It's A Fine Line...

I was so annoyed at a rehearsal back in the mid-nineties that I once gave the note "it's a fine line between funny and retarded." As with many of my "notes", I believe the actors sat blankly- confused, annoyed and probably feeling(rightfully) superior.

I had an interesting conversation with my friend Nathan Thomas about the value and need for risks amongst artists. Well, to be honest, it wasn't as generic as "artists," it was a conversation about the value and need for risk amongst small professional Shakespeare companies. Okay, it was actually OUR small professional Shakespeare company.Risk is key, isn't it? If you're not trying to try something a bit risky or new, why bother- especially ESPECIALLY (watch out- I went to all caps)when it comes to Shakespeare.

Many Shakespeare companies have a mission that pretty much amounts to "providing our community with the best live productions of Shakespeare as we can muster." There's something to be said about that, right? If our culture worships the God of Shakespeare, mustn't we allow our community to experience it as designed- live on stage? And what's wrong with attempting to do the best job we possibly can?

But I'm hoping that the Chesapeake Shakespeare Company does more than that. We should be a company based on ideas, not individuals. I think we started this company with the idea that performances of Shakespeare are often uninteresting and disconnected to the words. I know we started CSC because we thought most productions of Shakespeare were boring.

So risks are good- right? I've always said my work is defined more by what I don't like than by what I like. I also don't like pretentious boring psuedo-avant garde rehash. I'll never forget a conventional production I saw of Ubu Roi performed as a theater's "Experimental Theater" production. yeah, let's do something one hundred years old and call it experimental. It seems to me most "experimental theater" is mostly ideas that are at least 30 years old. Almost as awful as staid, conventional, unimaginative art is stuff that claims to be risky or avant garde or innovative, but is really just loud or unfocused or includes brief glimpses of nipples.

A buddy of mine in Minnesota said about me that I was either the straightest unconventional person he knew or the most unconventional straight person he knew and he couldn't decide which. I proudly wear that description of myself but also my work as well. That's what I want- work that doesn't fight convention but stretches the limits of that convention. But, it's a hard idea to communicate to collaborators. Often time actors, designers and other artists mistake my working within the convention with hostility to experimentation- which I don't believe is true. Others limit themselves with no help from me. No surprise there. We ask artists (especially actors) to take risks and audiences often only evaluate them for the work- because they might not know what a director does. So actors get all the blame or all the credit for innovation. Naturally they are going to be a bit reluctant to try new things.

Also, as Artistic Director, I see our work as a continuum rather than a series of individual pieces. So, if one play is conventional it may be a stop along a journey that leads to innovation. But, when you're in the one production, it seems like the production is entirely conventional and....

But, the notion that "risk is good" is something that I need to do a better job of communicating to my company- and it will require more buy-in from company members.