Interview with Duska Radosavljevic

Interview with Duska Radosavljevic
Dramturg at Northern Stage
by Marina Burton

MB: What inspired you to become a dramaturg?

DR: Even though I had strong interests in performance and directing to begin with, I gradually discovered during my first degree
in Theatre Studies and Communication Arts that my particular skill lay in the analysis of verbal and non-verbal texts.
I was far more interested in the process rather than the product and by the time I had to choose my final year project,
it ended up being in playwriting and the dramaturgy of theatre translation. In effect I gradually went back
to the source of the creative process in theatre – the blueprint for performance. This was reversed once again when
on completion of my first degree, by coincidence of circumstances I became a theatre reviewer – which is anyway a constituent
part of the dramaturg’s practice in the rest of Europe.

MB: What do you consider your role to be within the theatre?

DR: The dramaturg’s role can be described in any number of ways – from ‘the guardian of the written word’ to ‘the theatre intellectual’ and ‘the company psychiatrist’.
I don’t identify with any of these. I am interested in the quality of the process and the quality of the result. I am interested in helping people achieve their best and eliminate any
sloppiness they might overlook because they are so immersed in the work itself. There are degrees of the dramaturg’s involvement in the process.
Ideally the dramaturg should be present in a creative capacity. This could feature preparation of the text
(through adaptation, devising, editing etc) or definitive input into the rehearsal process itself. If the dramaturg is not given a creative role however,
he/she can become an in-house critic, which is a tricky position to be in. In any case, I do bring a lot of my reviewing skills into the rehearsal as my
understanding of the production dramaturg’s role is very much linked to an anticipation of the audience and critical response.

MB: Do you feel that as a dramaturg it is your duty to challenge the establishment?

DR: I’m not sure what is meant by the ‘establishment’. I think that my duty is primarily to challenge theatrically bad choices and decisions.
The politics of a particular theatre or a particular show is a result of a whole lot of perspectives including the writer’s,
the director’s but also the audience’s. Sometimes it is even more important to challenge the audience’s views than it is to challenge the establishment.
Only in that case you have to do it in a much more strategic way. 

MB: Are there, or, have there been strict guidelines imposed on you when selecting scripts?  How much artistic freedom do you have?

DR: Because Northern Stage is primarily a performance rather than a play-oriented company, my particular position does not include a great
deal of literary management. I do read submissions and sometimes I come across interesting pieces of work which I may recommend to
someone within the company. Essentially, the process of generating ideas and work which may subsequently be programmed is quite fluid and
dynamic and may involve any member of the company.

MB: What do you believe to be the social function of theatre?

DR: This is a very broad question and my answer to it would probably change case by case. I like it when theatre has the ability to transport you
fully into a different world and act on the consciousness subliminally rather than overtly. I do not like didactic or primarily political theatre,
although theatre is inevitably political (whether it upholds or challenges the status quo). I think one of the social functions of theatre is
certainly to understand, examine and celebrate the human nature.

MB: Are you committed to finding new material?  Is there a balance between revivals and new plays?

DR: As mentioned above, Northern Stage has a very particular approach to production and, if anything, we already have more things in the
pipeline than we could ask for. As for the revivals-new plays ratio we actually have a healthy balance because we often do new dramatisations
of classical scripts (prose and film scripts in particular) and we are also committed to uncovering new relevant material and talent both locally
and internationally. This is a Northern Stage speciality in fact – the fusion of the ‘classical’ and the ‘cutting edge’ within a new space which
is both explicitly-Geordie and ultra-European.

MB: How important do you feel it is to update plays making older scripts relevant?

DR: I’m personally very fond of this practice as a creative and cognitive exercise. I’m referring mainly to full-on adaptations such as for
example Crimp’s Misanthrope or Kushner’s The Illusion. I don’t think it helps to cheat though and create half-hearted attempts or
anachronisms, I think consistency is very important. What often puzzles me is sci-fi Shakespeare for example, where the production
is futuristic and the language is archaic. Of course not much can be done about this in an English speaking world where any attempt
at translation into modern English would be heavily condemned in one way or another. The one that worked for me though was
the Bombitty of Errors – a production from Chicago which treated the archaic language of Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors as urban
American slang. But I do think Shakespeare would rather have his plays brought up to date than have them performed as museum pieces. 

MB: Are you involved with the marketing of a new play/playwright?

DR: I am involved in marketing in as much as I may occasionally write a brochure introduction and provide programme notes or proofread
press releases and copies. I have also done some media interviews in relation to big events such as festivals etc. And of course there is
always the word of mouth which all of us do.

MB: Are you bilingual?  How important is it for a dramaturg to have another language?

DR: I am bilingual but I cannot really say anything prescriptive in answer to this question. It does help me that I am bilingual because I can
look into the same texts differently. For example, at the moment we are working on Chekhov and I have the facility of reading him
closely in two different translations (as well as also being able to read him in the original). However, the language of theatre is a universal
language and the written or spoken word is only an aspect of it.

MB: Do you think that a Dramaturg is any different to a Literary Manager?  If so/not why?

DR: The dramaturg possibly has a more active role within the organisation and the ongoing in-house work than a literary manager.

There are huge overlaps and it is hard to generalise. Hopefully these roles will become more and more defined over time in terms of

their respective drawbacks as well as advantages. However, the way I see it, the primary purpose of my particular job as

Dramaturg is not necessarily script-reading or talent-scouting but quality control and enlightenment.

Posted by Hanna at 04:28 PM in Articles | Email this entry

Comments:

No comments yet.

Post a Comment:

<< Back to main