of seminars and conferences and open days some years back on dramaturgy - and the majority seemed to go round and round in circles trying to define what a dramaturg was ('Well, in the German context...' was always one of the first comments - which often had very little purchase to the systems and models in the UK and how dramaturgs or dramaturgy was being practiced on this small island). Whether it was the same event or not, I'd love to have a look at the document you mention, Tim - thanks so much for the offer. You can find me at www.kaiteoreilly.com and maybe we can link up via my website? Meanwhile - YES....I agree with your comments - thank you! Although I appreciate the very hard job in marketing or promoting previously unseen work - I have an allergy to some of the more enthusiastic PR approaches to NEW!!!! (usually writer - aka YOUNG writer.) I also have experienced what a friend called 'deflowering' - that theatres often have to be your first.... A new writer, with a new play (as opposed to the 2nd or 3rd play you mention, Tim) - and in the first decade of my career, I was 'discovered' or deflowered many times... I used to get very angry when marketing called what might be my third or fourth or even fifth play as my 'debut'... I appreciate that selling tickets can be challenging, but it simply buys into something i don't think is healthy for our culture or work. x

    DATE POSTED: 29/01/2012

  9. Ralph Connor Kendall

    Some very interesting points raised in the blogs. I hope some good comes from it?

    DATE POSTED: 13/02/2012

Submit a Comment

Please note your email address will not be published with the review comment, it is for moderation purposes. Required denotes required fields

Back to list

Other posts from this blog