Dramaturgies, the Writer, the Audience; A panel session at Writers Expo

Dramaturgies, the Writer, the Audience
A panel session at Writers Expo, November 2002
by john Keefe

I want to come at the many issues and ideas already in the air from a structural perspective; a structural model for, initially, theatre which sets the ground for the dramaturg’s role.

theatre; a complex network of autonomous, interactive sign systems which, working on each other, make the performance totality (the mise-en-scène) seen and heard by the audience. Notationally this gives a performance text or score.

I would further argue that this structural model defines all art forms which use or involve the actions of drama or performance ie beyond theatre itself.

It is this created text or score (which includes the drama text itself) that I, as performance dramaturg, work with:

as collaborator

as consultant

as the one who ‘makers strange’.

By this I mean the one who has regard for the structural model and processes that make this text through question, interrogation, reflection & self reflection, observation & suggestion, and critical support such that whatever stage of ‘fixedness’ settled on, the performance text does not become static but remains dynamic; open to further resonance’s and layers of reading; maintaining the sign systems as an ongoing collaboration.

On this model the crucial issue becomes one of the relationship between the sign systems, primarily for this panel session that between the writer, the drama text and the other signifying systems which put that text into performance.

Thus I am wary of the title, which implies alternative to what?

That is alternatives to the dominant sign system within the spectrum already described- the drama script in the modern European tradition.

- do writers want alternatives?

- how are writers to go beyond the dominant script form of dialogue and psychologism?

- how is the drama script to be rebalanced within the structural model?

- do writers want a rebalancing?

9 November 2002

Afterthoughts (24 November 2002)

Writing this up some time after the session gives me the opportunity to slightly amend the paper as given, and to reflect on the discussion that followed, the issues that arose. As Chair, I am aware of the dominance of the panel in the discussion; clearly I should have pulled it back into the arena of the writer, which I attempted to open up in the closing questions/provocations above But I think there are other reasons why the session seemed not to take off as intended in these questions.

On reflection the session should have been titled ”Alternative Texts”; we seemed to be circling this issue of what the text is/could be without the audience picking up and running with it. The focus on dramaturgy and its role(s) became too dominant. But I also find myself wondering why the audience, predominantly writers, did not rise to the questions being mooted; taking the opportunity to raise ideas and possibilities about the text and what it is.

The pressures to remain within the orthodoxy are immense; the two most disturbing contributions from the floor were those concerning the demands on the writer re the Edinburgh project, and the description of the conservative training approaches given re one London drama conservatory. In both cases the demands for conventional orthodoxy I found both startling and saddening.

But are the writers themselves responsible for the alternative text remaining a minority form, despite its (misleading) profile amongst those who are practitioners of visual-physical-mime theatre? When placed against the quantity of writing for other media, that for the theatre of all kinds is comparatively small. This came up obliquely with the question of television; the demands of the tv style would seem to be having a distorting effect on writing for stage or live space. Thus are writers happy with the status quo of a writing style which sets the parameters of the career arch and path which mean acceptance and success? All too often ‘new writing’ seems to mean merely a new piece of work meeting the demands of commissioners, producers or companies rather than new forms of writing or new methods of composition and working as the panel suggested. Hence my question regarding ‘alternative texts’?

The opportunity to discuss the role(s) of the dramaturg were invaluable, Felix’ description of the role as “assistance in holding the project together, from initiation to conclusion” being especially resonant and one I would absolutely agree with. But again the audience did not pick up on these openings and seek to develop them with questions, rebuttals, agreements, etc.

I would see a session such as this as one of provocation (complementing those of information, advice and so on). But if the discussion does not pick up this opportunity and the audience its responsibility then such a session cannot fulfil its potential. I am reminded of Jonathan’s first question to me re the audience’s place in my model and my answer. The audience is outside the model but a crucial part of it; its responses and readings complete the equation, the performance event.the audience does not take up this responsibility then the performance remains incomplete.

John Keefe © November 2002

Posted by Hanna at 05:33 PM in Articles | Email this entry

Comments:

No comments yet.

Post a Comment:

<< Back to main