Who’s afraid of … the dramaturg?

Who’s afraid of … the dramaturg?
Some thoughts after five years as a freelance dramaturg
By Katalin Trencsényi, dramaturg

It has been five years since I received my degree (MA) in Dramaturgy at the Academy of Drama and Film in Budapest. When the Dean of the School presented me with my diploma in the packed theatre of the university, he shook my hand and said: “Welcome, back!” What he meant was that I had literally just returned from my two-years’ theatre traineeship in Britain.

After the ceremony, myself and my dramaturgy class (there were eight of us) had our picture taken on a cart in the school yard (to be framed and hung on the school’s wall of fame) before we all dispersed to start our professional career. Sitting cheerfully on “Thespis’ cart” as we called that decrepit old prop that summer afternoon, little did I know that cart had a symbolic meaning for my future: further travelling between Budapest and London, until a year later I’d move to Britain and continue my career there as a dramaturg.

Five years have passed since then, all spent working in my profession (one year in Hungary and four in Britain) – enough time to look back and summarise my experience as a freelance dramaturg before moving to the next chapter of my career.

Being a freelancer

It has been five challenging years full of joy and hardship! First of all, I am glad that I can do what I want: working in a profession, which is more then “only a job” for me – it’s a lifetime passion and vocation.

As a freelance dramaturg I enjoy my freedom of choice: that I can decide my working schedule (so I even had the luxury of having my own weekly/fortnightly research days for my own development at the wonderful British Library), and I have the possibility to choose with whom I want to work, which projects I am taking on. Though there is a price for my freedom: unpredictability of life and income.

As a freelancer I had the chance to work for several different theatre companies, and on many different projects, and this was an excellent opportunity to gain a solid knowledge about the theatre scene in Britain. It gave me a good insight into the contemporary theatre scene: I could meet (and work with) different practitioners and learn about differences and similarities between ways of thinking and work processes in different theatres. Working for the National Theatre was different from working for a small dance company with people with learning difficulties or doing a children’s show for a rural touring company. I feel this was a great advantage. This freedom also gave me more time to experiment with different dramaturgical jobs in the theatre (from running a new drama competition through a variety of play developments to educational projects) and establish a better idea about my interests and knowledge. This also taught me the different kinds of work and involvement needed from a dramaturg in different projects, which was a useful lesson.

Production Dramaturgy (in text based theatre)

‘My experience of floor dramaturgy is that from the point of view of approaching a play most directors can be roughly divided into two groups: those who come from an acting background and those who come from an academic background. In approaching the play they both have different starting points. Lets call the former group’s method approaching from acting and the latter’s approaching from analysis.

The former group of directors – in my experience – don’t start from a strong idea or a vision. They read the play and are strongly affected by it, they sense what it’s about and the work in the rehearsal room for them is a journey of trial and error until they find the final shape of the production. These directors don’t spend much time around the table analysing the play, the initial discussion about the play is soon followed by practical exercises and blocking. These directors prefer to put the play on its feet as soon as possible, because they need to see it in order to be able to decide what will work and what won’t. They are very good at picking up ideas from the floor and giving actors a further push if needed.

The pitfall in working this way can sometimes be inconsistency. When there is no core idea or basic analysis of the play there can be too many different ideas to choose from. Consequently it can sometimes be difficult to find a clear direction for the play, and can sometimes make the director hesitant about making decisions.

The dramaturg’s help is usually welcomed whether it is contextual, or just moral support during a difficult decision. However, some of the things that a dramaturg can offer (questioning, detailed analysing etc.) can sometimes irritate the director who feels he/she needs “to paint with broad brushstrokes” first.

The other type of directors’ approach comes from a very detailed analysis of the play or a very strong idea or vision. To support this, prior to the rehearsal, they have usually done extensive research. In the rehearsal room a considerable amount of time is spent analysing the play or ‘actioning’ the play, so the actors understand each line and know what to do with them. This can be very time-consuming, though usually the analysis of one scene is followed by floor work on that scene and other exercises/practical work.

The dramaturg’s help here is usually welcomed, though his/her responsibilities might sometimes overlap with the director’s; like editing, cutting or rewriting the text – shaping it to the core idea of the director. However, because during the rehearsal process the director focuses on the “how” (i.e.: how will the actors achieve the desired expressions, interpersonal relationships) and I as a dramaturg focus on the “what” (i.e.: what does it mean for the audience) our roles are different.

The big question is where and how can a dramaturg contribute to these different processes? In my experience working with a director whose method is “approaching from acting” requires lots of research from the dramaturg, and often the research material is well received by the director. The dramaturg is usually needed for making or checking cuts, and sometimes (before the rehearsals start) can act as a “soundingboard” for the director while the director forms his/her opinion on the play. The director also enjoys the moral support (in the rehearsal room) he/she can get from a dramaturg especially in the case of debates, dilemmas or difficult decisions. It is usually appreciated if the dramaturg is trying to help to keep the play ‘on track’ (however strong or vague that track is). There is very little room for the dramaturg‘s help with the analysis of the play. In fact, given the short time allocated for rehearsals this is often seen by the company as impractical.

It may be only coincidental, but in my experience of working with this method there is often a crisis when the company first gets to the end of the play: the last scene (or the conclusion of the play) usually doesn’t make sense! This is the time when a dramaturg gets urgent phone calls to come in and solve the crisis. (If there’s no dramaturg involved, this is the time when a play suffers all sorts of panic-stricken rewrites and cuts.)

Why does this happen? I think this is the time when the un-interpreted play “fights back”. Those obscure sentences, which were not tackled earlier in the rehearsal process, add up to a final confusion where somehow things don’t really make sense in the final scene. This is the time when panic sets in, the company hastily tries to re-cut, re-edit or rewrite the scene and calls for the dramaturg.

The resolution of this crisis depends a lot on when in the rehearsal process it takes place. A day before the premiere, the dramaturg’s job will be merely “fire extinguishing”. Two weeks before it the dramaturg may be able to offer a deeper solution.

Working with the analytic type of director, the dramaturg’s work is slightly different. In this case the director shares more responsibilities with the dramaturg, and if there’s a good working relationship between them this ‘double act’ can prove very useful and fruitful. It gives both of them more time to go into details during the work. When the run-throughs start, it gives the dramaturg enough time and space to deal with the ‘performance text’ as well, since the thorough work on the ‘play text’ has been completed by then. The only hardship of this kind of work is that it can be very time consuming for the company (and not all actors are used to it), so very thorough planning and time-keeping are needed in order to finish all the work; but it is possible. I find this kind of dramaturgy more ‘adult’ – in that I can go beyond the mere basics. It also expands my knowledge hugely and makes me ‘grow’ as a dramaturg.

Working with a director who has never worked with a dramaturg before

I cannot write about what it is like working with a director who doesn’t want to work with a dramaturg or doesn’t like dramaturgs. Because in general, they don’t work with a dramaturg! But working with a director who has never worked with a dramaturg before involves new tasks for me as a dramaturg.

The good thing is that there is an initial trust and curiosity on the director’s side at the beginning – and that’s what I build on. First of all, during my work I am not only working as a dramaturg for this director, but I am also teaching him/her how to work with me. This is a mutual process – we are establishing a working relationship.

In Hungary some directors and dramaturgs are almost inseparable. They work with each other on production after production. So, they know each other’s way of thinking and have a long established working process based on mutual trust. Each subsequent production can only benefit from this chemistry. I’d like to see this happen in Britain. Maybe it would dispel the fear of some directors…

Usually, well before we start working together, I explain to the director what I can offer as a dramaturg and let him/her decide what it is from this range of skills he/she would like to utilise. Then we agree on the way we are going to work together and communicate – but accept that in practice this might change. Therefore we make sure that during our working process we have enough time for feedback – where I learn from the director what kind of help works for him/her, what is it he/she found useful and what is it he/she does not want me to do.

The main thing, I find, is to keep the initial trust and build on it. I am there to support the director; if he/she does not feel this, I am not doing my job well. Yes, there might be times when this support can prove tricky. For example if there’s a hidden or open conflict growing between the director and the company, or between the director and the playwright. Then I need to remind myself that my other important task is to support the production, and try to use all my diplomatic skills in order to do this.

My experience in working with a director who has never used a dramaturg before is that it’s easier to make him/her understand about my “literary dramaturgy” work than about my “floor dramaturgy”. Perhaps because this is the “terra nova” of dramaturgy here, as it’s something literary managers don’t do. Unless it is experienced during the rehearsal it is difficult to explain in what way my floor dramaturgical work differs from an assistant director’s (I won’t dwell on this here, but only state that there is a BIG difference), and what is that extra element I can add to the production, without taking over the director’s chair. What helps me is when I can demonstrate this during our work together. In order to do that, I need space from the director for my work and for my opinions.

Unfortunately I don’t always get this, often because the director has an established way of working and is not always clear about the extent to which I can help in the rehearsal room. Sometimes I leave a production with the feeling that if we would now start working on a production together, the director would have a better idea of what I can offer and use me in a more useful way. That‘s is why I support continuous working relationships between directors and dramaturgs because this can deepen our work, which can only benefit the production in the long run.

Working with a playwright

As a person who has written plays herself, I know how important it is to have honest and constructive feedback on my writing.

Maybe I was lucky, but I found that playwrights like working with a dramaturg, if his/her help is professional. I found these relationships more easily established than relationships with directors. Somehow I found that British playwrights were more open to working with a dramaturg – unfortunately I cannot always say the same about Hungarian playwrights! (Whereas for a director working with a dramaturg is much more established in Hungary. How interesting!)

There are two main rules I apply when I work with a playwright:

* 1, The rule of sensitivity.
* 2, The rule of authorship.

First of all, it is never easy being criticised. I only need to remind myself of how I take criticism, in order to make sure that I don’t hurt the playwright with a harsh judgement. It doesn’t mean that I have to be dishonest and praise everything, but I try to frame my criticism in a positive way. Whenever possible I offer encouragement, and try to show a range of solutions to a problem.

This takes me to my second rule. It’s not me who is writing the play but the playwright. I can help him/her with criticism, suggestions, exercises, research, and days of play development with actors etc., but ultimately the decisions have to be his/hers. I avoid rewriting the play myself – I just point out places where I feel rewriting needs to be done and explain my opinion; or suggest cuts or changes which are then up to the playwright to take on board if he/she decides.

When we start working together I draw the playwright’s attention to this latter rule of mine to make sure that he/she will feel at ease working with me. Obviously, this requires that I truly understand what the play is about, and what his/her intentions are. So during our first meeting I mostly ask questions and try to familiarise myself with the playwright’s thought process. This is very important because it helps to free me from other influences and pressures (from the theatre etc), which may mean I can’t give the unbiased support and advice necessary.

This way of starting our work together can help us through that very difficult first stage before I gain the playwright’s trust. I don’t blame him/her for not trusting me immediately. A play is a very personal thing – it is difficult to step back from it and hear criticism objectively. So I respect any playwright who can do that.

It is even harder when it’s a new play. A new play is a very sensitive thing – it is untested. So, all our opinions about whether it will work or not are equally untested. That’s why I prefer it when a script development can conclude with some practical exercises based on the script, and perhaps lead up to a reading in order to see and hear how it would work. I enjoy these development workshops with actors and the playwright in the rehearsal room. If it is appropriately done, it can help the play and the playwright a lot. There is nothing better for me than to see a play working on stage and a happy and inspired playwright making notes during the trial reading.

In fact, one of the drawbacks of being a freelance dramaturg is, that after the project has ended I have no means of helping the playwright further. In the case of new writers especially, there is a need for further support. Often, even after the project has ended, they redevelop the work, or have a new play, or have questions about the industry they’d like to discuss with a dramaturg who knows their work. These are the times when I wish I had a department behind me to support and nurture these talents, or take these projects further, but as a freelancer there comes a time when I must leave them.

I wish there was some kind of link or network through which we freelancers could meet with Literary Managers/Dramaturgs working full time for a theatre, and feed in our information and findings, and thus not allow these talents to be lost. I guess, in this respect, we freelancers could have the same function that fringe theatres (should) have: being the outpost of new drama and feeding in our findings to these literary departments’ work.

Work on translations

This is another tricky area! This subject alone could fill another article, so I’m not going to go into too much detail. Briefly, I want to mention the latest trend where, in order to achieve a translation of a foreign play, theatres use a literal translator and a playwright. The literal translator translates the play from its original language but keeps it in a “raw” state. Then the work is given to a playwright (who usually doesn’t speak that language) to “tweak it”. I don’t want to get into the debate about whether it is good or bad practise (I’ve seen examples of both), nor talk about the difference between translation, adaptation and version of a play.

I would just like to draw attention to one thing: if a theatre chooses to work with a playwright and a literal translator, more communication needs to be established by the theatre between the literal translator and the playwright throughout the whole process, and further more, several check-points need to be built into the process to make sure that the outcome of the work won’t be different from the original. This latter vigorous editorial/expert work is something a dramaturg could do (provided he/she speaks both of those languages and knows both cultures). This perhaps could guarantee the quality and the authenticity of these kinds of translations, and be a new field where the dramaturg’s knowledge could be well used.

Oh, and one more thing! Theatres should remember all these people’s work later when producing programmes, leaflets and other publicity material! They all need to be properly credited. But this applies to other kinds of work as well. Somehow the dramaturg’s work doesn’t always seem to be credited, which is more than negligent, it is shameful!

Running a new drama competition

Maybe I shouldn’t say this, and perhaps I’m destroying my own further work possibilities, but I don’t think a freelance dramaturg should be employed to run a new drama competition. Not because we are not able to do this, but because I believe that these are long term projects which shouldn’t end after a couple of months. So, I would say to artistic directors: if you want us to run these kinds of projects, please employ the dramaturg on a part-time basis at the very least!

You wouldn’t want to eat out in a restaurant where the chef is a freelancer who whizzes in every evening with his trolley containing his home chopped vegetables and kitchen utensils brought from home! So why wouldn’t you commit yourself to employing a dramaturg on a long-term basis to develop new drama for your theatre?

Recently I had the pleasure of running a new drama competition from the office floor of a fringe theatre – they couldn’t even provide me with a desk! When my contract ended 5 months later, it was hard to leave behind the half-finished development projects of the runners-up and the work with our commissioned playwright, which had just started – I felt it was such a waste! (Later I was called back to finish the play developments, but by then the commissioned playwright hadn’t received enough support and the play “went astray” – the theatre felt it had wasted its money, the playwright felt frustrated, and this all could have been avoided.) I don’t want to blame the theatre: they could hardly afford to run the competition let alone employ a part-time dramaturg, but they felt they had a mission to find and develop new talent. Unfortunately because of the corners cut, I felt this mission did as much harm as good.

But the picture is wider: I cannot leave unmentioned the current system of funding theatres. I find the amount of people in theatres required to work for free, or far less than the Equity minimum, completely unacceptable. I cannot think of any other profession where so much risk taking, volunteering and sacrifice would be required and it doesn’t get either valued or properly paid for!

I also find it problematic that because of the financial unpredictability, theatres cannot really nurture long-term plans. I am convinced that for truly innovative ideas and new visions to flourish, a theatre needs several years of predictable, solid funding; as introducing, and developing new concepts requires time.

But this would take us to the government’s overview of the place of theatres in our society (and the definition of art), which would be beyond the remit of this article. Let us just establish that there are certain dramaturgical jobs, which cannot be properly done on a freelance basis.

How far are we from theatres employing full-time dramaturgs? I’d like to believe that this is going to happen in the not so distant future. Meanwhile, we freelancers remain on Thespis’s cart and like a touring company go from place to place offering our skills and knowledge…

Posted by Hanna at 03:49 PM in Articles | Email this entry

Comments:

No comments yet.

Post a Comment:

<< Back to main