In a relatively recent opinion piece, Washington Post theater critic Peter Marks wrote the following:
True lovers of the performing arts know that, as much as it’s consoling to feel the powerful resonances of old works, the true measure of a nation’s artistic vitality is what the art-makers are creating right now.
When I read that quote, my immediate response was an enthusiastic, heart-beating-out-of-my-chest “YES!” –which is, of course, just a fancy way of saying that I agree with him. (A lot.) In fact, I loved the quote so much that I immediately shared it on Facebook and via email with several friends. I wanted to spread the joy.
Not much later, however, I happened to tweet the same quote in response to a discussion I was having… and several of my Twitter friends immediately took issue. One is a Shakespeare-phile, so I could of course see why she’d find it frustrating… but she didn’t actually dismiss the quote out of hand. She argued that by staging new productions, they ARE creating new work. I can, naturally, see where she’s coming from… but I disagree.
To me, the fundamental premise of theater is storytelling, not storyREtelling. Unless the story is new, the art isn’t fully new. (The tellers are always, by definition, new, since theater is live in the present moment.) Â Old stories help us understand the past. The have relevance to the nature of humanity, of course, but human nature evolves — the modern mind is in many ways different than the 17th-century mind — and thus many old stories have a shelf-life. New work helps us understand human nature, too, but also lets us grapple with the present tense and imagine new futures. Without new art, we cannot fully comprehend the world in which we are living.
That’s why I agree with Peter. (Though he may, of course, have meant something radically different.) To be clear, I’m not advocating for any kind of doing-away-with the classics (especially not Shakespeare). I merely think we ought to preference new work far more heavily than we do, both as audience members and as art-makers.
What do you think?
I agree. (I KNOW–SHOCKING!). We make the mistake of thinking human nature does not evolve. That humans 500 years ago are just like us except with more elaborate undergarments and poorer plumbing. The only caveat I would make is that not all new plays are new stories. Just because a play was written today doesn’t mean it’s telling something new or significant or useful or vital or alive. A brand new play can be just as dusty and dead as anything you pull out of the history books.
You’re right. I’m shocked! I promise not to take it for granted.
I hope you will also be suitably shocked that I agree with your clarification. A subtle but very important distinction, in fact.
Just to play devil’s advocate (because I so enjoy that role), I would say that just as Steve notes that “not all new plays are new stories,” so too not all old plays are “Re”storytelling. Sometimes by telling old stories in new ways (or mounting old plays in new ways or from fresh perspectives) we are, in fact, seeing a new story told. Â The famous Peter Brook production of Midsummer from 1970 is an example or, more recently, Caridad Svich’s revisioning of Iphigenia, which in its outer trappings tells the same story Euripedies told but in a way that makes it about something more contemporary.
That having been said, I love Peter’s quote too because ultimately the vitality of the art will come from our ability not just to re-vision the old in new ways but to envision the present in new ways.
I do agree with you, Linda. I think the problem is (or my problem is) that most re-mounts of old plays (or “replays,” as some of us have started to call them on Twitter) don’t incorporate the kind of re-invention you have in mind. I consider Oedipus El Rey, for example, a new play. Wouldn’t you?
Interestingly G, I would say we in DC considered/treated Oedipus El Rey a new play (we = Woolly, NNPN). But a good section of the audience recognized it as replay. However: what OER did was authentically open up conversation about the local resonance of a issue/topic and allow for open cross-constituency dialogue about the personal impact of the play/production. Definitely helping us explore our word here and now, and not exploring the past. From my own work at dog & pony dc where we take classical texts and narratives and (alert: technical term) f#%k with them in order to make visceral/contemporary productions… it is about using the known and familiar to leap into the present. Which I think is a hard and fine line to walk. The key always seems the triangulated relationship between art, artist, and audience, surrounded (encircled?) by our shared and immediate present circumstances.
Hi, Rachel — thought of you this morning. I’m wearing the Goodman baseball cap you gave me. (Remember that?) Still love it — thank you!
In response to OER: I wonder whether that segment of your audience — the folks who considered it a “replay” — were largely members of the theater community, or perhaps at least the more highly-educated/well-read members of your audience. In other words, maybe the same work can be a newplay and replay at the same time. Which I think is cool.
You are, I must add, very articulate about Dog and Pony. I think it’s also pretty cool.
Gwydion: I totally love that you still have my G hat from the Goodman. I think about it on occasion when I reach for my K hat from Kenyon… and think “well this has nothing to do with my name!”
I would agree 100% that is the segment who considered it a “replay.” And also caught all of those folks who had to read OEDIPUS in college for everything from poli-sci to comparative religion. Totes agree in the simultaneous newplay/replay. Which is what I think Luis did with that play. AND I would also say is what d&pdc did to a slightly less degree for COURAGE (our production/adaptation of MOTHER COURAGE in 2010).
I missed the Howl today due to a prior engagement… but maybe some of what makes a replay a newplay, or maybe more of a newplay than a replay, is the way the production addresses the production aesthetic/style/format. I love love love me some Brecht and Greek tragedy and Shakespeare… but how can using them as a diving platform allow us to dive into a deeper end of the theatrical producing pool… or leap into new territory.  (bad metaphors, apologies)
And goodness, if I am not articulate about dog & pony dc’s work.. they should find someone to replace me on the leadership team. Â 😉 Â
You will probably not be surprised that I don’t agree (at least for the most part). I agree that “what art-makers are creating right now” is of the utmost importance. However, I agree with your friend that new productions of old work can be just as vital. Just because the plot is the same as it was hundreds of years ago does not mean the context is. As we revisit an older play we revisit not with the writers eyes but with our own. With each new visit we should be discovering something new, we should be telling a story that resonates now with that audience. I think the new play/replay, as Rachel mentioned is some of my favorite work. I keep thinking about Mabou Mines DollHouse or Wooster Group anything. But sometimes a simple and clean production of Streetcar Named Desire or Hamlet can change how I see the world around me.Â
No, I’m not surprised. I am, however, glad. I value a diversity of opinion. I value (civil)Â conversation among folks who disagree with one another. And I want this blog to be a welcome place for both of those things.
To be clear — and I think I am in my post — I’m not saying we should never mount Streetcar or Hamlet again, period, end of story. There are great consolations and comforts and even a bit of delight and surprise to be had in familiar works. I just think we mount them far too often. I think we would do the world more good by exploding and reinventing and re-mixing (a la Charles Mee, for example) old plays than by just plain putting them up, too. And I think we err much too greatly on the side of re-telling rather than telling. How can we expect to (as Jung said, and as Taylor Mac reminded me the other day) “dream the culture forward?”
Even if we look once more at Hamlet with new, modern eyes… we are learning at least as much about Hamlet, I think, as we are about ourselves. When we look at a new play, we are only learning about ourselves; and that’s a useful thing.
I think when we look at a new play we are learning about ourselves and about whatever went into that new play – from the playwright’s history to research about other places, times and peoples. At heart we don’t disagree. We both want new work. I just happen to think that new work can mean an old story.Â
Let’s push this one step further, can we? Because I want to see if we really do mean the same thing. I’m fine with an old story *re-told or told differently or re-imagined* in some way for a modern audience. Something must be fundamentally different… at the very least, changing character names and setting, but that’s a poor option. Much to be preferred: updating the language and integrating new memes. At which point, for me, it almost becomes a new story; it’s at least a hybrid of old and new.
Asked another way: what for you would “new work” made from an “old story” look like? And what exactly would make it new?
I agree that in order for it to be “new” it would need to be told for it’s modern audience. I think where we will disagree is that I don’t see those changes as needing to be from the text.Â
So fascinating.
I think somewhere in my mind, I have come to believe that the text IS the story. Everything else is just… help.
I’m not saying this is true. I’m saying that’s an assumption I carry around.
However, I do think it’s LARGELY true, or most often true. But I also believe there are probably (many?) exceptions. This is my gut speaking, mind you.
Finally, I’ll say that if you only change the “help” — poor word, I know — there’s only so much “newness” that can be imparted to any story. To me.
Both Mabou Mines and Wooster Group are long-term ensembles of artists committed to new work, even when it is based on older plays or stories. All over the country there are other ensembles–Rude Mechs (Texas), SITI (NYC), DoubleEdge (MA), Theatre Grottesco (NM, Strike Anywhere NYC), Under the Table (NYC), New Paradise Laboratories (PA), Universes (NY), Cornerstone (CA), Dell’Arte International (CA-my company)–that, like the two mentioned, create new work constantly. But because ‘new work’ and ‘new plays’ are assumed to be the work of single playwrights, as opposed to plays written collaboratively or devised new works, the US theatrical landscape can seem much barer of ‘new work’ than it actually is. If the definition of new plays included the significant creative output of artists working on making new theatre by means other than the work of a sole playwright, we would see a blooming field of theatre makers working with new stories, old stories, adaptations, myths, and more, all over the US. For a list of over 100 ensembles and what they do, check out Network of Ensemble Theatres (NET)
http://ensembletheaters.net/members/
I was blown away by Oedipus El Rey (seen at the Magic Theatre in SF) and would have a hard time saying whether it was new or renewed. If we agree there are no new plots, it becomes a lot easier to call it new. I certainly was aware of the parallels with the original as I watched it, just as I was blown away by where Alfaro took it.
I saw another adaptation this year by a playwright whose other work I’ve enjoyed and it left me cold and wondering whether it was too faithful to the original despite its changes.
I myself mostly write original (I hope) work. But I have a copy-and-paste maladaptation of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice http://chasbelov.wordpress.com/the-beginning-of-grammar-work-in-progress/. It’s not new, in the sense that I have done almost no rewriting of Shakespeare’s words, but it is new in the sense that, aside from perhaps half of it being new words, nobody would ever consider it the original play.
I’m planning my own take on Medea as well.
In my theatre-going, I have a strong preference for seeing newer work than older work. Thank goodness I live in the Bay Area, where such work is readily available. I just checked; I saw about 35 productions this year, and around 20 of them were three years old or less so far as I know.
I’ve been mulling this since that conversation first cropped up on Twitter, and been looking forward to this post.
Neither of us sees it as an either/or situation. But I’m not sure I agree with the premise that new plays aren’t already preferred, but that may be more an intuitive judgement than anything else. I need to 1) crunch numbers [that may be different between Washington and Toronto], and 2) be sure I understand your definition of “new play” because I recall you saying that you include “second productions” in that category (which I actually see as quite distinct and a more neglected category than either of these…)
I do indeed include second (and maybe third and fourth) productions in this category, on the assumption that the work continues to change during those initial introductions to the world. After that, it becomes more fixed.
But I look very much forward to your crunched numbers. If I had a data analyst, I’d have asked him/her to do the same for me already…
Also lacking a data analyst, over the holidays I’ll just try and sit down and just do a count based on the shows I’ve seen this past year for the Doras. How does this sound for categories?
1) Brand new works – wholly original
2) Brand new works – adaptations, translations, etc.
3) New-ish works (2nd, 3rd, 4th productions, etc. – essentially, the playwright is still involved)
4) Recent works from the past decade
5) Works that are more than ten years old – Canadian
6) Works that are more than ten years old – International
Those strike me as pretty close to the right categories. Good data broken down along those lines (in several different metropolitan areas) would teach us a LOT.
My only concern is the last category. Can’t international work also fall into categories one through four as well?
Those last two are where we start to move into the classic/canon category… and I’m distinguishing between the two just because our canon is relatively young, under-produced, and in need of meaningful new looks…it’s something different than doing Streetcar or Hamlet.
Pingback: #theatrewrap: Play Debate and Dynamic for Broadway « TicketVoice: The Official TicketForce Blog