Just Wrought

Recovering playwright, once won a STRANGER Genius Award for theater. Now writing a bloated novel about… G-d help me! Theatre.

Tag: Mike Daisey

  • Record Corrector

    Saying that what Mike Daisey does isn’t theatre is not equivalent to saying that what Jackson Pollock painted isn’t art. Rather, it’s equivalent to saying what Jackson Pollock painted isn’t photography. I make this argument in greater detail in my essay, “The Solo Show: A Risk Averse Artistic Administrator’s Best Friend” which is, beyond a reasonable doubt, what Omar Willey refers to in his withering list of “nonsense” and “childish territorialism” nestled within his hot-off-the-virtual presses criticism of Culturebot’s recent evening  Everyone’s a Critic. Omar’s essay is worth the read despite the red herrings and half-thrown gauntlets. Just as— I like to think— my essay on one-person shows is also worth a glance, despite its putative shortcomings.

    Easily one of the three smartest people I know, Omar Willey is a mensch’s mensch. His contributions as the founding publisher of The Seattle Star are profound, and his thinking on how criticism can make Seattle theatre better is vital to the conversation, no matter how proudly he praises his own prolixity and opacity. (Trust me: it’s quite not as bad as he hopes.) If, however, Omar were always right, I would be compelled to worship him as a fearsome god, instead of treasuring him, as I do, for the dear friend he is.

  • Mythical Reasons for Not Listening to Sandbox Radio

    Mythical Reasons for Not Listening to Sandbox Radio

     I Hate Theatre

    “I heard I had to see Sandbox Radio in the theatre to get the full experience.”

    Hey, listen, as a playwright, let me  assure you that I hate theatre more than you do, and in ways you have never even thought to think of; but just because Sandbox Radio Live! is recorded at West of Lenin’s intimate but fabulous black box in front of a live audience, that doesn’t make it theatre anymore than Mike Daisey reading from his notes in the Bagely Wright makes what he does a play.  (You can delve more deeply into this distinction here.)  The podcast of Sandbox Radio is the full experience. The bonus of going to see it live is like getting to watch Chef Tom Douglas cook your dinner at Dahlia Lounge. Witnessing the prep’s a super-cool extra that only a few people are ever going to get to experience.

    The Inimitable Leslie Law, SBR's Mistress of Ceremonies

    Prairie Home Companion sucks

    “Another “old-timey” radio show?  Been there, listened to that. Next.”

    Uh… you’re high.  Give just one of these podcasts a listen and you’ll see how far from Garrison Keillor our Mistress of Ceremonies Leslie Law takes these recordings. The band ain’t folksy, it’s thumpin’!  And the dialogue is distinctly R-Rated. You can listen to Sandbox Radio Live! on headphones at work, safe in the knowledge that what you’re doing is secretly and securely NSFW.

    It’s Too Late Now

    “If I try to plug into Markheim at this point I’ll be totally lost.”

    Admittedly, listening to a randomly selected episode of my noir-angel-detective serial is sort of like picking up a comic book mid-volume and trying to figure out what’s going on.  In other words… it’s awesome!

    Paul Mullin and Charles Leggett in Markheim

    Isn’t this a Seattle thing? 

    “I don’t live in Seattle.”

    Congratulations. I wouldn’t wish living here on a roving band of  Uruk-hai. Lucky for you, each podcast gives you ~90 minutes of rich Seattle experience while you can still bask in the sun and/or snow and/or hurricane conditions common where you currently live.Rebecca Olson in SBR 7

    Isn’t this a Seattle thing? 

    “I already live in Seattle.”

    Congratulations! Don’t tell anybody else how awesome it is here, please! If you need put-off material, I have a great little geeky LOtR-insider joke about a roving band of Uruk-hai you can use. But here’s the thing, fellow Seattleite: even if you’ve lived here all your life, you don’t know this city like the writers of Sandbox Radio do. We’ve found the places, stories and people that make Seattle—hmm, what’s a kind way of putting this?—“unique”, yeah, that’s it. Witness this delicious morsel of real-life dialogue captured and then re-staged from Seattle’s moveable epicenter of danger-tainment, the 358 metro route to Aurora. (All dialogue guaranteed overheard on the back of the bus.)

    GUY ONE: You wanna talk about John Lennon? Shit, that shit
    wasn’t even meant for him.

    GUY TWO: What?

    GUY ONE: That bullet. S’posed to be Paul McCartney, yo.
    That’s who dude wanted to shoot.

    GUY TWO: Really. McCartney?

    Shawn Belyea and Todd Jefferson Moore in Sandbox Radio Live!GUY ONE: That’s a fact. And dude will never get out of prison.

    GUY TWO: Well, you know, they were all Irish.

    GUY ONE: Sure.

    GUY TWO: And I always thought that must’ve been weird, growing up Irish in London. Must’ve been hard for them. Where the music came from, you know?

     None of these writers are Davids Mamet or Sedaris.

    “Sure, I’ve seen some of Sandbox Radio’s actors on Seattle’s Big House stages.  But if this ‘Scot Augustson’ is so great, why haven’t I seen anything of  his produced  at the Rep.”

    Uh… you realize that question answers itself, right? A regular and relentlessly versatile contributor to Sandbox Radio, as well as other great companies throughout Seattle and beyond, Scot Augustson is without question one of the best artists currently living and writing for the stage. (At least I think he’s still alive.  Homey lives hard up in Rat City.) Scot’s always doing something new for Sandbox, ranging from an original poem, to a hardboiled detective story for forest animals to the new sure-to-be-a-hit Seattle serial, Cousin Katie from Ketchikan. The only reason I don’t consume myself with jealousy for Scot’s talent and accomplishments is that his stuff is far too much fun to watch, or, in the case of Sandbox Radio, listen to.  Every time I want to hate him he makes me giggle. Giggling is death to hate. You’d think someone would have put that fact to good use by now.

    It’s too hip.

    “My tux is at the cleaners.”

    This bon mot comes from friend and colleague, Mark Handley, best known for his play Idioglossia, which was later produced as the Jodie Foster film, Nell.

    It’s okay, Mark. I just pulled your thong out of my dryer.  You can wear that while you listen.  We’re  casual.

    The Amazing SBR Sound fx crew 1

    • Listen to the most recent episode of Sandbox Radio Live! here.
    • Select from all the earlier recordings here.
    • And if you really feel strongly about seeing it live, well our next show’s at West of Lenin in Fremont on April 29.
  • Please Let the Daisey Debacle Mean More Theatre/Journalism, not Less.

    Please Let the Daisey Debacle Mean More Theatre/Journalism, not Less.

    A lot has already been said about the revelation that Mike Daisey fabricated many portions of his one-man show, The Agony and The Ecstasy of Steve Jobs: a piece he previously passed off as entirely truthful reportage, most egregiously on This American Life, a nationally broadcast public radio program. I leave it to wiser minds to sort through all but one of the many questions Mike’s transgressions raise, reserving for scrutiny only that which I feel I am particularly qualified to examine: what impact will Mike’s dishonesty have on the intersection of theatre and journalism?

    A huge number of people are familiar with Daisey’s work creating and performing topical monologues at some of the most prestigious venues in America, from the Seattle Rep to New York’s Public Theatre to the Woolley Mammoth in Washington, D.C. A much smaller number of people know of the work produced by NewsWrights United, a theatre company I co-founded and serve as Executive Director. We dramatize news using a form invented in the early 20th century called the living newspaper, and all of our stories are researched and written by local Seattle playwrights. (Memorable examples include Scot Augustson staging the farcical misadventures of a reporter/photographer duo sent to Detroit a week early to cover the Seahawks only Superbowl appearance; and on the serious side, Pamela Hobart Carter’s lyric poem/play about the psychic damage done by the Green River Killer.) On first appearances, NewsWrights United and Mike Daisey seem to occupy similar territory in the art/news nexus, but in actuality I believe we do something fundamentally different, and if I can tease apart for you these differences, I earnestly hope to convince you that coverage of news in the theatre is something worth saving even if Mike Daisey’s methods are not.

    I predict two reactions to this crisis from artistic administrators at U. S. regional theatres. The first is already in evidence. Institutions that have already booked Mike will mostly stick with him, echoing his essential tack: “Yeah, lying to the public radio program TAL was wrong, but lying in the theatre is obviously eminently forgivable. After all—heck!—isn’t all theatre lying?” Artistic administrators are not widely known for the courage of their convictions, however, so I further predict that over the next year or two, while the controversy dies down, they will quietly divest themselves of as much Daisey stock as possible, so long as it doesn’t cost them too much to dump it. What’s worse, I also predict they will take the dreadfully wrong-headed step of underscoring this divestment with an abandonment of all new work that explores the intersection of theatre and journalism. (The exception to this new silent ban will be, perversely, Mike’s inevitable one-man apologia, which regional houses will be falling over each other to stage.)

    But forsaking the theatre/journalism intersection does not have to be our future. With hard work, honest self-examination and courage we can take this opportunity not to withdraw but advance the genre. As a once and, with luck, future practitioner of news theatre, I venture to offer some practical advice on how we might achieve this.

    Expand the Pool

    Beyond his extraordinary talent as a storyteller, Mike’s shows appeal to regional theaters across the country because they are cheap and easy to mount. Most important, they are portable. If you are looking to plug a little topicality into your otherwise staid season, you cannot do it more easily than by giving Mike a call.

    Living newspapers are much more difficult. To create effective alternatives to the Daisey Debacle, you have to give up some of the conveniences of the one-man show; most crucially, you have to give up the idea of “one-man.” Actual plays are vast collaborative efforts, featuring dialogue among and between more than one player on stage. The play development process contains a built-in organic vetting process that zeroes in on “truth” even when the story, like Agony/Ecstasy, is more accurately classified as fiction.

    For instance, I am working with Rebecca Olson’s project Custom Made Plays to develop a script for her and another actor. Every week I sit in a room with them and the director, carefully combing through the script with questions. The process is gentle but relentless, and when a false note gets rooted up, we pounce to replace it with something more “honest.” Many of the moments in Agony/Ecstasy that Daisey promised us were real were not. In retrospect, they reek of bad fiction now that we know that is exactly what they are.

    I reach into my satchel, and I take out my iPad. And when he sees it, his eyes widen, because one of the ultimate ironies of globalism, at this point there are no iPads in China. …. He’s never actually seen one on, this thing that took his hand. I turn it on, unlock the screen, and pass it to him. He takes it. The icons flare into view, and he strokes the screen with his ruined hand, and the icons slide back and forth. And he says something to Cathy, and Cathy says, “He says it’s a kind of magic.”

    Daisey’s a fine writer and I have no doubts he could have avoided this tripe, offering instead something genuinely brilliant, if he had only admitted it was fiction in the first place and then collaborated with performers and a director to sharpen it.

    Living newspapers expand the pool in more than one dimension. Beyond just other actors in the room, you must also let in other writers. How much would anyone trust a newspaper with only one reporter who also served as the sole editor? NewsWrights United engaged several local playwrights for its living newspaper about the demise of the actual newspaper, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. By spreading the attack, we were able to cover a number of different beats—sports, politics and arts coverage at the P-I—in a wonderfully varied spectrum of styles, some of which implicitly “watermarked” their stories as fictionalization (but more on “watermarking” later.) Using more artists allows you to cover more kinds of stories, leading to another way to better provide theatrical news…

    Up Your Local Content

    It certainly was exciting to watch “David” Mike take on “Goliath” Apple from the stage of my local regional theatre; and certainly my local regional theatre enjoys, along with regional theatres across the country, the imprimatur of international relevance when such a story as Agony/Ecstasy gets told.  However, we lose a huge opportunity when our big houses keep mounting the very same one-man show, instead of staging local news that actually has as much, if not more, to do with the lives of local audiences as does Applegate. Let’s dare to flip the model and have each theatre produce its own living newspapers, telling stories about their own communities, and sure, plugging in national stories such as those Mike tells when appropriate.

    I promise you: locally grown journalistic theatre is not only doable, it’s been done. In NewsWrights United’s last effort, The New New News: A Living Newspaper, we locally sourced nearly all of our stories about the crisis in journalism brought on by the digital age. Our play It’s Not in The P-I: A Living Newspaper about a Dying Newspaper gave voice to locally beloved P-I reporters so that a community eager to hear their tales finally had the opportunity that no other medium would give.  We also broke important exclusives into the buy-out process that the Heart Corporation used to cherry-pick and union bust their newsroom as they shuttered the print version of The Seattle P-I and moved to an all on-line edition.  It didn’t hurt that one of our founding producers, Tom Paulson, is a professional journalist, formerly the P-I’s science reporter, and currently writing for NPR’s Global Health site, Humanosphere.

    Use “Watermarks”

    Not everything that takes place in a theater is theatre. If this is news to you, you might not be to blame. The theater = theatre fallacy is happily perpetrated by artistic administrators to fill their seasons with the easiest fare to produce. (Click here to see my essay on this.) True theatre is rife with “watermarks” built into both the text and context of a play to remind you, sometimes explicitly but mostly implicitly, that what you are seeing is to some degree false.

    “Watermarks?” You say. “How come I’ve never heard of these watermarks before?” Well, for two reasons: One, I just started using the term in a theatrical context about a week ago when I was trying to explain why Mike should not be allowed to take refuge in our art form. Two, watermarks are so endemic to theatre that we tend to look right through them, like reading glasses. The Greeks used masks as watermarks. Shakespeare and his contemporaries stitched their plays out of the watermarking fabric of Iambic pentameter. Not a single tradition within our grand form lacks them, but an exhaustive list is superfluous to this argument, because the definition of theatre is the ultimate watermark: two or more people staging a live dialogue (before you ask, no, it doesn’t have to be with words) within the physical perception of other people. Think about it. Someone tells you a story on the street. She could be lying. She could be telling the truth. But two or more people obviously acting out a story in front of you? Without question there’s some tomfoolery going on here.

    Of course there is an important stipulation implicit to the tradition of tomfoolery and even blatent dishonesty in the theatre: we demand ardent honesty about our dishonesty. We tell you were going to lie, before we do it, while we do it, and after we do it.

    If we shadows have offended,
    think but this; and all is mended
    that you have but slumbered here
    while these visions did appear 

    When you reach the certainty that we paltry players are lying, you can begin to understand that we are actually telling the truth. Daisey could have easily entered this tradition. He could have done all the good works he claims to have hoped to have done within it. Instead he took the risk that selling fiction as non-fiction would get him further. It did. But he got caught. And now he’s run back into our house claiming sanctuary. Brother Daisey has forgotten that theatre’s unwritten canon is as unyielding as the ecclesiastic: the crimes of the church can be punished within the church. If he wants sanctuary here, he will have to work hard and long at his penance.

    Here’s a simple rule of thumb about watermarks: a theater (i.e. the venue) cannot serve as a watermark; theatre (i.e. the work of art) must contain the watermarks that prove it false, and thus prove it true theatre. Otherwise you’re just some guy telling me a story and if you tell me explicitly that what you’re saying is true, I am likely to take you at your word.

    A living newspaper has an even greater obligation than conventional theatre to watermark early, often and obviously. For example, when we staged the Twitter stream of the Maurice Clemmons manhunt (He killed four Puget Sound cops in cold blood), we did not alter a single word of the tweets, though obviously, since there were over five thousand, we had to whittle them down considerably. We knew we could not give an accurate portrayal of what it was like to witness this stream in real time. No one could. Not only was it a moment passed, but in a way it was a meta-moment. No one person witnessed it in its entirety. So we posited the next best thing. We staged the stream as a symphony of actorsNEW NEW NEWS Twitter Chorus, Photo by Chris Bennion dressed in blue bird suits, evoking the Twitter logo. We weren’t just trying to be funny (though god I hope we were). We were saying, “Obviously we can’t give you the literal truth. Pay no attention to the blue bird suits if you don’t want to, but every (often idiotic) word these actors declaim was actually tweeted over that 3-day ordeal.” (Here‘s a segment on this section by Seattle’s NPR affiliate KUOW did .)

    Not only did Mike refuse to use watermarks, he actively defumigated the theatre of all its delicious anti-sanctity.

    “… Mike told at least me time and time again [that the story] was true. He insisted that “This is a work of non-fiction” be printed in playbills.” 

    Alli Houseworth,
    former marketing/communications director
    at Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company. 
    (You can read her excellent essay by clicking here.)

    Mike didn’t want a watermark within a mile of any house he played. He wanted us to believe every word he charmed us with. And now he encourages his defenders to ridicule and condescend to the very people who took him at his word. “We are all liars and hypocrites,” says Mike. There is something particularly vicious about the man who would punish others simply for being the victims of his sins.

    Act Like it Matters

    The worst thing I heard in response to Daisey’s dishonesty was this from a friend of a friend on Facebook:

    “I never believe you theater folk – you’re a rascally bunch.”

    Yeah, we’re rascally. But sometimes we are able to illuminate stories that journalists themselves are not willing to touch, like when NewsWrights covered the closing of the P-I. And sometimes we are able, like Daisey, to tell a story like Agony/Ecstasy, in such a moving way that we inspire people, perhaps otherwise impossible to inspire, to action. However, in order to poach a bit on journalism’s turf we have to be trusted.  Do we really want to give up this wonderfully fertile ground just because Mike Daisey lied and then excused his lies as so much “theatre”? Do we really want to let him claim sanctuary in our church where we have established traditions stretching across millennia of being scrupulously honest about our dishonesty?

    In answer to this question, the silence from big house artistic administrators so far has been pristine. Clearly theatre has a leadership vacuum in addition to its identity and relevance crises. No one seriously denies that we are simply not producing enough new, fresh, locally sourced material to keep our audiences engaged like Shakespeare’s were, or even Shaw’s. Projects like Daisey’s and NewsWrights United’s help mitigate the problem, but only if we take the issue of truthfulness seriously. We have to act like it matters. We have to show our audiences that we give the issue of truth consideration and respect, or they will walk away from us forever.

  • Art Picks up Journalism’s Slack Again

    I went on record a while ago saying that I will not be doing reviews here at Just Wrought.  However, in order to make a couple of larger points later, I will have to stipulate some things about Mike Daisey’s performance last night at the Seattle Rep’s production of his new one-man show, The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs.  Here’s why:  I was pressing my way out of the theatre after the show, doing my best to spare myself and Kurt Beattie the awkwardness that always ensues when we try to casually chit-chat, when I overheard an older and obviously well-off man say to his wife, “I’ll be interested to see how his [meaning Daisey’s] performance grows after a couple weeks.  I mean, this was only just opening night after all.”

    Yeah. 

    So let’s get something straight from the start: Mike Daisey’s performance was brilliant, alternatively hilarious and harrowing; funny and furious: one moment cannily manipulative and the next heartbreakingly earnest, and it only grew more compelling as the evening progressed.  Frankly, I expected no less.  Daisey is a brilliant performer.  Full stop.  What’s more, he’s a consummate professional, meaning that he will bring that brilliance to every performance he does of this piece or any other, night after night, week after week, venue after venue.  To engage in speculation about whether Daisey’s performance will improve or decline after a couple weeks is to indulge in the worst kind of aesthetic fetishism, and worse: it lets you off the hook of the message. 

    Unfortunately, this hobbyist’s game has been getting played more and more here in Seattle.  “Hans Altwies’s performance was brilliant the other night,” says the canny theatre-goer, making plain that she not only knows Hans Altwies by name, but also understands the nuances of his work well enough to gauge when he’s brilliant and when he’s not.  Well, I got news for ya, knowing theatre-goer.  Hans Altwies is always brilliant.  Like Mike Daisey, Hans is a consummate theatre professional, and he’s going to give you the acting goods in great plays, okay plays and terrible plays alike.  What’s more, Hans is not the only brilliant actor in Seattle: we have at least a hundred world class actors in this town—way more than we can sustain with a living wage.  What we do not have in huge supply are shows that matter, right here and right now to our fellow citizens.  (Yes, I understand Of Mice and Men is moving.  But no, I do not agree that staging it yet again can make a wit’s worth of difference in most people’s lives.)   The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs is different.  In his show Mike is telling stories that you simply cannot and will not hear anywhere else—true stories about the lives of our fellow human beings who make, by hand, the “shit”—as Mike calls it– that we consume.

    If you are reading this on a digital device (and how could you not be?) Mike provides a journalistic investigation that is as intimately connected to your life as the technology you are using right now.  He did the risky leg work that no “professional reporter” was willing to do, and he got past the corporate obfuscation that no other journalist could breech.  If you want to hear these stories in the next few weeks, the only way you can do it is to show up at a specific place, the Seattle Rep, at a specific time and listen to Mike tell them to you.  If you say to me that the Rep’s tickets are too pricey, I will listen respectfully and sympathetically, but I will counter with a question of my own: how much did your phone cost?  Was it more or less than a ticket to Mike’s show?  And how can you really assess how much it really cost, unless you find out how it was made and by whom?

  • The Solo Show: A Risk Averse Artistic Administrator’s Best Friend

    The Solo Show: A Risk Averse Artistic Administrator’s Best Friend

    The fourth in a series of essays entitled: 
    Towards a World Class Theatre

    Some fifteen years ago Dawson Nichols and I were having lunch at a long gone Japanese noodle house on Broadway when he asked me an awkward question that I will now try to do a better job of answering.  Back then we were not the close friends and collaborators we are now—more like respectful but wary competitors for the title of AHA! Theatre’s Golden Boy.  Dawson had a much better line of attack on the prize, because while we both wrote strong multi-actor plays, Dawson also amazed us all with his impressively diverse catalogue of one-man shows, including Stop/Start, Virtual Solitaire, I Might be Edgar Allen Poe and Three Descents of Darwin.  I have always been captivated by Dawson’s one-person work. 

    I have also always had my theoretical reservations about the genre, as Dawson must have suspected that day over yakisoba when he challenged me squarely, “You don’t think my solo work is theatre, do you?”  I must have made a weak apologetic smile. I must have hemmed and hawed. I think I finally answered, “Strictly speaking, no, but—“ and then went on to make some half-lame explication, but the look on Dawson’s face showed it all: hurt and disbelief at my dismissive arrogance, even as I tried to explain how much I respected him as a generative and performing artist.

    So perhaps now, with my friendship with Dawson a little more secure (I hope), it is time to make that earlier explication sharper, and then explore that explication’s implications within our regional theatre administrator’s collective half-conscious effort to re-forge by fudging a new definition of the art form and thus raise the number of one-person shows they can get away with and still claim that they are practicing theatre.

    Before writing this I decided to do a little research by reaching out to my compadres over at 14/48 via Facebook:

    Paul Mullin

    April 9 at 3:32pm

    Hello lovers!

    Any and/or all of you can answer. And yes, I’m going to quote you in my blog. I’m working on an essay about one-person shows. And my question is this: “Why don’t you ever have the option of drawing just one actor in the actor draw? Are there any other reasons beyond the fact that that poor schlump would have to memorize too much?”

    Let me know.

    Love,

    Paulie

    clip_image001[4]

    Shawn Belyea

    April 10, 2010 at 3:56pm

    Re: Question for the 14/48 Crew

    Cuz one-person shows are dumb. Mostly it’s memorization and it’s supposed to be a collaborative effort so we want actors to have some company.

    clip_image001[6]

    Jodi-Paul Sanford Brown-Wooster

    April 11 at 1:06am

    I hate one person shows. And yes, I’m looking at you Lauren. There is no intrinsic dramatic tension with one person, it’s fakey.

    clip_image001[8]

    Peter Dylan O’Connor

    April 11 at 3:52p

    One person shows are fucking glorified camp fire stories…

    clip_image001[10]

    Matthew Richter

    April 11 at 8:33pm

    i love one-person shows. and i think they’re an interesting challenge for 14.48.

    but i’m retired.

    xom

    If you seek consensus, you would be wise not to consult the prophets of 14/48.  Once again, I am left to my own opinions and devices.  I proceed with that caution for you, my gentle reader.

    Basically, solo shows boil down into two kinds: the actor’s tour de force and the enlarged lecture.  Dawson Nichols shares the first tradition with Anna Deavere Smith, Chazz Palminteri and countless other talented writer/actors, who generate shows that then require them to become all of the characters on stage, even at times performing both sides of multi-sided dialogue.  Over the last few decades, it has become an increasingly effective way of growing an actor’s career.  Palminteri literally leveraged himself into playing the principal role, Sonny, in Robert DeNiro’s directorial debut film A Bronx Tale, which began as Palminteri’s one-man show of the same name.  As Rik Deskin, Aristic Director of The Eclectic Theatre points out, “When you’re self-producing/self-promoting, a solo show is one way to get yourself out there.”

    My friend and comrade-at-arms, Mike Daisey, presents from the lecturer tradition, most recently reinvigorated by Spalding Gray, but one which runs the gamut, in just this country alone, from Jonathan Edwards to Mark Twain and right on up to David Sedaris and Sarah Vowell.  This kind of show employs more direct address, less actorly technique.  Instead of primarily inhabiting other characters, the lecturer’s own personality ties the evening together.  In the hands of a Daisy or Sedaris it can be hugely fun, funny and compelling, but no one plying the trade 130 years ago would have thought of calling themselves a theatre artist, even if a particular night’s performance happened to take place in a theater—unlikely in that age, since theaters were rarely dark and there was a plentitude of active churches, as well as all sorts of lecture halls specifically built for this purpose.  As different as these two kinds of solo show are, and as much as it seems the Nichols / Deveare Smith variety is much closer to theatre as we know it, they both represent variations of the much older, and completely honorable tradition of story telling.

    Theatre, however, is something really quite different.  It happens in the preternaturally galvanized space between two or more people on stage and the other people in the audience.  It sprang forth from its older sibling, storytelling, in that radical moment when the teller pointed at someone in the campfire circle and said:  “You be me.  I’ll be the wolf.  We’ll show them how it happens.”  Thus a whole new art form was born.

    As a solo lecturer, Mike Daisey has a point of view.  And a damned good one too.  He makes no bones about telling you what to think.  And if you want my opinion, you should listen to him.  I have a different role as a playwright and a different box of tools.  I can show you things happening, but it is up to you what to make of them.  Theatre is dialogue.  Not as part of the narrative, like in a novel, but as all of the show.  Even if no words are spoken, dramatic action takes place in a framework of implicit dialogue: people doing things to other people. This is why our collective audience hackles go up whenever a narrator starts telling us the story instead of enacting it.  Good playwrights understand this and know how to leverage the discordance of direct address narration (see Shakespeare’s Chorus in Henry V or Wilder’s Stage Manager in Our Town).  Lesser playwrights never seem to learn: you can’t tell an audience anything.  They can only be shown.  They can only ever come to their own conclusion about what is happening.

    Dialogue breeds risk like flowers bloom scent, and risk is the fabric of theatre.  Because two or more people on stage can never know with certainty what an other is about to do, no matter how many times they have done it before, the audience attends the action with a sense of the innate exposure.  “Anything could happen, and we are in the same damned room with these agitated people.”   Risk is not a by-product of drama.  It is the main ingredient.  

    Nothing wrong with masturbation, but everyone knows you cannot tickle yourself.   Likewise, I cannot, as a performer, ever surprise myself to the degree another performer can—arguments about unexpected inspiration notwithstanding.  When there is another actor on stage with me, I have to watch, I have to listen, I have to be wary.  Other actors can push you around, and you can push back.  No one can manufacture this kind of risk in a solo performance, no matter how earnestly the performer tries to convince his corpus callosum  not to tell his left brain what his right plans on doing.   Sure, an actor can mimic dialogue, playing both sides of a conversation, but even at its very best this trick still contains an unconscious but unavoidable note of condescension, like Donald Rumsfeld asking himself ostensibly difficult questions about the Iraq War in a press conference and then answering them with ostensibly matter-of-fact brilliance.  True dialogue adds a crucial dimension which defines theatre, just as surely as the third dimension of physical depth defines sculpture. 

    Theatre also trades on what we show folk loftily refer to as “the willing suspension of disbelief.”  Wikipedia defines this notion as “the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience tacitly agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment.”  (I should fully disclose here how I hate this term, mostly for its gratuitous gracelessness.  I mean, is the double negative really necessary to nail the point?  What would be wrong with, say, “fabrication of belief?”)  In a solo show disbelief can never be truly suspended.  At best, it can be sent to detention, where it still manages to sulk and grimace and call attention to itself.

    Let me be clear.  By pointing out that one-person shows are not, strictly speaking, theatre, I am in no way trying to denigrate them or argue for their banishment.  It has been a long standing tradition for regional theatres to opt for filling one slot in their season with an easily produced, low-overhead solo show, but indications are rising that Big Houses in this town intend to lean on this option more heavily in the future.  The Seattle Rep recently announced its 2010-2011 season in which they will be offering not one, but two solo shows,  The K of D in the smaller Leo K venue and Mike Daisey’s new piece on their Bagley Wright mainstage (a relatively unheard-of placement of a solo show for them.)  If Daisey does well (and as his friend and colleague, I cannot help but hope he does) you can bet you will be seeing more mainstage solo offerings from the Rep.  It is just too cheap for them not to.  And as long as no one’s complaining that they are not actually doing theatre in their theater, well…

    Meanwhile, next door at the Intiman, they have answered with unblushing cynicism the call for more locally grown new plays by staging The Thin Place which they laud on their website as “the second world premiere by a local writer in Intiman’s history.”  Note the pride with which they admit a fact of which they should rightly be ashamed.  Using a solo show to rectify their abysmal record reveals how little they wish to risk on the attempt.   How quickly will Intiman abandon and distance itself from The Thin Place if it does not do well with critics or audiences?  How likely are they to offer up the now tired Big House refrain when a locally grown piece does not catch fire right away?  “See?  We tried ‘locally grown’.  It just doesn’t work.  Can we please go back to retreading Pinter, Mamet and off-Broadway’s last season?”  Always behind such excuses are obfuscated variables of production and promotion that contribute to a given show’s putative failure but that go unnoticed and unconsidered in public.   In this case,  the crucial factor that will not be mentioned is that The Thin Place is a one-man show, and not, strictly speaking, theatre at all.

    Regional Big Houses defend their solo performance offerings like a richly-endowed sculpture gallery might defend an exhibition of paintings.  “We love sculpture.  And of course we are a sculpture gallery, but sculpture itself is expensive and difficult to maintain.  Instead, why not enjoy some lovely paintings of sculptures?”  Paintings of sculptures can indeed be lovely, but not even an idiot would call them sculptures, any more than Mark Twain would have referred to himself as a theatre artist 130 years ago.  Solo performance billed as theatre is a pig in a poke.  The unpredictability of human beings interacting lies at the heart of what we are selling in the theatre.  We trade it out and bank our future on its diminishment at the very risk of our art form’s soul.

    Next up: “Good Friend for Jesus’ Sake Forbear and Never Build another Proscenium Stage”

  • “World Class” = Fighting Words

    “World Class” = Fighting Words

    The third in a series of essays entitled:
    Towards a World Class Theatre

    When I started mouthing off in a more public and formalized way about the state of theatre in Seattle, I expected some blow back.  This is the Northwest after all.  The very same person who in real life might cross the street in order to avoid saying hello is happy to anonymously savage you in your blog’s comment section.*  What I did not anticipate was that the most controversial thing I could propose would be that theatre professionals should work together over the next five years towards making Seattle theatre world class.  This, apparently, was apostasy that certain Seattleites simply could not abide.  The objections sorted out into three essential themes:

    “What are you talking about?  We’re already world class dammit!”

    Why do people not think it’s a “world class” theatre community now?  If you talk to someone who moves here from… the midwest or the south, they are enthusiastic about the Seattle theater scene.
    Heidi Heimarck, responding to the 2009 Rain City Projects Survey

    We all may look back ten years from now and recognize that Seattle is today a thriving community.  There are issues, yes, but there’s some great stuff going on if you look at it right.
    Jerry Manning, RCP Survey

    Seattle is just about a world class theater community, it just is not aware of it, and seems to refuse acknowledging it.
    Jose Amador, RCP Survey

    “Five years?!?  Are you crazy!?!”

    5 years is a short span of time, given the effect the economy is going to have on the arts over that period.
    Anonymous, RCP Survey

    I think Seattle has lots of potential, but I’m not sure it could get there in five years. But lots and lots of potential.
    Rachel Hynes, RCP Survey

    I have packets of Kool-Aid if you’d like some.
    Andy Jensen, RCP Survey

    “Define your terms or prepare to die!”

    I’m not sure what it would mean to be a “world class” theatre community.
    Mike Daisey,  RCP Survey

    Define “world class.” If world class means NY or London, why would we go out of our way to suck that hard? “World class” doesn’t mean anything, it’s not a tangible objective. It’s a marketing term, a feeling, some kind of psychological compensation. A goal is a $10MM theatre industry by 2020. A goal is 20 Seattle-based playwrights making $100K annually by 2020. A goal is every Seattle theatre at 90% capacity by 2020. Whatever the goal, it has to be tangible – something that can be measured in precise terms.

    Louis Broome, RCP Survey

    Does it mean Seattle theatre is regularly discussed in world newspapers? …Other countries regularly import Seattle productions to run in their local theatres? Plays written by Seattle natives are produced in other countries?  Seattle theatre gets lots of mentions in The Drama Review? …  What goals do you propose that when met signify arrival? How is Seattle tracking today against those goals?
    Jeffery Reid, commenting on my kick-off essay “Towards a World Class Theatre

    I hate the need to be world classy unless someone can define it for me.
    Matthew Smucker, 2009 RCP Survey

    To have a world class theatre town, you must first define what that means.  You define the goal.  I believe that we discussed the importance of having a goal and you coyly responded several times that that was not necessary.

    Margaret Mullin, my sister, in an email I asked permission to quote.

    My sister is right.  I did respond that it was not necessary to define my terms, but there is nothing coy about it.  We not only do not need to lock down what “world class” means, it would be unwise for any single one of us to try to do so.  Louis Broome hit it on the nose:  “‘World class’ doesn’t mean anything …. It’s a marketing term, a feeling…”  Such was always my intention.  All the extremely smart Seattleites, Louis and my sister included, who demand something perfectly specific and quantifiable are, to my mind, like a group of outraged soda lovers storming Coca-Cola headquarters demanding: “What do you mean, ‘Coke is it?’  What the hell does ‘it’ mean?  You say you’d ‘like to buy the world a coke’?  You can’t be serious?  Do you know how much that would cost?”

    Having worked at the lowest levels in corporate America for nearly two decades to support myself and my family, I am exhaustively acquainted with the standard management mantras: 

    You cannot change what you do not measure.

    If you’re not measuring, it doesn’t count.

    But as someone who has heard these litanies chanted, at putatively great Seattle companies where I have worked from MidCom to WaMu— companies that dominated their industries and then ultimately failed— I know how deeply data-bedazzled senior management can fixate on charts and dashboards that actual workers have no realistic way of affecting for good or ill.  Such high-minded, good intentioned strategizing has become the roadmap for enfeebling an entire nation.  As my good friend and great editor, Charlie Loyd points out: “WaMu failed precisely because it had goals so clear and measurable that they took over from sanity.”

    So what I am proposing is a little different.  I am asking all of my colleagues to decide for themselves what would make Seattle a world class theatre town, and then work on those goals on which they believe they can individually move the needle.  We can employ the “wisdom of crowds” to get this done.  Surely a gifted scenic designer like Matthew Smucker has different ideas about how to elevate the game to “world class” than a gifted managing director like John Bradshaw, and both of them would differ from a poor playwright’s approach.  With us all working diligently, though, in our separate tracks, overlapping when possible and appropriate, we could certainly reach our collaborative goal of world class theatre; and once there, not need to debate the point, because, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart espousing his timeless definition of pornography, we will “know it when [we] see it.”

    We are theatre professionals— I usually prefer “show people”, but for the sake of this argument, make no mistake, we are professionals, whether or not we pay dues to an out-of-touch union.  We ply the art of theatre—the art of “say-so”.  I say it, and thus it is so. 

    I am the King of England come to Agincourt.

    This wooden O holds the vasty fields of France.

    Seattle will be a world class theatre town in five years.

    I understand not everyone is sympathetic to this particular brand of rhetoric-as-reality.  Louis Broome again: “As mission statements go, ‘Seattle as a world class theatre town,’ stirs me not at all. ‘Seattle is the epicenter of a theatre revolution,’ is a good start.”  But I have misgivings about bandying a word as inescapably violent as “revolution.”  It implies a zero-sum game— some winning while others lose.  The game I suggest, if played well and with underlying generosity, need not have any losers at all.  Revolutions come and go and tend to be suggested by folks who do little if any of the actual fighting.  This city craves something more sustainable.  (And if Chairman Mao taught the world anything, it is that nothing is more hateful than a sustained revolution.)

    Then there are those who see the effort as beneath us, like my colleague, former Seattle Weekly drama critic John Longenbaugh, responding to my essay “1448 Afterwords and Forwards”: “I really wonder if the whole question is frankly provincial. I really don’t think that London, Chicago or New York artists, critics or audiences worry if they’re still doing ‘world class theatre.’ So why should we?”

    Ah.  I think I see.  Nothing is more provincial than aspiring to be more than provincial.  What wonderful latte logic: frothy, appealingly bitter, and artfully laced with a barely noticeable hint of syrupy self-loathing masked as indifference.  But the strong and black cup-o’-joe fact is that you can safely bet your sweet ass Chicago cares.  A lot.  As do New York and London.  As a former reviewer, John might take particular notice of the title The Chicago Tribune’s drama critic Chris Jones came up with for his blog, Theater Loop: News from America’s Hottest Theater City.  How is that for self-aggrandizement?  And from a critic no less!  Boosterism like this is a flogging offence among Seattle’s professional theatre goers, as S.P. Miskowski, who recently moved to Los Angeles, points out in her response to Longenbaugh’s comments.

    The work I’ve seen in Seattle is, as John said, on a par with New York and London. What is not world class is the way theater is perceived in Seattle. When people decide where the limited amount of money will go, they fail to consider that theater is making the city more livable, more exciting, and more interesting. They fail to give theater its due. So do (some of)  the critics. My view is that theater artists accept lousy critiques from unqualified reviewers on a regular basis out of fear that if they don’t make nice they will be squashed. …And there’s the smug assumption that positive reviews are what we want when we say we want better reviewing. It isn’t. We want people who can read and write and evaluate. We want people who stay for the entire show. We want people who write about the show and not themselves. Most of all, I hereby call for a change in attitude among editors and critics–to take theater seriously as an art form. I dare you to take it seriously…. Take as a given that Seattle IS a world class theater city, and keep that in mind when you plant your butt in a free seat and start taking notes?

    Where I differ with S.P. is that I think critics own less responsibility for the “it-ain’t-cool-to-think-you’re-cool” campaign than many artists and artistic directors themselves.
    60; Then again, I have innate issues with ceding any undue influence to a questionable and ever shrinking handful of opinion mongers.  Certainly no one can deny that this self-defeating predisposition against self-promotion runs deep and wide through Pacific Northwest culture.  Its origins are beyond my East Coast ken or caring to explicate, but suffice it to say, in the theatre at least, we can and will change it.

    Chicago, New York and London never miss a chance to promote their respective scenes.  They not only “worry” about it.  They spend money on it.  Lots and lots of money to make sure their theatre districts keep drawing tourists and locals alike, to the playhouses themselves and to all the businesses that depend on them: the restaurants, bars, souvenir shops, and so on and on.  We want, in a few short years, to be able to go to our mayor, now newly elected, and say, “Seattle is now a world class theatre city.  We said it would be so.  We worked at it and made it so.  Everybody who lives here and everybody in the greater American theater community knows it.  Now kindly spend some of that money and prestige we have earned this city back on us.”

    As I inveigh against self-defeating specificity, let me be specific about one thing.  I am not asking that we benchmark ourselves against New York or London or Chicago.  Playing a toy replica-scale, inferiority complex-driven version of their game gets us nowhere.  Our smallness and uniqueness and, yes, even our geographic remoteness can work just as strongly for us as against.  You can get your arms around the Seattle theatre scene.  You can, if you work hard enough and long enough, confidently claim to know all, or almost all, of the players.  A small, nimble, semi-quarantined community such as ours can make its own unique claims on world class.  We can, if we want, be doing work that no one anywhere else could possibly do.

    We are show people.  We can claim to be anything we want to be.  The more outrageous and untenable, the better, so long as we ultimately back it up through sheer creative brilliance.  We are not obliged to subscribe to any preordained corporatized benchmark.  The audience is our only arbiter.  So long as we give them what they want, or better– what they did not even realize they wanted until we made them want it in the first place– we are doing our jobs superbly.  We should stake our claim, without irony or arrogance, to becoming a world class theatre community, and when, and only when, we convince our audiences, then world class is what we will be.  Because we say so.

    ****

    *I no longer allow anonymous comments on my blog.  As I wrote when the first one was posted: 

    I know it’s considered the custom of the internet country to post anonymously, but there is no tradition of it in the theatre. In the world of live performance, one says one’s words in public and stands by them with their body. So as a rule I won’t be accepting any more anonymous posts. Stand and deliver, people!

    Many of the quotes I have included in this essay came from the 2009 Rain City Projects Survey, which, as a member of the RCP Board, I helped to design and distribute, and then analyze the returning data.  The results were made public in August of 2009 and a more detailed report is available at RCP’s Facebook page:  http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/notes/rain-city-projects/the-rain-city-projects-survey-results-are-in/123960970745

    Because I am an unrepentant data geek, and because this essay does not have any other pictures let me share one of the results graphs here.  You can draw your own conclusions, but clearly a majority of the Northwest theatre community currently believes Seattle is a good but not great theatre town.  Its rating as a new play community is significantly less high.  I think these are connected.  Once we get better at developing and disseminating strong locally grown plays, our stock as a theatre town will rise to “world class.”  That is a data gauge needle that I can get behind trying push.