From the Lil’ Comtois

In the third part of my dialogue with Mac Rogers, I made a reference to an email my sister sent me regarding my “process, schmocess” line. Of course, with good reason, she was really pissed at me misappropriating her words and misinterpreting her argument.

And of course she was right. I did misinterpret what she was saying.

In the dialogue, I wrote:

“My sister, a recent grad of Vassar’s theatre program, was particularly irritated by my apparent lack of interest in the process. She wrote me this long email telling me how wrong I was, yet more than implied that maybe directors should be removed from the process because they stunt the collaborative effort.”

Here’s her email to me that I was referring to, in its entirety.

> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:44:30 -0500

> To: james@nosediveproductions.com

> Subject: Ok, so...(This is Becky)

I read you blog, and had some thoughts. Also, I’ve got nothing to do at work today, so you’re going to hear them.

Ok Jimmy. You said in your blog it seems like you divorce process from product. Either one is process driven or product driven. This distinction I have never understood. The rehearsal process is just as important at the product. It is through the rehearsal process that you can arrive at any product. The importance of process versus that of product should be a non-issue. The problem with those theater people that are “process” driven is that the truth is they aren’t driven. They aren’t working towards an end. To make a simple comparison, no one ever makes a “process” oriented cake. We’re going to add all of the ingredients, mix it, preheat the oven, and then that’s it. “It’s all about the process man.” No, fuck you and finish your homework. When you’ve completed the assignment I’ll look it over. If you don’t have any interest in the final product then what the hell are you doing making theater? The only value art has is in its relation to the spectator.

Conversely, to make “product” oriented shows, and to not be interested in the process is equally profound in its idiocy. To take my rudimentary cake argument again, to focus entirely on the end product and not at all on how you get there, you might very well realize your out of sugar and use salt. If you don’t take care with how you go about making art then you are undoubtedly going to end up with a mouth full of frosted salty sludgy crap. I guess my problem is that people think they can choose one or the other, and you can’t. I mean, I guess you can if decide it’s all right to produce shit.

That’s why I feel that the current director oriented theater process limits collaboration in a way that the result is the “pre-fab” shows that you guys are talking about. This is not to say that I feel that the director should be abolished, I just don’t think that theater practitioners adequately investigate how a particular production should work on a case-by-case basis. The artistic make-up of a production is taken as given at the start of a process, and no one ever seems to say, “Well, being that we are working on this show, maybe some of the production roles should be divided up differently. Maybe the sound designer and the light designer should be the same person since those elements need to be in concert with one another perfectly. Maybe we need a conceptual director, and the stage director, because those become two gi-normous roles in this particular show.” If every show is made in the same way, then of course so many shows seem like cookie cutter versions of one another.

And that’s my two cents.

All right, maybe 1 cent.

I’ll get you back on that extra cent I owe you.

I’m bored; email me back today.

Li’l Sis

The part I was referring to in the dialogue was when she wrote:

“That’s why I feel that the current director oriented theater process limits collaboration in a way that the result is the “pre-fab” shows that you guys are talking about. This is not to say that I feel that the director should be abolished, I just don’t think that theater practitioners adequately investigate how a particular production should work on a case-by-case basis.”

True, she wrote she doesn't think the director should be abolished (so I should have written “heavily implies” rather than “more than implies”), but in my defense, I read it as, "I don't think you should abolish the director, BUT..." in the same way one would say, "I don't mean to be rude, BUT..." followed by a monologue of rudeness.

I basically bulldozed over all of her arguments for needing a balanced approach to process versus product so I could label her as anti-director. Which, as you can see, wasn't really what she was saying. I (unfairly) based this on my assessment of her and her peers’ prior attitudes to “collective” theatre (I had been given the false impression based on prior conversations with her on the subject from a year or two ago).

So, sorry about that, Becky. I know you’re not a proponent of removing the director from the process.

Now you all may be wondering why I singled her out to mock her in the first place.

Why? ‘Cuz she’s my kid sister, that’s why. It comes with the territory.

Doling out noogies,

James “Indian Sunburn Man” Comtois