Archive for theatre

The Deafening Roar of Absence: Why Your Show Needs Designers

Posted in Rants, Theatricality with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2016 by KarenElizabeth


I’m working on a show right now that has no sound designer.

In fact, it doesn’t have much design at all.  The company decided to cut corners on the cost of designers, and we ended up with only two, splitting all of the various departments (lighting, video projections, costumes, props, and set) between them.  Sound got left out, somehow.  The director provided mp3s for a few specific moments in the show, and then was surprised when they sounded compressed-to-hell played over the big sound system (’cause an ipod with cheap earbuds doesn’t give enough depth of sound for you to tell that this music sounds like hissy, flattened crap).  But at least, for all that the costumes got delivered last minute and don’t all fit, for all that there are parts of the set that never got painted, for all that the lighting look for the show is too damn dark, there’s at least someone who’s supposed to be responsible for it.

The sound of this show was cruelly orphaned, and the absence of a carefully curated soundtrack is like an anchor tied around the show’s skinny neck, dragging it down and making it impossible for it to fly.  As a mere hired technician, brought in during the final few days before opening just to press buttons and do what the company says, I sit there listening, every time, for something that isn’t there.  Something that can’t be there, because no one conceived of its necessity.  It’s a problem I can’t fix, because it’s not my job, but it’s no one’s job, and that’s devastating.


I can’t even count how many times I’ve been in early-planning meetings and someone — a director, perhaps, or a producer; someone who doesn’t design and doesn’t know how to — says the fateful words, “I’m not really sure if we need a designer for this”.  Whatever department they’re talking about, it’s a moment when every technician and designer cringes.


“But there’s only one sound mentioned in the script; I’m sure someone can find us a telephone ring”.

“But I already know what I want for the set; we can just bring my couch from home”.

“We really only need two lighting washes, and our stage manager knows how to run a lighting board”.

“The actors can just bring their own clothes from home, and we’ll pick out their costumes from that.  If anything’s missing we’ll go to Value Village”.


It is at this point when any designer, technician, technical director, production manager, or literally any sane person in the room should say “NO!”  Say it quickly, before anyone can even begin to consider this horrible idea of not having designers for every department.  Say it loudly, and in a tone of horror, because no one should ever be considering giving in to this temptation to attempt to do it themselves.

I promise you, the audience WILL know the difference.  They might not know exactly what was wrong with the show — might not be able to put their finger on that feeling of unease — but they’ll feel it.  Deep down they will sense that there’s something wrong with this show; something incomplete, perhaps.  Something amateurish.  Something that could have been better, but then wasn’t; like a parade that happened two streets over while you waited for it to pass at the wrong intersection.


In the case of the particular show that I’m working on, the director wanted lots of silence.  The show is Modern, surreal, industrial, and bleak:  there are long, pregnant pauses and strange moments of dark emptiness.  But silence, in a theatre, isn’t truly silent.  Having nothing is distracting; it feels incomplete.  Much like an “empty” stage still has its architectural structure, its walls, its black curtains concealing the backstage, and the line dividing audience and actors (sometimes deliberately crossed, but always, unremittingly present), stage-silence isn’t, truly, silent.  The audience rustles, coughs, and breathes.  A set piece squeaks as it’s moved into place.  The lighting instruments whir and hum, and the lighting board clicks as the technician presses “GO”.  Actors’ footsteps tap across the stage floor and doors are opened and closed in distant, backstage hallways.  Cars go by on the street outside and the wind moves its way around the building, rattling shutters and whistling through gaps.

Like the architecture that surrounds the stage, the edges of the beams of light, the black curtains that conceal the stage doors, or a coat of paint that makes a plywood table look mahogany, a good sound design wraps the space of the play in a barely-perceptible blanket, muffling reality and subtly shaping the world in which the audience’s disbelief is suspended.  A proper “silence” forms the background noise that gives any space its texture; the white noise that underscores every place and time with its constant, barely-noticeable presence.  The dream in the forest is gently supported by the sound of wind, rustling through high-up leaves.  The tower is made darker by the hollow, echoing sound of its stones.  The mysterious cave reminds you of its proximity to the sea by the distant crashing of waves at its entrance.  The solicitor’s office contains the rustling of paper and the distant clicking of typewriter keys, or the murmur of voices from another room.  All of these various white noises tell us where we are, registering at the back of our minds and then fading beneath the actions of the plot and the words of the dialogue.  They keep us in the space, our disbelief suspended.  The scraping of a chair, the sound of a car outside, someone answering a phone call in the lobby — these things drop us back into reality, reminding us that we’re sitting in a theatre in Toronto in 2016, not on a French shore in 1943, or on a castle wall in medieval Denmark, or in a warm Freudian womb.

A sound designer would have watched a rehearsal of this show and come back with a two hour soundtrack of the various white noises required for each scene.  They would have shaped the audience’s expectations and experiences from the moment they walked into the space with a carefully chosen pre-show playlist, had them discussing among themselves at intermission with further music, and leaving in the right frame of mind at the end with post-show sounds.  They would have masked the creaks and groans of the building, the footsteps of actors, the shuffles of coats, and replaced them with gentle sounds that creep in at the edge of your awareness and are then accepted by the mind and mostly forgotten — but not quite.  They would have wrapped the show in a blanket; sometimes comforting, sometimes scratchy, but always enclosing the space and the dream of the play, and keeping the monsters of reality at bay.

When designers and technicians do their jobs right, you rarely notice that they did much at all.  But you can feel it — or the absence of it — like a joy, or like a weight, or like a blanket of emotions.  Not having a designer is like going to the seaside on a day when the water is perfectly, eerily calm, and having your brain cry out for the lack of waves.

I happen to come from a school of design that was all-encompassing in its scope.  When I design shows, I think not just about how it looks and how it sounds, but how it feels, and tastes, and smells.  What is the temperature in the room?  How do the seats feel?  Is there a scent to the building (and do we want to bring in air fresheners, or pine shavings, or dryer sheets, or stale beer?).  Should we have fans blowing air across the audience’s faces?  I want people to move through the lobby in specific ways, and see things on the way to their seats.  I want to serve snacks so that they all have salt in their mouths and feel the thirst of the characters.  I consider where the theatre is — what city, what street?  Who lives here?  What will the audience have passed on their way to the theatre?  What experiences will have shaped their landing here, in these seats, and how can I harness that?  That is the designer’s job.  The playwright gives you the words.  The director gives you the movements.  The producer gives you the audience, and the actors give you the raw materials.  But the designers give you the space and time and world for all of that to live and play within.

The denizens of that world, then, thank you in advance for always hiring designers, and not falling into the trap of thinking that you can do it yourself.  Because while you might know very well what you want, it’s unlikely that you’ve thought of all the other stuff that’s going to muck it up.

with all appropriate credit to Steve Younkins at

with all appropriate credit to Steve Younkins at

Please, for the love of all the theatre gods, hire designers.


In Defense of the Marilyns

Posted in Ramblings with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on August 4, 2013 by KarenElizabeth

215px-LegallyBlondeTheMusicalIn my glamorous life as a contract techie (haha), I’ve been spending the past couple of weeks working backstage as a sound tech on a production of “Legally Blonde, The Musical”.  Based on the 2001 movie, the plot is pretty familiar:  blonde sorority babe Elle Woods pursues a law degree at Harvard in an attempt to win back her ex-boyfriend, and along the way discovers that she’s actually pretty good at this “law” thing when she wins a case by catching two witnesses perjuring themselves:  the first by claiming he’s not gay (but clearly he was, since he didn’t respond to Elle’s cheerleader dancing), and the second by lying about taking a shower after getting a perm (and Elle, of course, knows everything about hair care).  Elle ends up deciding that she’s better off without said ex-boyfriend in her life, getting her law degree, and marrying her T.A. instead.  The show is, of course, plagued by sexism, racism, classism, and homophobia.  If I were to go into all of the problems with the show, this would be a VERY long blog post, so I’m going to stick to just the one that is, in my opinion, the most insidious:  the “Marilyn vs. Jackie” problem.

Something that’s probably very easily overlooked in a casual viewing of this musical is the fact that Elle dropped everything to follow her ex to law school.  She moved across the country, abandoning her dreams of a film career and leaving friends and family behind.  The fact that her dreams changed through the course of the action is all well and good — but  the judgmental attitude towards the life she left behind is something incredibly problematic.  Throughout the musical, her ex refers insultingly to Elle as a “Marilyn” (a reference to a line in the song “Serious”, when he breaks up with her and says that he needs a girlfriend who’s “less of a Marilyn more of a Jackie”, meaning of course Marilyn Monroe and Jackie Kennedy).  Others also heap insults on her liking for hair products, fashionable clothing, and hedonistic pleasures, and at the end of the musical it is joked about that Warner (the ex) dropped out of school and pursued a career as a male model instead.  Elle’s blondeness and her fashion sense are a constant focus, and even when she turns this knowledge to her advantage (most notably, when she uses her knowledge of hair care to catch a lying murderer), it gains her no respect from her superiors (her boss initially compliments her, but then makes sexual advances to her and fires her when she refuses him).  And even Elle herself, and the friends & family she left behind in L.A., comment on how she is able to do “more” with her life when she pursues law.


All of this raises the question:  what’s wrong with being a “Marilyn”?  Elle is clearly a highly intelligent woman.  Combined with her privileged position in life (she comes from money and her parents were able to just casually pay her way through law school — it’s clear she’s never had to work in her life), Elle would likely have found success in any career she chose to put her mind to.  Had she stayed in L.A. and pursued that film career, she’d probably have done well at it (as Marilyn Monroe did).  Who’s to say that her life as a lawyer will truly be more fulfilling than her original plans would have been?  That’s quite a judgment to cast on those who elect to become actors or models or other “superficial” things.

While I think it’s important to support people (of all genders) who pursue non-traditional careers and lives, I think it’s VERY key that we not do so at the expense of those who choose a more straightforwards path.  And yes, it can be a difficult balancing act.  I don’t personally choose to wear makeup in my day-to-day life, but I don’t judge women who do wear makeup in a harsh manner.  I don’t personally want to have kids or a traditional, heteronormative family, but I have to be careful not to treat others badly for wanting those things.  I don’t personally work a traditionally “womanly” job, but I don’t have anything against those women who do (or against women who are homemakers or stay-at-home moms instead of staying in the workforce after marriage).

The important thing to remember about feminism is that women have fought for the past hundred years for the right to choose what to do with our lives.  We can choose to go into traditionally male-centric careers — or not.  And men can choose the same.  We can choose to be Marilyns, knowing that there are other options available to us.  We can decide what is best for us, and what is going to make us happiest and most fulfilled.

Saying that any one choice is not as good as the others, that “manly” jobs are better than “womanly” ones, is just subscribing to the same old problematic set of assumptions that we’ve been trying to shake off in the first place.

My Personal Artistic Manifesto – Updated June 2012

Posted in Ramblings, Theatricality with tags , , , , , , , , on June 14, 2012 by KarenElizabeth

When I first started univeristy, I was introduced to the concept of the “artistic manifesto”.  It was something that struck me as immediately useful, whether for a company of artists or for a single person: a document to which you could return, time after time, to review the reasons why you started out on a particular path, and to examine whether those goals are still valid, whether you’ve remained true to them, and whether some of your practices need to change.

I sat down to writing almost immediately, and after several drafts I had a starting place.  An artistic manifesto that I was proud to put my name to — something to build the beginnings of my career from.

Every so often since then, I’ve sat down and re-read the document I wrote.  I’ve updated it a few times — even re-wrote it entirely, at one point — but certain things have carried through.  Even as the world changes, and my life changes, and my knowledge grows, I like having something that I can go back to.  Something that says, “this is what I want from my life”, so that when I’m facing a choice, or an obstacle, or just feeling unmotivated, I can read my own words and feel inspired.

I spent part of my day, today, updating and re-writing portions of my manifesto.  Not because it had become less valid, but because it’s been about two years since I’d last done so, and some things in my life have changed since I last took a serious look at this.  And when I was finished, I thought:  I want to share this.  So here it is, in its entirety.  My personal artistic manifesto, in its current iteration.



I believe in art.

I believe that art is not merely a pastime, or a hobby.  Art is a necessity for human life, as important as food, and safety, and shelter.  A life devoid of art is not worth living — indeed, cannot even be called “life”.  To live without art is merely to exist, in a sort of existential limbo, awaiting illumination and enlightenment.

I believe that art is the purest of human endeavors, beginning as it does with the most basic of human qualities, the thing that separates intelligent beings from mere animals:  the need to communicate.  When early man painted on cave walls, told stories around the fire, and learned to create music, the purpose was to communicate.  To share, with other intelligent beings, a bit of their knowledge and experience.  And this was not mere entertainment, a simple way to pass the time:  important knowledge was passed on, bonds forged between individuals, and the advancement of the human species was fostered by this great variety of communication.

I believe that art has more power than science, or religion, or politics, because none of these things would prosper without art to support them.  No idea, however grand, can be realized without communication.  If it is not shared, and spread, and accepted into a culture, an idea dies.  Kings and empires have been brought down by the stroke of a pen; revolutions sparked by the notes of a song.  It is our responsibility, as artists, to use and shape this power wisely.


There is no art that is not political.  Art is an expression of the culture from which it comes, whether in support of or against the status quo.  To dismiss art as merely entertainment is to ignore its true nature and power, and the artist does this at their peril.  It is when we engage the power of our chosen medium that we can truly shape the message we convey, and create the most powerful end product.

There is no art that is not collaborative.  Every artist is shaped by the people and the culture and the world that surrounds them, so that even if they create in absolute isolation, they are still bringing the world in with them.  And when the art is shared with an audience, then there is collaboration as well:  the audience’s thoughts and feelings and reactions will shape the art in different ways, so that one piece may touch every single person in a slightly different place.  Thus, art is never static, never “finished”:  it is always living, changing, existing in the present tense for all who encounter it.

There is no art which is “good” or “bad”, for these absolutes cannot apply to the basic need to communicate.  There are, however, different levels of skill with which a piece may be executed, and some art is therefore more effective.  Then, too, there is art that effectively serves its purpose, but lacks any relevance:  this art does not speak to an audience, or does not share anything worth saying.  It is the artist’s responsibility to use the power of their art to its fullest — to always execute a piece to the best of their ability, and to make sure that their message is a thing worth saying.


I believe that artists should always aim to communicate something meaningful.  Without passion, art rings hollow, and quickly becomes irrelevant.  What is meaningful to each particular artist may be different, but what is most important is that passion be the thing at the beginning.

Art is a great motivator for change, and should always be used for promoting action.  Art which supports the status quo is ineffective, as it only promotes inaction.  It is the responsibility of the artist to create that which communicates a need for something to be done.  A participant in art — whether they are the creator or an audience member — should be left changed by their encounter with art, and motivated to go out and do something about it.


I believe that theatre is one of the most effective forms of artistic expression.  Theatre is highly collaborative, to a degree not seen in many other mediums, requiring many different people with a great variety of skill sets to realize a production.  The involvement of the audience is live and immediate, with their presence and feedback providing the opportunity for the same production to be different on every single night.  This immersion and involvement of the viewer places them into a state where they are ready to be impacted and changed by the message being communicated through the art.


It is my aim to create art which is effective and relevant, and to shun that which supports the status quo and inaction.  I will create art that effects the changes I wish to see within the world.

Theatre is my chosen medium, although I am not exclusively a theatrical artist.  I will work to promote the creation of theatre and to advance the craft of the stage.

I believe that art is more effective when it is created with the audience in mind.  Thus I will focus my creative energies on art that is specifically relevant to the people who surround me and who will be my audience.

Art is meant to be shared with others.  I will share my knowledge of my craft and work to create opportunities for other artists, as well as for myself.

I will keep learning, and seeking to learn.  I will never consider myself “finished”, because a piece of art is never finished as long as there are people to interact with it.

I will not give up, no matter what obstacles stand in my way, because to live without art is not living.

I will change the world.

They’ve TAINTed the Turtles!!! Artistic License vs. Fandom

Posted in Ramblings, Rants with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 3, 2012 by KarenElizabeth

Not much time for posting right now, what with The Melville Boys going into the theatre next week (people in Toronto, buy your tickets now!), but had to weigh in on the whole “teenage alien ninja turtles” fan-rage thing that’s going on right now with a few of my thoughts on the subject.

To begin with, these (see above) are the turtles I grew up with.  “Secret of the Ooze” was one of my favourite childhood movies, and it covers the whole origin story pretty thoroughly.  Industrial accident, dangerous mutagenic properties, kung-fu rat, sexy news girl, and a little bit of the old early-90s style environmentalism that touched so many children’s shows and movies of my youth.  So you can bet that when I heard that Michael Bay was planning to turn the turtles into alien invaders (so, the initials are TAINT now?  Like how you’ve TAINTed my childhood joy with your re-writes?) I was first skeptical (they can’t be doing that!), and then furious (oh dear gods they’re actually doing that?)

Now, I try to be open-minded when it comes to updating the classics.  There are some things that require changes in order to transfer to a different medium (ie, turning “The Hunger Games” into a movie required cutting scenes and characters from the book, just for the sake of time and clarity, and changing the narrative from first-person to third-person, for the sake of camera angles).  There are some things that become dated and need to be done away with in a re-working (ie, various versions of Star Trek have updated the technology in different ways to make it look more “real” to a more tech-savvy audience).  And there are times when you just want to change the style in some way to tell the story differently (ie, the new Batman movies have huge stylistic changes — arguably because what had been done before had, well, already been done).  But for any change to be accepted by an already-existing fanbase?  It has to be justifiable.  Yes, you’ll always get those rabid fans for whom Kirk is the only captain, and he can only be played by Shatner.  Closed-minded?  Maybe, but those people are the ones who’ve already found what they love about the series, and they don’t need anything new.  They’re happy to re-watch the same 79 episodes over and over again, ad nauseum, and more power to them for it.

Okay.  I get bored of him after a while, but then, Picard was always my captain.

But I digress.


For most fans, the new is not automatically anathema, and this is where many writers, directors, producers, etc. seem to get themselves confused.  Because while the media loves to present the conflict as a bunch of stuck-in-their-rut fanboys against a bunch of change-for-change’s-sake, canon-means-nothing creators …. well, we all know how the media likes to polarize a situation.  The reality is much more shaded and complex, with both sides having their definite merits (as well as their definite drawbacks).

Firstly, without changes and series’ being re-booted periodically, things would lose their relevance quickly (how many of us would still identify so strongly with a Batman born in the 1920s?  Or a WWII-era Captain America?)  Sometimes things need to be changed, as people’s sensibilities do:  for example, with the Cold War over, the remake of “The Manchurian Candidate” had to be significantly different from the original in order for a modern audience to find it believable (and to cut out a lot of the racism present in the original, which by 2004 was seen as unacceptable).

Secondly, reboots and re-imaginings of things give us a lot more material — a lot more stories — to enjoy.  Even if the original of something was really good and has remained enjoyable and relevant, somebody else can often take that source material and do something just as enjoyable with it (Batman’s a great example here:  I have trouble actually choosing a “favourite version” of The Batman because there are so many good ones out there).

click for the "full" version of this, which is pretty awesome


At the same time, though, changes need to be made with respect towards what has been done before.  If you’re taking a story beloved by millions, that has been worked on by many artists before you?  You can’t just up and change things however you may please, because even if you own the copyright, the story does not belong to you.

That’s one of the beautiful things about art, you see.  The process of creating a thing, of taking an idea and bringing it to life?  That’s only half of the artistic equation.  The other half is the audience.  How a piece is viewed and received has a deep effect on both the meaning and the message of that work.  This relationship between art and viewer is most obvious in my realm, theatre, where the audience is actively present in the room and their responses to what is happening on the stage will change the show in subtle (or sometimes not-so-subtle) ways.

Now, obviously there are times when an artist has to simply disregard an initially negative fan-reaction in order to create their personal vision.  In order to create something new and interesting, sometimes you do have to break canon.  But it’s not a decision to be made lightly.  Fans, even the less-than-rabid ones, do not lightly let go of their attachment to something which they have lived and loved — and this is not a bad thing.  Human empathy is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species, and it is why art can be so powerful:  when we see something truly well-crafted, we don’t just watch it, we actively participate in it.  Artists who accuse fans of being “too entitled” are disregarding the very thing which can make their work a resounding success.

So, what does this mean for the turtles?  Unfortunately, Michael Bay’s track record (ugh, Transformers, don’t even get me started on that one) is not good with re-booting classic, beloved series’.  I doubt that he has the necessary respect for the source material that is required in order to make such a drastic change be a successful one, and he’s certainly done nothing in the days since this shitstorm hit the Internet to reassure.  Had he immediately come out with a great reason forwhy he was changing the canon?  My interest might have been piqued.  As it is, I don’t know if I’ll even bother to watch this in theatres — it might be one of those things that I only watch later, at home, out of morbid curiosity.

But then, perhaps it will surprise me, and I won’t mind the TAINTed turtles so much after all.  Not holding my breath or anything, though.

Let’s Try This Again … Sea Cucumbers, Bipolar Disorder, and Artistic Integrity vs. Ego Issues

Posted in Ramblings, Rants, Theatricality with tags , , , , on January 21, 2012 by KarenElizabeth

So … it’s been a while since I’ve been here, hasn’t it?  I have excuses, but they’re not particularly good ones — suffice to say that the past few months have consisted mostly of a series of terrible upheavals that have left me in an emotional state roughly equivalent to the life of a sea cucumber:  waterlogged, squishy, defenseless, and not particularly capable of doing much of anything.  I’ve spent a lot of time trying to distract myself with various projects, and the rest of the time being a complete wreck and doing a lot of crying, pacing, lying in bed and staring at the ceiling, and various other compulsive activities.  And with so many days when even the simple act of hauling myself out of bed and across the apartment to feed the animals was almost beyond my capabilities, blogging has been pretty much entirely neglected (I say “pretty much” because there have been a few posts I’ve at least *thought* about writing, but that’s as far as I’ve been able to get, of late).

All of this is, sad to say, probably a very clear sign that my bipolar disorder is, once again, out of control.  I was, for several years there, functioning rather well without therapy or medication, but it seems that I really do need to start searching, quite seriously, for a new therapist.  I’ve not had one since before moving to Toronto, so it’s a daunting task, but obviously something I’m in need of.

I don’t think I’ve talked much on this blog about bipolar disorder or my own struggles with it — a lot of it is very personal, emotional, and probably not very interesting because it has to do with things that are all entirely within my own head.  I’ve also been lucky enough to not have to deal with many of the more severe symptoms often associated with bipolar disorder, nor do I have any of the common co-occurring disorders (schizoaffective disorder, psychosis, or PTSD), and thus have been able to live mostly medication-free, through behaviour-management techniques and careful management of my diet and exercise … but my experiences aren’t typical, and thus are unlikely to be very useful to others who suffer from the disorder.  Most people need medication, psychotherapy, and a lot of outside help in order to deal with this sort of a disorder.  I’m just lucky to have relatively mild symptoms most of the time, and I’m also particularly stubborn when it comes to showing emotions to the outside world, or seeking help from it, so I’ve arranged mys life in such a way that it can allow for occasional meltdowns without too much difficulty.

This meltdown has just lasted quite a bit longer than my “usual” ones, and thus has not been so easy to accommodate.

One major factor in the duration of this particular episode has been, sadly enough, the direct result of my usual coping mechanism.  Generally, when I’m having a bad time, I’ll take on a new project or two, to keep myself busy.  Manic episodes are often associated with great creativity (this is why so many famous authors and artists are associated with this disorder), and having a place to channel all of that energy is useful — while depressive episodes are often associated with lethargy, which can be fought against if you’ve got some deadlines to meet.  In this case, I jumped on the opportunity to work on a theatre production, which is normally something that I would enjoy very much.  Unfortunately, I picked the worst possible theatre production to be working on, and in the end it only increased the problem.

Now, most of the people working on this show were absolutely wonderful.  I’d recommend working with any of them — except for the director.  This woman is, to put it mildly, a complete and absolute bully, with no regard for anyone but herself.  Artistically brilliant, yes — her work on the choreography was particularly impressive — but socially?  Completely inept.  For the actors, this didn’t seem to be too much of a problem (although two did walk off the show early in the rehearsal process, citing “artistic differences”).  Directors are often domineering types, and actors are supposed to defer to their desires in the interest of having a cohesive show.  For designers and other artistic workers, however, this sort of behaviour can be absolutely impossible — and, in the end, I had to leave the show a week before opening night, because it had become just too difficult to work with this woman.

I’m sharing this story not to be vindictive or to spread nasty tales — note that I’m not giving the name of the director (though if you are a Toronto theatre artist and would like to add her to your personal blacklist, please feel free to contact me privately for further information), but because I feel that I have an important point to make about the way that theatre works (or, in this case, the way that it *didn’t* work).  This is not the first time that I’ve had to deal with one awful personality ruining an entire show, and I’m sure it won’t be the last (although I could certainly wish that it would be).  The fact that such things happen, though, is a direct reflection of a problem faced by smaller, non-professional theatre companies all over the place: the lack of any established system for dealing with personality issues.

In a larger, professional theatre company where everyone is paid a wage for their work (rather than work being largely on a volunteer, profit-share, or stipend-based sort of system), there’s an HR department.  Artists and workers at any level within the company have a liaison that they can go to if they are feeling abused or mistreated, and there are established protocols for dealing with conflicts.  In smaller companies, and especially in those run largely on volunteer power, there isn’t this option.  Conflicts have to be dealt with very much on a case-by-case basis, and often there isn’t a clear person to whom an abused company member can turn, especially when the abuser is someone in a position of power (a director, producer, or stage manager, for example).  And even if there is someone to whom a wronged party can turn, there may not be any protocols in place to be followed, leaving helpers somewhat muzzled and unable to do very much.  In my particular case, when the director began to verbally attack me and my work, and to claim (loudly) that she possessed “veto power” over anything that I, the designer, might desire to do (a boldfaced lie, of course: the designer is always in ultimate control of their own design), I went to the show’s two producers.  They, unfortunately, lacking guidelines to follow, were unwilling to hand down harsh discipline, and thus were unable to prevent the attacks in any way.  Eventually, things progressed to the point where the director was physically attacking my set (making major changes to it while I was out of the building, without informing or consulting me in any way), and the producers still felt that they were unable to tell her “you can’t do that, put it back the way it was”.  As a result of that, I had the choice to either stay on and simply deal with the fact that the director was making changes and live with those changes, or to walk away.  As an artist, I couldn’t endorse the changes being made (they were not, to my mind, changes that effectively represented the artistic vision of the show), so I had to walk.

Now, obviously there are two major problems here.  One is self-evident: a director who doesn’t know her place, and is treating another artist poorly.  The second problem, however, proved ultimately to be the more insidious and destructive one: the muzzled producers, who did not feel that they had enough power to step in and stop the first problem in its tracks.  They did, of course, theoretically have that power, but since they were unwilling to use it, the director was able to go unchecked.

In light of this, I have formed the opinion that all theatre companies, large or small, should take the time to formalize a disciplinary procedure.  Something should be discussed and written down, agreed upon by all, so that if problems do arise, a person in power (be it producer, director, artistic director, production manager, stage manager, or whomever), can point to that written agreement and say, “this behaviour is inappropriate, and this is how we’re going to deal with that”.  There should be clear guidelines of what is and is not acceptable behaviour, as well as defined levels of punishment (at this level of behaviour you get spoken to, at this level you are under observation, and at this level you are fired, for example).  Just the establishment of such guidelines would likely serve as a force for good — I’m quite sure that if the director I was dealing with had felt her own position was at risk, she’d have stopped with her bullying tactics and tried harder to be a decent team player.  But even in cases where the written guidelines are not enough, you’ve now got an agreement on what should be done when negative situations arise, thus preventing the problem of impotence on the part of the supposed enforcers.

I’m trying very hard not to let the crushing disappointment of seeing my design, my creation, being ripped away from me and destroyed by an uncontrolled bully, stop me from being enthusiastic about continuing in theatre.  I love theatre, and I love what I do within it.  There are assholes to be dealt with in every possible job (I’ve dealt with a few in non-artistic jobs, as well), and one can’t let a negative experience get you too down.

So I’ll push on.  I’ll try to blog.  Try to spend less days lying in bed and lamenting the state of my life and the world.  And maybe one day I’ll reach a level of success where I can crush all the bullies like bugs beneath my sexy, six-inch heels.

What?  A girl can dream, right?

Everybody Dies! The Musical

Posted in Theatricality with tags , , , , on August 16, 2010 by KarenElizabeth

So you may have noticed a lack of activity here in recent weeks.  My apologies about that.  Between work, trying to get a new jewelry line ready to launch, making my sister’s graduation present in time for when she starts university in less than a month, working on a lighting design for a musical, and social-life-ness, writing posts has fallen a bit behind in the “importance” list.

I suppose you spotted “working on a lighting design for a musical” in the above list, and that’s what this particular post is about.  If you’re in Toronto and have a free night coming up, I suggest checking it out (warning, the website has music that plays automatically).  It’s the preview performance of a new horror musical with a sort of Sweeny Todd/ Nightmare Before Christmas/ Rocky Horror/ Terry Gilliam feel.  We open Thursday night at the Poor Alex theatre, just west of Dundas and Bathurst.  It’s just a preview performance — a few scenes and songs from the final thing, which goes up in the early spring, plus the “Shameless Showcase”, a collection of other artists and musical acts that will be taking part in the entertainment.  The tech might be a little slapped together (we only have one evening to do it in, really, plus a few hours right before the show opens), but I’ve got it planned out pretty well and I think it should come off decently, if not seamlessly.  And the actors are a good bunch, with some very talented singers among them, so they should cover whatever technical deficiencies I may be supplying.  Unlike some shows I’ve had the misfortune of working on in the past, I actually seem to get along well with everyone involved in the production and there haven’t been any massive personality or artistic clashes … at least, none that I’ve had to deal with.  The writer/director’s a cool guy who I’d definitely work with again, and the stage manager shares my sense of humor, so we’ve had a pretty good time so far.  The venue managers are a bit difficult to deal with at times, but I think I may be putting too many expectations upon them … they’re really not that experienced, and I’m still a bit spoiled from having so many highly experienced professionals around while I was at school.

Anywhos.  The show opens Thursday, and it doesn’t cost much to come.  The venue is licensed, so even if my lights totally suck you’ll be able to drink until you can tell me with a straight face that you liked them.  And I’m sure it would make everybody involved very happy if we could have some nice, full houses.  Success at the preview will make it that much easier to set a decently sized budget for the real thing, which would be a really nice change for me after working on mostly low-to-no-budget stuff since leaving university (and even while I was at university, we never seemed to have enough money to put on what we wanted).  See my previous rant about arts funding for my opinion on that particular beast.

Shameless Promotion: InspiraTO Festival

Posted in Ramblings, Theatricality with tags , , , , , on May 30, 2010 by KarenElizabeth

So for those of you in Toronto, this week marks the start of the InspiraTO festival of 10 minute plays.  Why do I announce this, you ask?  Because I happen to be the assistant stage manager of the festival, and so I’d be happy to see very full houses for every show.  It’s not my artistic creation in any way (I’m just helping things run without a hitch), but I’m still part of it and I want it to go well.  Most of the plays are by Canadian artists, and I’m sure you all know by now how I’m all about supporting your local arts community.

[Sunday Night Edit]:

Just got back from the first tech day, and wow, it feels SO amazing to be backstage again, on a show with serious theatre people.  It’s like re-entering my natural habitat after being away for a year (the show last October doesn’t really count since it was such a miserable failure and had such miserable people involved).

The shows look really great so far, and that’s with the tech only half-done, so I’m definitely redoubling my encouragement for everyone who’s able to go out and see them.