I love this so much. I've been thinking a lot about things I (and other theater people) do that we do....because that is how we do things. So much of our practice is unexamined, and we all assume that the way we do things is the only way. Because it's how we do things.
I've been working really hard to think about whether I'm making choices or replicating patterns. It's okay if my choices match those patterns I inherited, but I'm trying to be intentional about choosing them. It sounds like you're doing that too.
I love this. I bet this is true of almost any discipline we find ourselves in -- I know I notice it in television and movies, and I'm not surprised it would apply to theater as well, especially in the reinterpretation of classic plays. Are you thinking more about how you direct? how you interpret the plays? or both?
I love the language you use here, too. "Unexamined practice", "making choices or replicating patterns". That's such a clear way of putting it.
And I like what you said about it being okay if our choices match the inherited patterns, but trying to be intentional about choosing them. I think sometimes it's easy to go in the opposite direction and try to reject all the established patterns and come up with something completely original, especially in the art world. My feeling is that usually results in something nonsensical for the viewer and exhausting for the artist. As usual, it's about finding a unique balance that fits our own style.
I mostly mean the actual practice of creating plays, meaning what our processes are like in rehearsal, rather than reinterpretation of classic texts (there's a lot of that happening, I think people understand that we need to think about this).
For example, many theaters do something called "10 out of 12" for tech rehearsals, which is basically where you're working for 10 out of 12 hours (it will usually run from 10 am to 10 pm, but there's an hour for lunch and four 15-minute breaks). A production might have 3 of these days in a row. These rehearsals are dangerous and dumb; actors tend to get injured toward the end and nobody is doing good or useful work in the last couple hours. I've refused to do them for years, and now (within the past couple years) there is an industry movement to stop doing them, but for the longest time, everyone just did them because...that's what we do. The looks on people's faces when I say, "Yes, but could we just ...not?" are priceless. They never considered that we might *not* need to do it this way.
I love this so much. I've been thinking a lot about things I (and other theater people) do that we do....because that is how we do things. So much of our practice is unexamined, and we all assume that the way we do things is the only way. Because it's how we do things.
I've been working really hard to think about whether I'm making choices or replicating patterns. It's okay if my choices match those patterns I inherited, but I'm trying to be intentional about choosing them. It sounds like you're doing that too.
I love this. I bet this is true of almost any discipline we find ourselves in -- I know I notice it in television and movies, and I'm not surprised it would apply to theater as well, especially in the reinterpretation of classic plays. Are you thinking more about how you direct? how you interpret the plays? or both?
I love the language you use here, too. "Unexamined practice", "making choices or replicating patterns". That's such a clear way of putting it.
And I like what you said about it being okay if our choices match the inherited patterns, but trying to be intentional about choosing them. I think sometimes it's easy to go in the opposite direction and try to reject all the established patterns and come up with something completely original, especially in the art world. My feeling is that usually results in something nonsensical for the viewer and exhausting for the artist. As usual, it's about finding a unique balance that fits our own style.
I mostly mean the actual practice of creating plays, meaning what our processes are like in rehearsal, rather than reinterpretation of classic texts (there's a lot of that happening, I think people understand that we need to think about this).
For example, many theaters do something called "10 out of 12" for tech rehearsals, which is basically where you're working for 10 out of 12 hours (it will usually run from 10 am to 10 pm, but there's an hour for lunch and four 15-minute breaks). A production might have 3 of these days in a row. These rehearsals are dangerous and dumb; actors tend to get injured toward the end and nobody is doing good or useful work in the last couple hours. I've refused to do them for years, and now (within the past couple years) there is an industry movement to stop doing them, but for the longest time, everyone just did them because...that's what we do. The looks on people's faces when I say, "Yes, but could we just ...not?" are priceless. They never considered that we might *not* need to do it this way.