April 7, 2011

Who owns devised work?

Sasha Gloss         posted 27 Feb 2007, 12:49 AM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 01:54 PM

When devised work is made, who owns it? I ask this in regards to a show called Penumbra in the upcoming AK07 festival. I was lucky enough to see this piece of theatre when it was put on as my flat mate was in it at The NZ Drama School in 2004, it was a great show and I hope lots of other Wellingtonians got to see it. It was made by the class over a few years and a lot of the actors drew on their experiences, friends and family members to help create characters. It is now in the festival soon. Although nearly all the class still wanted to be involved, only a few of the original members are still in it (this was apparently because the festival asked that people with more experience and “bigger names” were cast, something which hasnt necessarily happened) but most arent and the work is now being put on without royalties given to any of the cast members who made it but are now not it in. This show deserves to have a longer life but I find it unbelievable that the director can just choose who he wants in it and then leave the rest and not even include them in the royalties (they were told they were getting royalties but now seems to have changed their mind). Some students have been told they arent even being given any tickets to see the show. I want my freind to speak out but he doesnt want to get on anyones bad side. What do people think about this? It seems pretty bad form to me.

annie ruth           posted 27 Feb 2007, 10:54 AM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 01:53 PM

The ownership of devised work is a complex question that is currently under intense international scrutiny.  It is a debate worth having and is wider than just our own industry.  In regard to work developed at Toi Whakaari this is the current position of the school and is articulated both in staff contracts and in the agreement with the school, signed by every student when they begin their course.  Toi Whakaari: NZ Drama School retains copyright to all work developed by staff and students at Toi Whakaari, except in certain specified circumstances such as the final year actor’s Solos.   Toi Whakaari agreed to release the rights to Penumbra for use and development to Christian Penny and his team for the Auckland Arts Festival ’07, after which the rights to the original production return to the School.  The release was on the following conditions:

Conditions:

·                     no royalties are paid (we make no financial claims against this development of the work)

·                     the School is acknowledged as the original producer in the brochure and other advertising and is acknowledged in the programme.

This does not address the wider subject of copyright for devised work, but it does make clear the specific situation as regards Penumbra from Toi Whakaari’s point of view.

Paul McLaughlin               posted 27 Feb 2007, 11:46 AM

I would add to Annie’s comments to suggest that any group going into the devising process make it crystal clear from day one what the situation is re rights. For HOTEL we have a two-tier system where the original devisors share a royalty, not only from this season at the FRINGE, but for all shows that may happen in the future. Any actors performing the work get a cut of the profit or a fee after the royalty has been paid to the original devisors. We put this in writing on day one so everyone is clear.

Simon Bennett posted 27 Feb 2007, 11:58 AM

The key question always is: Who is the author of the work? I would suggest that in a devising situation, all the participants make a formal agreement at the outset regarding ownership of the work, in case the devised text has a life beyond the initial production. In some cases, subsequent life may be very lucrative, if a production which began life as a devised work is very successful. Authors may be: playwrights, actors, producers, dramaturgs – anyone who had a substantial creative role in shaping the text which is used in subsequent productions. Another mechanism it’s useful to sort out in advance is: who has authority for licensing the work for a subsequent production? If there were a large number of authors of the devised work it can be tricky tracking everyone down a year or so later to get permission. Possibly a better idea is for the group of devisors to agree to nominate an agent to act on their behalf. Playmarket springs to mind as a good option. The history of devised theatre has seen many incidences of creators getting little or no reward for their input into the creation of a new work.

claire van beek posted 2 Mar 2007, 01:13 AM / edited 2 Mar 2007, 10:20 PM

I too do not want to get on anyone’s bad side and am hesitant to  speak out but feel compelled to contribute as an actor and creator in the original production of Penumbra at Toi Whakaari. 

-Communication from day one is vital for devised work, and I think this is where Penumbra went wrong.  Whilst communication was encouraged during the creation of the show the “conversation” has since stopped. I have an email saying that I am getting royalties but was told in passing that we are now NOT getting royalties- yet months later still no letter, email or phone call to rectify the change and inform the rest of the class. We were certainly all creators of Penumbra. I have no idea why Toi Whakaari has relinquished its rights to the royalties of the upcoming production on our behalf. I also have no idea who is getting royalties. 

-Yes, in the first weeks at Toi Whakaari we sign our handbook that covers a range of regulations including that Toi Whakaari owns all work originally devised within the school. But I believe they should then use this ownership on our behalf to further our interests. Before a devised work is begun the future life (and practioners work within that) should be discussed specifically to that project. I do not wish to disrespect Annie Ruth but it does sadden/ interest me that she responds quickly to an online public forum, whereas there is so much delay and confusion communicating with those who are directly involved and actively trying to find answers (although this is not solely her responsibility).   

– Perhaps financially AK07 couldn’t afford to have all the original members of Penumbra in the cast but surely this is a case where Toi Whakaari management could have used owning the rights to its advantage and acted on our behalf.   

-We put so much of ourselves into the show and now all ownership and control over that is gone. A lot of us have based characters on family members, we don’t even know if these characters are still in the show. 

-Probably the final kick in the guts is not even being given tickets to see the show (info again only told to some members of the class). I have contacted the festival re getting comps and they have been very obliging. Meanwhile some of my classmates have given up hope and have bought themselves tickets.   

-Penumbra was an amazing production to be part of and I certainly am not losing sight of that. We were all part of getting Penumbra on its feet and to AK07 and beyond. It would have been so easy, I think, to manage this in a professional and courteous manner in which all the diverse interests could have been acknowledged and discussed.

Playmarket Administrator             posted 2 Mar 2007, 04:29 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 01:53 PM

Mark Amery here, Director of Playmarket.

The issue of ownership in terms of devised work has been one of ongoing interest to Playmarket, particularly naturally when we’ve seen some HUGE messes happen AGAIN AND AGAIN when as correspondents like Simon have suggested a WRITTEN agreement is not made upfront between the parties involved. This has led us to create a draft template agreement for companies.

This is not just about devised work. Equally a producer, director, actors, composer and a playwright might have a share in rights to a work. Ownership is what is agreed to. Pop in to Playmarket or the Nola Miller Library – the Spring 2004 issue of Playmarket News discusses this issue in depth (Wheeler’s Luck is on the cover under the heading ‘Whose horse is this? Clarifying Authorship” Who is the author in a devised work? Well, it’s not been tested in case law (a law court) here, but that is why a written agreement is VITAL. Playmarket is always in a position to provide advice (we do often, and it saves some messes!) or as Simon suggests we will consider acting as an agent for a devised work where the arrnagement is mutually beneficial. We represent a number involving our clients.

REGARDING PENUMBRA We were aware last year when Penumbra was confirmed for professional production that these issues were likely to arise (we’re like, connected) and proceeded (on behalf of our client David Geary, co-creator, but also recognising the issues for the numerous people involved in the project right back to New Theatre Initiative workshops (before Toi’s involvement) to negotiate a written agreement between the parties with whom ownership is vested, and to whom Toi Whakaari transferred their rights. (I’m afraid Claire that legally it’s clear the student actors have no rights, as outlined. This is clear and not unusual.

There do however seem to be clear issues for some people as to how the rights situation was or wasn’t communicated. AGAIN I STRESS in any collaborative process the parties should discuss the rights to the work to save unwarranted stress later) I also created this agreement aware that it could be used as a template for other devising companies. So spread the word that there is in fact a template for companies to use. (Phone 04 382 8464 email diretcor@playmarket.org.nz) Because I’m not one of the parties to the agreement I naturally can’t paste it in here. But I can say that it:  details the history of the project (as established for the team by David Geary QC) and provides for rights, credits for people’s involvement now and in the future, and that no royalties will be paid out. It details the fact that the AK07 production has been paid for by AK07 and they are therefore taking the profits.

Devising companies also need to be aware that their work may well have a life beyond their own life i.e. vested in a script. This is the case for example with the work of Seeyd and Indian Ink. This is another reason why rights should be ascertained. One day Penumbra may be published/produced or studied in Schools/remounted professionally on the West End, or in Taihape (we have a huge amateur and schools network). Someone may even try and turn it into a three ring circus (it happened to Roger Hall…). At which point you wanna have the answer to the cry “Whose horse is this?”!

Hope this helps. This is why there are people like playwrights’ agents. Most of the time we’re pretty invisible in these affrais – that’s how it should be. Most playwrights don’t realise their full value until the shit hits the fan when they didn’t get something in writing or didn’t check it with someone who deals with these issues all the time.

MAKE THE LAW WORK FOR YOU!

Mark Amery Director

claire van beek posted 7 Mar 2007, 07:48 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 01:54 PM

Hi there. Thank you so much Mark for your comments! It is so great to read your for response to some of the questions provoked by the devised nature of Penumbra and clarify some queries that no one else had come to us to address. Your time, expertise and involvement is really appreciated.

I still wonder why such discussions weren’t initiated with the devising students when we started working on the piece with Christian Penny and David way back when. And well before AK07 became interested in the show after its season at Toi Whakaari. Given this didn’t happen, I think the time around when David sensibly approached Playmarket regarding ownership would have been a great opportunity for Toi Whakaari to tell us a) that negotiations were going on b) how it effected us and c) what the outcome of the negtiation was. Anyway….

I’d like to say a big thank you to Carla van Zon for confirming that the actors and technicians of the 2004 Toi show will be given tickets to the AK07 production. This is greatly appreciated, so thank you!! I know this is a really busy time for all involved in the festival.

I’d also like to say that the views on how Penumbra has been handled are not just my own, and my writing is also on behalf of members of the 2004 Penumbra cast.

Can’t wait to see the show!

Josh Newland    posted 7 Mar 2007, 10:55 PM / edited 7 Mar 2007, 11:23 PM

The same sort of thing has happened to me before and it really sucks. Now I will definitly get something in writing first in terms of ownership- but this is something you only learn after being screwed over!! (even as a techie). I think ownership belongs to those whose idea it was in the first place and also those who wrote it. If it is scripted then who wrote that script? That person/ those people are the owners. In the case of devised work the actors obviously have more ownership, but if it were say a Shakepeare then of course the actors arent quite so likely to own the show! 

But anyway, regardless of who owns it, it is the bare minimal of respect to let people involved know what is going on. In the case of the Toi Whakari show it may not be owned by students but that doesnt mean they dont have a write to be involved in its deveopments if they were there from the start. I think even if your at an instituion you should know what’s going on from the beginning so you know what your getting yourself in for! And yeah, shouldnt a school like this be protecting its students?! 

Anyway I think if it’s a project your serious about and think it could go further then like Paul says: get something in writing, hopefully you won’t need it but at least it’s there if the shit hits the fan!!!

Robyn   posted 12 Mar 2007, 06:07 PM

What’s the new Penumbra like? I hear it’s dwarfed by the new space, but I’d be interested to hear how it stacks up compared to the old one which which was pretty magical.

Alf Punter            posted 14 Mar 2007, 02:57 PM

Please, someone, put an end to all devised work and spare us further horror and misery. Do we all have to gather at the crossroads at midnight and blow our collective brains out before someone sees the light? Please, we’ve suffered enough.

Angela Green     posted 14 Mar 2007, 04:35 PM

Hi. This does not only relate to this forum stream, but I find it very interesting that some of the more nasty (or more honest?) comments on the site come from people writing under pseudonyms. It bugs me. If work is critiqued in a constructive way it can be very helpful…but to say “arrgh it was crap (because) I hated it”?? Why did you hate it? I’m interested to know. Both as an audience member and theatre-maker. Sure, write under a pseudonym but tell us why you hated/loved it!

Carol Jacques     posted 14 Mar 2007, 04:51 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 01:54 PM

I would be really interested to know if the new Penumbra will be performing in Wellington at some time in the near future? I along with many of my family and  friends who saw the 2004 show are unable to travel to Auckland, and would give our eye teeth to be able to attend the new production a little closer to home.

alf punter            posted 20 Mar 2007, 07:13 PM

I see the NZ Herald has reviewed the Auckland Festival’s latest devised work as “not completely satisfying” and “out of step with the realities of theatre” and “confused and fragmented” and “plenty of sound and fury [but] difficult to work out what was being signified.” PLEASE, Festivals, there are thousands of us out here, poor wretched wretches, near-suicidal, PLEADING WITH YOU from our valley of tears TO END THIS NIGHTMARE OF DEVISED WORKS.  Oh, please, somebody listen.

Hugh Bridge       posted 20 Mar 2007, 10:03 PM / edited 20 Mar 2007, 10:04 PM

Oh alright Alf, I have listened – but only because you shouted and someone must challenge your uptight raves. The case for the defence is Skintight. This finely honed devised work won critical acclaim throughout NZ and at the Edinburgh Festival – so quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle to your generalisation.

Simon Bennett posted 20 Mar 2007, 11:19 PM

Skin Tight was written by Gary Henderson. I believe there was a workshop process involved as part of the script development. Nevertheless it was tightly scripted by a very finee playwright.

John Smythe      posted 20 Mar 2007, 11:56 PM

Quite right Simon. For me the works that confound all preconceptions that devised works lack focus, cohesion and coherence are those generated by the SEEyD Company (aka Claw Footed Tomatoes): SEEyD, InSalt, SAnD, The Remedy Syndrome, The Brilliant Fassah, Turbine … The true test, of course, will come when these texts are picked up by others and made to work as well.

Bernadette CROMBIE     posted 21 Mar 2007, 09:07 AM

Alf Punter: 1 (o.g.), Hugh Bridge: 0.

Yes, Hugh Bridge’s case for the defence is no case at all. Arguing in the Guardian earlier this year that “theatre achieves its greatest resonance when it expresses a solo writer’s vision”, Michael Billington pointed out that “shows like Caryl Churchill’s Serious Money and David Hare’s Fanshen may have grown out of company workshops, but they were indisputably products of a singular vision”. The same goes for Gary Henderson’s Skintight.

Billington then went on to describe  the latest devised work on the London stage as “an arid, academic exercise designed to illustrate its creators’ ingenuity”. Hugh Bridge may be dismissive of Alf Punter’s uptight raves, but I think Michael Billington would be cheering Alf on. So am I. Go for it, Alf!

Hugh Bridge       posted 21 Mar 2007, 09:48 AM / edited 21 Mar 2007, 09:50 AM

I stand corrected – I said my defence was Skintight, not watertight.

The playful debate has exposed an important question – just what is, and isn’t, devised work? Is it the same as jazz? Where does it sit alongside a workshopped work, a collaborative work and a happening? Can a director facilitating the devising process be considered a playwright? Is a theatrical performance not an actual play if there is no text that can be picked up by other players?

Given that this topic began with Penumbra I would be interested in the views of the director, Christian Penny, and the writer, David Geary, (recognised by Playmarket as the co-creators?) on what qualifies a work to be defined as devised.

Ryan Hartigan    posted 21 Mar 2007, 11:02 AM / edited 21 Mar 2007, 01:28 PM

As an additional response to Alf’s point, here are some groups that make devised work that’s eminently watchable: Forced Entertainment (especially Bloody Mess); Wooster Group; Frantic Assembly; DV8; Stan’s Cafe; Theatre Improbable. All of these companies have devised amazing pieces of work. They have also occasionally worked with writers. It depends on what they want to do and how they want to work. I think the key is that their approach to devising is one of creative rigour, and that is what makes the difference.

I can only hope Alf’s starting point is polemic, because I’ve seen a huge number of absolute howlers of “writers’ plays” as well. Just because there’s a unitary vision doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a good one.

Abigail Fielding-Smith     posted 21 Mar 2007, 01:28 PM

John, here is an exercise designed to lift you from that stifling Wellington theatrical hothouse and breathe freely and draw disinterested conclusions, admittedly from a narrowish base.  Running on alternate nights in Auckland at the moment are two shows performed by the same group of players. One of these was written by a jobbing — though singular — writer 380 years ago. The other was devised by the company, taking advantage of multiple experiences, beliefs and skills, written for today by today’s generation in today’s idioms. Go to both and report back.

John Smythe      posted 21 Mar 2007, 03:10 PM

Indeed, Abigail. BASED ON AUCKLAND and TIS PITY SHE’S A WHORE have both been reviewed on this site (either click on ‘Reviews’ and scroll down, or use the Search field to find them).

Lin          posted 21 Mar 2007, 05:22 PM

With regard to Hugh’s assertion that David Geary and Christian Penny are credited as co-creators of Penumbra, it’s rather more complicated than that, as Mark Amery’s comments and earlier comments from students involved in its creation testify. Just because the original student creators’ rights were deemed the property of Toi Whakaari (and it seems this wasn’t clearly explained to them at the time, and promises were made about their future inolvement in the show that weren’t kept) doesn’t mean that many of them don’t have a strong moral right to authorship – and I believe this has begun to be recognised, after much discussion, in various ways. Students’ trust, hard work and enthusiasm is often ripped off in this outrageous way, unfortunately.

Julia Forsythe    posted 21 Mar 2007, 07:22 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 01:56 PM

John is right, that will certainly be part of the test. However maybe this is where devised work is quite unique in that it doesn’t lend itself to being scripted as a written play would be. It is interesting that the shows in the festival which were  problematic (with audiences and reviewers) such as Facade, Penumbra, Dark Tourists etc all involved devised work where performers had been replaced with other performers. So maybe it is indeed difficult for others to then take over the script- same production OR future.

martyn roberts posted 21 Mar 2007, 09:58 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 02:01 PM

list   –   1.3 oz sandalwood            

              2 x whiskey

              1 x book (Change without Borders)

              6 x candle

              interloper

              alien life form (absent)

             Transported energy conduit servo operative (Reject interface) – begin upload.

             12 oz wholemeal, 2 x egg, water.

[It seems Martyn has replaced his previous post with this Dadaistic alternative – ed.]

Moya Bannerman            posted 21 Mar 2007, 11:47 PM / edited 22 Mar 2007, 07:09 AM

Good points, Martyn, but I do not agree that the debate is “already tedious”.  I’m enjoying it thoroughly! As with a devised – or written – work in progress, a Forum site like this, that is open to all without moderation, will inevitably carry stuff we’d edit out if the thread was to be distilled to its essence.  Meanwhile I agree with Elizabeth and John (on the ‘Rothwell & mainstream’ thread): all passionately held views are welcome.  As someone once said: “Spit it out – we’ll clean it up later.”

nik smythe          posted 22 Mar 2007, 10:40 PM / edited 22 Mar 2007, 11:04 PM

Inspired by Abigail Fielding-Smith’s suggestion, John suggested I try and see the Ensemble Project’s devised work BASED ON AUCKLAND to review and compare to the concurrent TIS PITY SHE’S A WHORE which I reviewed opening night (Kathryn van Beek covered Based on Auckland).  Due to the high break-even point of a show with a cast of twelve the producer regrets they can’t give any more comps out to the exclusion of what are capacity audiences.  So there’s obviously something people are liking about both shows.

I would be very curious to read both from anyone who has seen them both, and anyone directly involved with the project itself who might be able to add more layers to this conversation which I concur with Moya Bannerman is intriguing, and important.  Specifically, I wonder who owns Based on Auckland?

That said, my opinion on which is better lies with the truists – good work is good work, crap work isn’t.  The chosen form does not determine the quality of work, although a well chosen form of course will enhance it.  But which form is the best choice depends on other circumstances – the content, the collective skills, the market and all that guff …sorry, my brain’s been thinking like this since I saw Max Black last night.  Perhaps there is a danger of multi-level self indulgence with the input of all the actors, but that would be up to the director to harness those energies and, well, direct them really.

Abigail Fielding-Smith     posted 23 Mar 2007, 11:53 AM

Continuing the Consumers’ Campaign for a Fair Go in Theatres:

1. Answer to Judith Forsythe: The devised shows in the Auckland Festival which were “problematic” did not “all involve work where performers had been replaced with other performers.” The devised shows were all “problematic”. The devised show you omitted from your list in an attempt to prove your point was the one politely described in the NZ Herald as “not completely satisfying”, “out of step with the realities of theatre”, “confused and fragmented” and with “plenty of sound and fury [but] difficult to work out what was being signified.”

2. Answer to Martyn Roberts: “A good friend (playwright) told me if you can’t sum it up in a sentence don’t perform it.” Fuck me! Get a grip! Martyn, at least do us all a favour and name this playwright so we can avoid him (sounds like a him).

3. Message to Alf Punter: Alf, you’re a hero. Please lead us in a charge of the stage next time devisers take our dough in exchange for mawkishness and hysteria.

Julia Forsythe    posted 23 Mar 2007, 12:29 PM / edited 23 Mar 2007, 12:34 PM

Hi Abigial, you meaning me?  Which show was that review for? I’m sorry I missed it. Sounds intriguing!!

Abigail Fielding-Smith     posted 23 Mar 2007, 04:35 PM / edited 23 Mar 2007, 05:20 PM

Consumers’ Campaign for a Fair Go in Theatre

Hi, Julia!

The show was a devised piece  called “Based On Auckland”. Don’t apologise that you missed it. It wasn’t intriguing. At all. But, to give credit where credit’s due, it did involve a number of actors who were very good. At acting.

martyn roberts posted 23 Mar 2007, 05:36 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 02:02 PM

I love alf

I think alf is cool. He says funny things. He is named after my favourite TV character who is also hairy and has 4 fingers.

ice cream is nice. My favourie is chocolate. It is yummy.

I bought a mint at Tescos once. It tasted funny. I like mints. Oddfellows are my favs.

My best colour in the whole wide world is B L U E.

alf is cool

Rachel Robbins posted 23 Mar 2007, 08:05 PM

I agree with Martyn’s playwright mate — if Martyn can’t sum up his arguments in a sentence he should stop wearying us further.

Tesco     posted 23 Mar 2007, 09:44 PM / edited 24 Mar 2007, 09:35 AM

exactly.  where did all these pompous prissy stuffy people come from?   all the turgid analysis & poncy quotes & tut-tutting & hair splitting name dropping & calling & crap (whoops sorry guys, I mean ‘faeces’) .  what comes out when you try to write* a play?  a list of rules, a mission statement?  lets have more honesty & passion & bravery here, fuck-all (sorry guys ‘not much’) so far.  just heaps of weasly words & circling the real issues

*or devise of course

Hugh Bridge       posted 23 Mar 2007, 10:02 PM / edited 23 Mar 2007, 11:04 PM

In the spirit of this Friday night as the pub disgorge may I ask, mini-mart-me-old-mate, what exactly are the “real issues”?

nik smythe          posted 23 Mar 2007, 10:11 PM

…what were they again?  i’ve forgotten…

Tesco     posted 23 Mar 2007, 11:03 PM

I rest my case

DAN OWEN         posted 24 Mar 2007, 12:02 AM / edited 24 Mar 2007, 10:06 AM

Tesco   easy tiger  where all just sharing views relax.

Question

Has anyone considred how theatre would be without problems.

The soup of dialogues has been like a camp fire of theatre war stories , some romantic others finacial and emotional rip offs.

As Shakespeare once said  ” Is a man not made to create his reaction to his world “

I agree with Marty on the one sentence concept 90 % there’s cracks in all so called solid answers.

Alf Punter            posted 24 Mar 2007, 09:06 AM

John, there are thousands of us out here, poor wretched wretches, PLEADING WITH YOU from our valley of tears TO END THIS NIGHTMARE OF A TOPIC. PLEASE. Before Martyn Roberts re-enters.

Hugh Bridge       posted 24 Mar 2007, 09:17 AM / edited 24 Mar 2007, 09:20 AM

There speaks Alf – an interesting example of a would-be dominating control freak whose attempts at intimidation disintegrate when he runs to mummy to make it all better. Any chance of getting back to the original topic? I would still like to hear more from those at the creative end of the debate – wrighters, directors, actors …

John Smythe      posted 24 Mar 2007, 09:30 AM / edited 24 Mar 2007, 09:33 AM

Not for ‘Alf’ – ‘Alf’, read no further – wake from your nightmare, go for a walk, breathe fresh air and please only return when you have something constructive to say. That goes for ‘Tesco’ too. (Interesting how the trite and abusive ones wimp out of identifying themselves.)

Meanwhile, here’s what I’ve been thinking on this:

The old ‘give it to me in 25 word or less’ is a Hollywood studio demand. Even so, good writers and directors realise there is value in distilling the work to its essence – and sooner rather than later. When it’s left till the marketing phase, that’s when we find ourselves saying, ‘If only it lived up to its promise.’

But there’s specialist knowledge and public knowledge. When it comes to the buildings we inhabit, we all trust the architects, engineers, electricians and plumbers to get it right – and when they do, we take it for granted. Woe betide anyone who thinks they can just get an interior decorator, exterior finisher and landscape gardener to create the whole caboodle.

To bring it back to the group-devised vs single writer work, the key question is: have the essential but invisible structural, energy-flow and waste-disposal elements been attended to?

Perhaps the reason we see more dross that’s been group-devised is that such works too often get scheduled before they are made, and few performer-devisors are willing to drop a project before it’s performed, whereas a written script goes through many drafts then has to compete with hundreds of others to attract the interest of those who might do it.

– which brings us back to the value of being able to pitch it in a single sentence.

Chesapeake       posted 24 Mar 2007, 10:45 AM

I’m puzzled by the invective levelled here at those who use pseudonyms – it’s quite standard in the other chats I visit and no one thinks anything of it.

nik smythe          posted 24 Mar 2007, 01:31 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 02:05 PM

i believe the invective there is in response to what these superhero’s secret identities are saying… the fact that they are pseudonyms is interesting to note given they are the most strongly opinionated, and indeed full of invective, for little reason other than that we are trying to discuss a specific issue (i remember now! who owns devised work?), but they don’t like the way we do.  everywhere i go people avoid the face value of issues by attacking the line of debate itself.  pathetic.  sure i use adjectives, yes i know people, but i’m driven by this question here.  alf and tesco just want to think they’re cooler or less pretentious than people who actually contribute to the on-topic issues here.  personally i’m not convinced, and even less do i really care.

…so, a couple of pages ago i enquired about who owns the rights to Based on Auckland?  And has anyone seen both (BoA & TPSaW) who would care to comment on which they felt was the stronger work?

John Smythe      posted 24 Mar 2007, 05:09 PM / edited 24 Mar 2007, 05:16 PM

This may or may not help someone answer Nik’s question about who owns Based on Auckland …

As I understand it there is creation and recreation; copyright, the right to produce and ancilliary rights (e.g. to adapt into another form, etc) … And only artefacts – i.e. made works that exist in some form independent of their creator – may be owned.

Model #1: Creation

“In the beginning was the word …”

Based on an idea, their own imagination, research and other raw resource material, a playwright creates a text and that is what they own: the intellectual property; copyright in that particular artefact.

A producer acquires the right – limited by time and territory – to produce a performance of the copyright artefact and contracts director, designers, production crew and performers to recreate it. The producer owns the production, designers own their designs and the performers have the right not to have images or recordings of their work used by other parties without their consent.

Model #2: Evolution 

A group gathers to group-devise a performance work, based on ideas, imagination, research and other raw materials … The artefacts produced are the production (incorporating design and technical elements) and the performances. Any rights of ownership to personally created artefacts that form part of the production / performance artefact must be clearly understood / negotiated / agreed (in writing) as soon as possible in the process. (This is, or should be, clearly understood when it come to using copyright music, for example.) Likewise any rights of ownership in a text that is crafted in retrospect must be negotiated / agreed by all interested parties.

Model #3: Evolutionary Creation 

A producer contracts a playwright to work with actors and designers to create a work for performance. Usually it is agreed that the writer owns copyright in the text they create through this process. All rights of ownership in any intellectual properties / copyright artefacts that make up the work must be clearly agreed.

Film & TV compared to live theatre

When it comes to film and TV drama there are two distinct copyright properties: the script and the recorded production. Because both are artefacts that exist independently of their creators, it is a straight-forward matter to determine who owns what rights in which. But a live production, and the live performances that comprise it, only exist in the moments of performance. They cannot therefore be owned in the same way as written and recorded work.

For relevant definitions in NZ law, go to the Copyright Council of New Zealand.

Julia Forsythe    posted 30 Mar 2007, 09:30 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 02:06 PM

I have now seen Based on Auckland and I thought, as far as the devised work in this years festival goes, it was the best.

Yes it had scenes in it which were obviously interesting in rehearsal but should have been ommitted from the show (namely the imaginary scenes and all that AWFUL commentary from Bonnie telling us “this is just a play”, wow! and also reminding us not to enjoy life, hmmm) but otherwise it was fantastic- very alive, good acting and me and the (full) audience had a really good time.

I was thinking while i was watching it- Who owns this…?

I am still interested in hearing from others who have seen this and the other devised work in the festival and their thoughts.

Fiona Scott-Lesley            posted 14 Apr 2007, 11:52 AM

I’m sorry to have to return to the shrill, ill-informed and unfortunate rancour that went on at this site last month, but it seems to have coloured everything so that reviewers, faced with a devised work, now seem obliged to take a position. True, the latest comment is more gentle than some of the previous invective but is probably thus more dangerous.  I’m referring to the review of Corner of 4am and Cuba. The review is generoius but then suddenly jumps into the debate of devised vs single-voice. The devised work under review is seen to be not as good as that coming from single-voice shows.  Is this from deficiencies on the devisors’ part? No, it’s because there are “dimensions of character, plot structure and theme that good writers do better than most devising groups…” What dimensions?

Samuel Bradford              posted 14 Apr 2007, 02:04 PM

A few thoughts on the above:

I don’t want to attack devised theatre per se, because I know it can work, but there are reasons for it to tend towards self-indulgence if the participants aren’t disciplined and talented enough.

Firstly, actors aren’t writers. An actor has to prove they can act (audition) before they’ll be hired. A writer has to have their work read and actively enjoyed by a director/producer before their script will be used. Doing one well doesn’t mean you can do the other equally well. Writers don’t assume that acting is the easy bit, something they could do as well as any professional if they were only given the chance.

This is not to say that there aren’t people who are good at both, because there are many. Just not everyone.

Think of your favourite band. Imagine that their latest album is promoted as featuring many heartfelt ballads written by the drummer. Are you a little worried that it might not reach the band’s previous high standards?

Performers collaborating on a devised piece of theatre are a bit like members of a band. In most bands there are some musicians who are better at writing songs than others. It’s not always the best musicians either.  Most good bands have one or two songwriters, with other musicians adding to arrangements. Some very good bands have one songwriter who tells everyone else what to do. In any case, the band has to have the collective discipline (or a dictatorial songwriter) to tell the drummer that his ballad isn’t very good and won’t be included on the next album. Also to reassure them that their contribution as a drummer is still valued. A devised show will benefit from having a dictatorial editor (director/writer).

Writing is hard. A playwright is competing not only with their contemporaries, but with the thousands of plays that have gone before, for the attention of producers and directors. A writer may trial and discard dozens of ideas, over years, before finding the play that directors will fight over . If five actors book a theatre and give themselves a few months to create something brilliant, there’s no guarantee that lightning will strike. Their show will be performed regardless. Those actors will all be quietly battling each other to keep ‘their bits’ intact. And in rehearsal, the most successful segments of the show will be the ones where the actor best fits with what they have written, not necessarily the best-written parts. The guitarist never wants to sacrifice the solo.

Five actors in a room will generate fascinating vignettes, but I suspect that a sole writer will always have a better chance of creating a satisfying over-arching structure. Sorry to overuse the metaphor, but  a devised piece risks being the prog album full of amazing drum rolls, vocal melisma, two-minute guitar solos and inappropriate slap bass. Impressive moment-by-moment, but ultimately unsatisfying. Whereas a solid play is like a Bob Dylan song that can be covered by anyone. Some performances will be great and some mediocre and some terrible, but we don’t blame the song if a performer treats it badly.

I might be wrong. My experience is limited. Just how it seems to me, is all.

John Smythe      posted 14 Apr 2007, 03:39 PM / edited 14 Apr 2007, 03:42 PM

You make some excellent points Samuel, thoroughly thought through and very well expressed; your band metaphor is a beauty. And thank you Fiona for opening this topic up once more.

Regarding my review of Corner 4am and Cuba, I wanted to make the points that fiction can sometimes reach more profound levels of ‘truth’ than works based on documentary ‘fact’, and that works with a universal and timeless resonance are more likely to involve writers (or, to make a tautology of it, people who bring the consciousness and sensibilities of a writer to the work are more likely to make plays of lasting value).

While citing A Clockwork Orange and Hate Crimes as examples of dramatised works that share a similar quest and arguably offer greater insights into the issues of intolerance, social alienation, and random and hate-based violence, I do not mean to suggest it is impossible for that to be achieved through a group-devising process. And I do acknowledge the strength and immediacy that Corner 4am and Cuba derives from being “based on something that really happened in the very community that is now confronting it.”

Greater “dimensions of character, plot structure and theme” are easier to craft in fiction than fact-based work – Two Brothers is a good recent example of fact fictionalised to achieve such values – and there is no doubt in my mind that such qualities improve plays in ways that can give them longer life. Which doesn’t automatically make it better than something a group creates and performs within a short time frame by way of giving their community a chance to respond to topical event through the efficacy of theatre. This is not about what’s better or worse, it’s about the differences we observe in devised and written theatre.

To generalise on the topic, because structure is so fundamental to how well a story gets told in any medium, I’m drawn to the building metaphor. And it is the hidden dimensions of a good building that make it good to live and work in. The foundations and core engineering allow us to trust the structure not to fall over. The plumbing ensures things flow in and out as we require them without our having to think about it. The electrical wiring allows us to illuminate, warm and cool things as a means to some greater end.

Interior design and decorating are important too, and more likely to affect our conscious minds, provided all those hidden elements can be take for granted. The same is true of good play-making. Put it this way: is a group comprising a builder, interior designer and decorator likely to do a good job of building a house without the qualifications to be good architects, engineers, plumbers and electricians?

Josh Newland    posted 14 Apr 2007, 03:46 PM

In regards to fiona. I have not found this to be an “unfortunate” discussion, not at all. Everyone gets to have a say about an issue that needs to be discussed. Rememebr that the main through line is “who owns devcised work”- not whether or not devised work is any good. Yes people have side stepped off the issue which always happens, but overall this has been a pretty decent discussion, with people from little to a lot of experience writing in and sharing their thoughts. I thank it for being here.

alf punter            posted 14 Apr 2007, 05:09 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 02:06 PM

“We are obliged to cram into a corner of the Central Fire Station’s backyard and watch a young woman graffiti artist at work, spray-painting a wall through a stencil… there’s an interminable wait for further and more interesting action… the remaining cast finally arrive in a long line humming to a guitar… they evoke nothing more than a bunch of young thespians taking themselves awfully seriously… then we have to stand by and watch and listen to more – much more – of the humming and strumming and walking to and fro in a space littered with green recycling bins and a couple of wheelie bins … again, interminable…”

You don’t have to read any further, do you? It’s clear as daylight what’s going on. We’re watching another devised play! God’s teeth…

It’s not a matter of who owns devised work. It’s a matter of bloody DISOWNING it! Come on, wake up NZ! Stand up and be counted! Get out of your chairs at devised performances and stand up and shout out, “I’m bored as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Michael Smythe                posted 14 Apr 2007, 06:14 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 02:07 PM

Thanks for sharing Alf – I think we understand your position. Your solution would be like burning all books because some don’t cut the mustard, or expunging all blogs because some contributors are narrow-minded repetitious bores.

Allow me to offer a perspective as an industrial designer by undermining my brother’s building metaphor. I would say that a group comprising carpenters, plumbers, electricians and painters devising a house by building it is more analogous – ie: the makers designing as they go. This analogy allows us to recognise the validity of the craftsman (man as in manual) developing the intrinsically human process of learning-by-doing into an art form. When this was done collectively in the Middle Ages it led to the formation of craft guilds culminating in formulaic work that got stuck in a rut.

But theatre is about new ideas as well as great crafting so we should think of the artist. Some artists make their own work while some employ artisans to realise their vision. Do theatre works devised by solo artists count as devised works? I think of Nick Blake’s excellent creations of some years ago and the works of graduating drama school students. So is this discussion confined to works devised by groups? Are we saying design-by-committee /team design is always a compromise?

It seems to me that creative leadership is the key element – someone (the director? the dramaturge? the playwright?) must create the synergy, distil the outcomes and take responsibility for, ie:  ‘own’, the result. Which brings us to the original question – who owns devised work?

Legaleagle           posted 14 Apr 2007, 07:12 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 02:07 PM

The devisers own it.  And if you think (or know) you are one of them and haven’t been credited and feel ripped off by people who are making a bigger noise about their contribution then contact e.g. The Writers Guild or Playmarket and get their advice, they exist to help you.  Then post your whole story on Theatreview and embarrass the hell out of the rip off artists who are counting on you staying quiet (pseudonyms were made for these moments).

The very question “Who owns devised work?”  kind of implies that it’s Oh so difficult and only a pedant would get picky (which is just what the ripoff artists want)  but in fact it isn’t at all hard and solutions have existed to deal with this sort of situation for aeons.  It’s just what they used to say about the complicated ownership of Mâori land. All it takes is patience and good will to work it out.

John Smythe      posted 15 Apr 2007, 01:52 PM / edited 15 Apr 2007, 02:09 PM

I must, of course, counsel against anyone libelling anyone else on this site. Your “they’re all out to rip us off” attitude, ‘Legaleagle’ is is most unhelpful. Anyone getting involved in a devised work should trawl back through this forum topic and take note of the excellent advice it contains.

As for you, ‘Alf’, the obvious alternative to your incitement to wilfully disrupt performances of devised work is to stay away: save yourself the time and money. Besides, I’m intrigued: given your advocacy of hiding behind pseudonyms (as you do) while naming and attempting to shame others, what would your strategy be for maintaining anonymity while wrecking a performance others have chosen to come to in good faith? Wear a mask?

My counter-request to anyone who witnesses such an action is to pin down the perpetrators, unmask them, get their names, get the corroboration of witnesses and, once you are sure of the facts, post them on this site – under your real name, of course.  

Anon     posted 15 Apr 2007, 03:49 PM

Hey, leave Alf alone!  He’s following your own instructions to be “brave and honest”, he has a strong point of view and is letting it out in his own words, with refreshing enthusiasm.  And he makes me laugh!  And he’s right, too much theatre around here IS too boring and we need more like him prepared to call a spade a shovel, kick a bit of life back into things, try to figure out whats wrong and what to do about it.  (Maybe disrupting performances would help!)  My advice to John is to set a mature example himself – stick to discussing the issues and resist the temptation to attack the contributors.

Julia Forsythe    posted 15 Apr 2007, 04:21 PM

So right about now I’m guessing that “anon” and “alf” are the same people…  “alf” is not refreshing he’s just being annoying. Yes of course everyone is entitles to their opinion. This forum doesnt have to be deadly serious but it does help if people are trying to progress, not hinder. ALf- you’re not funny. I get so disappointed when i see that there’s a new post- and it’s a nonsense one from you as opposed to something thought out from someone else.

Anon#2                posted 18 Apr 2007, 09:51 AM

I see; don’t tell any jokes that Julia won’t find funny; don’t risk being cheeky, playful or outspoken or John Smythe might sue you or expose your true identity … sieg heil.

Moya Bannerman            posted 18 Apr 2007, 11:29 AM

Get a grip, ‘Anon #2’. All that’s being asked for here is the same level of constructive interaction that all live performing arts thrive on, throughout the development, rehearsal and production phases.

And yes of course, being truly outspoken at the right time, in the right place, is essential. So is having a sense of humour. Kow-towing ‘yes persons’ cringing in a climate of fear are not conducive to creativity or producing good work at any level.

The true professionals and those who enjoy their work will know what I’m talking about. Others are doomed to stew in their own bile, forever seeking others to blame for their predicaments.

Anon#2                posted 18 Apr 2007, 03:29 PM

“Outspoken at the right time …” – isn’t that a contradiction in terms? Like saying “Only have a revolution when it doesn’t upset anybody”? “Whistleblow, but make sure nobody who matters will hear”? You say you want “constructive interaction” but I’m not sure that dismissing those whose views you don’t like as “stewing in bile” is the most effective way to achieve this! We need tolerance for others’ style, views, stance, culture, sense of humour. Is dealing with opposing viewpoints graciously a skill we’ve all forgotten? Trying to censor ‘uncouth’ contributors with mockery and veiled threats is completely counterproductive. I say welcome them in and enjoy their energy – it’s just a phase they’re going through – and the site will be the richer for it.

John Smythe      posted 18 Apr 2007, 04:36 PM / edited 18 Apr 2007, 08:09 PM

I read Moya’s “right time and place” in the context of the creative production process and agree whole-heartedly: there are ways of being outspoken that make a positive difference and ways of complaining or bad-mouthing, usually behind the relevant backs, that are very counter-productive. Most practitioners will have experienced both.

As for the “stewing in bile” bit, I’d say anyone who thinks “sieg heil” is an appropriate response to my request for people to avoid libellous insults is very likely to be stewing in something of their own creation – and yes, it’s bit rich; yes, it does generate energy. (I’m not sure whether the law holds the owner of a website to be the publisher of all that is posted to it and I’d rather not be the test case in a libel suit.)

So far the only thing I censor, as in delete, are rogue postings from robots that continue to infiltrate the membership list in order to post spam. I have also made the odd adjustment where people have revised a posting in a way that renders those that followed nonsensical. Otherwise people remain free to express themselves on the understanding, of course, that others are entitled to the same freedoms they claim for themselves.

Personally – and this is a note to myself as well – I’d prefer postings to stick to the topics rather than attack the posters, which tends to generate circular arguments destined to spiral up their own fundamentals.

Oh, and fear not: when people over-write their names, or register under pseudonyms, I am in no position to expose their true identities. I have to guess like everyone else.

Jonathon Bannerman     posted 19 Apr 2007, 04:47 PM

This has been far and away the liveliest and most popular topic on the Theatreview site, John, and I thought I’d do a quick breakdown on it since interestingly it developed a life of its own despite hapless and hopeless calls for respondents to “stick to the issue”. It started off with 8 postings about the ownership of devised work. Then came a posting suggesting, colourfully,  that devised work was woeful and that it should be disowned rather than owned. Now I would have felt that, by and large, this observation was fairly self-evident and uncontroversial and expected the discussion to come to the end where it had seemed heading, but what followed was a further 21 postings arguing the pros and cons of devised work supplemented by a further 22 postings commenting on the sanity, anti-democratic tendencies, humourlessness and narrow-mindedness of posters. The original argument, that of ownership, picked up another 5 postings only. These topics generate their own priorities, their own momentum.

Here is my own contribution to all this. In a longish and quiet life I have sat through a number of devised works, particularly in the last few years, and, without fail, in the course found myself reaching down into my seat to see if there were cut-throat razors placed there so that one could quietly take one’s own life. If Alf Punter is prepared to do his Howard Beale, I will join him at the next devised horrorshow and stand and shout, “I’m bored as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Michael Wray    posted 19 Apr 2007, 06:00 PM / edited 19 Apr 2007, 08:04 PM

Why would you choose go to a (horror)show style that you abhor? Even if you seek the catharsis of disruption, attending a show that, without fail, disappoints you would seem a strange way to want to spend an evening. Hey ho – each to their own.

I have also experienced plays that I did not like and wanted to end sooner rather than later.  In these cases, it never occured to me to stop the play. Why ruin it for an entire audience, some of whom may be enjoying it? For any given play there will always be someone who doesn’t like it (is there ever a 100% consensus in taste?), so directly intervening mid-performance  just because I don’t like it is not a course of  action I would ever pursue. Apart from consideration of others, I’d be fearful of being barred from the places in which I spend a large amount of my leisure time!

Returning to devised work, I can see why it has the potential to go awry. However, I have seen devised work that I really enjoyed – Penumbra at Toi Whakaari being an example. I also enjoyed Based in Auckland, though there were elements I would have excluded (such as the direct addressing of the audience – as mentioned by a previous poster).  I can’t see the justification of dismissing an entire format just because some (or even many) examples of that style don’t make the grade.

Thomas LaHood                posted 19 Apr 2007, 09:16 PM

Devised work for me often correlates to a need to move beyond the boundaries of what text-based theatre can acheive in terms of directly involving its audience.  As an audience member, I have to say that I actually prefer to be challenged, confused, provoked or misled by new forms than to be able to sit back, passively ingest and then retreat to analyse in the bar with a glass of chardonnay.

I would agree that often devised shows are weak, often because the company fail to impose sufficient limitations to replace those that exist working from a script.  Yet I have seen many many many more deadly, arid, meaningless, aimless efforts coming from a more traditional approach.  Whether the show, finally, is slick and strong or a little bit dodgy, means less to me than whether it still has some life, some vitality, some raison d’etre.  I cite as an example Madeleine McNamara’s ‘Demeter’s Dark Ride’ (which, I suppose, she owns?) – a rickety, sloppy affair that was quite a different experience night to night, but was full of juice and gave the audience something to do besides sit and cogitate.

I acknowledge – as Michael Wray has noted above – that this is my preference, and those who prefer a passive experience will not choose the same shows that I will.

I also wonder about forms such as clown, which must necessarily develop from a basis of devising, from exploratory play and physicality, albeit with strictly defined limitations.  Are these also considered unrefined, unable to express deeper meanings or elucidate truths about the human condition?

Bernadette Crombie       posted 20 Apr 2007, 08:18 AM

John, what has happened to the postings done under the name “Martyn Roberts”? Are the ones here for real? Some idiot seems to have hacked in and written inanities.

nik smythe          posted 20 Apr 2007, 05:55 PM / edited 20 Apr 2007, 05:56 PM

one word review: brilliant! in exploring his options for expression by re-working his part without the prior knowledge of we, the rest of the cast, martyn has made it clear that this very elongated and controversial forum is itself a literary example of the form in question, ie a devised work. well, really it was freeform improvisation until he did that at which time it became devised work. takes me back to Persistence of Memory! as we are now an example of devised work in this discussion, all comments on the form and content of this forum are thus rendered on topic. if you contribute to this forum you are contributing to art, eh tom.

Rachel Robbins posted 20 Apr 2007, 09:13 PM

“ice cream is nice. My favourite is chocolate. It is yummy.

I bought a mint at Tescos once. It tasted funny. I like mints. Oddfellows are my favs.

My best colour in the whole wide world is B L U E.”

Nik! Of course! I recognise the form and content! It’s a DEVISED work!

Moya Bannerman            posted 20 Apr 2007, 10:49 PM

Has anyone noticed how much of this ‘devised’ work is ‘revised’ work? Which is fine when it refines the earlier draft. But Marty’s much-touted ‘contribution’ – originally posted 21 March, edited 15 April – totally subverts the contributions of those who responded in good faith to his now obliterated one (about the value of one-sentence summaries). My reply of 21/22 March is not the only one that suffers this way. So let’s not use that as a model for good group-devised work.

It occurs to me that Theatresports, with its fundamental rules of don’t block and don’t wimp, is a pretty pure model for group-devised work that does not, as it happens, get revised. Yet it operates in a way that ensures the whole will always – well almost always – become more than the sum of the individual contributions. Often with brilliant results. So who owns Theatresports improvisations?

nik smythe          posted 20 Apr 2007, 11:37 PM

i reckon theatresports qualifies as satire and as such is open domain.

Moya Bannerman            posted 21 Apr 2007, 10:17 AM / edited 21 Apr 2007, 11:38 AM

I’m guessing you are confusing libel law with copyright law here, Nik. And I’d call most Theatresports formats parody rather than satire. But the point is both improv and devising, within groups, involve an evolutionary process that make it impossible to say who owns which part of the outcome.

Besides, in copyright law, isn’t the only thing that can be owned the actual, tangible form of expression? Hence the importance of writing it down and the difficulty of dealing with more ephemeral forms. Then there is the difficulty of proving a subsequent version has violated copyright in a former version which is original (cf: Ladies Night and The Full Monty) … 

Ryan Hartigan    posted 21 Apr 2007, 11:32 AM / edited 21 Apr 2007, 04:32 PM

Purely at the level of impro (Theatresports being just a particular copyrighted format of something that’s been around in various guises for a long time), I’m pretty worried that both of you see it as ‘satire’ and ‘parody’. I’ve been involved in impro as a performer, educator and audience member for nigh-on fifteen years, and there’s a huge amount to it that doesn’t seem to be captured by either of these terms.

Anyway, that’s not really the point of my post. The valorisation of text based theatre and the singular writer stretches right back to Aristotle’s logocentrism, and as Moya suggests, the very nature of impro and devising is to try and move into a de Bono-ish state of judging ‘the ideas’ rather than ‘my ideas’. The very principles that make good devising work are pretty much diametrically opposed to the proto-capitalist, latterly capitalist favouring of ‘THE text’ and attributing ownership to it. It’s easier to pass on a fixed product; you can buy and sell it and point to it. The development from text to product is precisely why the producer, rather than the writer, becomes the powerbroker on the Broadway stage.

I worry about the value structures that are going on here, as well as the prescriptive models of ‘this is devising/this is writing’, ‘writer always better, devising makes me a crybaby who wants to shout and repeat myself over and over and over, yep, that’s what outspoken means’ that seem to be getting bandied about. It’s sad. So much is lost from the creative process. And yes, I think there’s a lot of awful devised theatre. There are also a lot of tedious, tv-on-stage, “raise a moral issue and do nothing with it but gosh I’ve raised it I’m so clever” pieces of writerly, well made plays that make me gag. The form doesn’t guarantee the quality.

What I think is lost is that as Martyn pointed out prior to the revised, devised, invasion of Alf, all creative acts in the theatre involve collaboration. The history of theatre has countless examples of remarkable collaborations between the creative team, many of which just get lost or get “hidden” by being incorporated into the script. A lot of people jump up and down about Brecht doing this, but it’s really nothing new. Much of the latest scholarship on Shakespeare revolves around examining the collective creation of Shakespearean texts, showing how he drew upon actors steeped in the forms of the age and giving Shakespeare, himself a jobbing actor, a real head start in the creation of the performance text. I don’t see this as minimising any genius on Shakespeare’s part: just placing it in artistic context and practice. I can’t help but think that could be a good thing to collapse some of these polarities. It could make for better shows. And despite our differences of opinion, isn’t that what we all want?

Ryan Hartigan    posted 21 Apr 2007, 11:35 AM / edited 21 Apr 2007, 04:31 PM

Oh, and as a slight footnote, here’s the following. The Pulitzer Prize committee has just overruled its entire judging panel and given the award to another piece of theatre. The following comes from a Tony award judge and leading critic in the US, and balances up the polemic that’s been spouted condemning devised theatre. I’d also like to point out that I post this as a director who does, at this point, generally prefer to work with scripts and with writers. But by the same token, I’ve had some heavy doses of “Biltmore Syndrome”…

‘David Lindsay-Abaire’s Rabbit Hole made me sick. During this competent dramedy about the mourning process, I experienced bizarre hallucinations, nausea, confusion and an irritability verging on dyspepsia. Upon learning my theater-going patterns, the doctor delivered a swift diagnosis of Biltmore Syndrome. It’s a fairly common condition brought about by seeing too many middlebrow, bourgeois plays at New York’s big nonprofit theaters. The disease gets its name, obviously, from MTC’s Biltmore Theatre, which has been home to a steady stream of unimaginative comedies and dramas about middle-class angst since it opened in 2003. […] How do you know if you have Biltmore Syndrome? While sitting through yet another living-room drama about the endlessly fascinating troubles of suburbanites, you find yourself longing for pirates to crash through the kitchen window or zombies to shamble through the front door and chew the protagonist’s face off. Escapist fantasies of destruction flit through your mind. Or, you might start believing that the production in front of you is actually relevant, that it is fiercely attacking your political, economic and moral assumptions. You develop an insatiable craving for anything weird, exotic or cruel.’

Hugh Bridge       posted 21 Apr 2007, 02:41 PM / edited 21 Apr 2007, 02:46 PM

I agree, Ryan, that satire and parody don’t do improvisation justice. I was quite taken with Moya’s use of ‘ephemeral’. Like true jazz and jamming the creation exists in the moment. Ephemeral art – ususally sculpture and instalations – is designed to deteriorate over time rather than accumulate value.

When Nik suggested that we, as particpants in this forum, were engaged in freeform improvisation, I had to wonder if that made us self-referential or self-reverential. But surely, in this case the ‘persistence of memory’ is aided by the fact that it all remains recorded.

If someone photographs an ephemeral installation who owns the photograph? (It’s the photographer.) If somone records a jazz improvisation who owns the recording? So, one way of thinking about the initial question would be to ask – who owns this published forum?

And while we are considering copyright issues, am I right in thinking that only the writer of a posting can edit it? Was Nik right to respond in the belief that Marty was the author of his own revise?

TESCO .                 posted 21 Apr 2007, 04:41 PM / edited 22 Apr 2007, 05:51 PM

Ryan Hartigan seems to be confusing “collaboration” with what we have come to know as “the devised play”. I think this is a blurring of distinctions that doesn’t lend to any illumination.

The English Guardian recently had a piece by the critic Michael Billington in which he elaborated on certain standard theatre-critic phrases:

Reaches a shattering climax: The rest of it’s like watching a tap drip.

The supporting players shine: The leads were planks.

A commanding performance: The actor had a very loud voice.

A subtle portrayal: The actor was practically inaudible.

Spare, economical designs: Looks like it cost about a tenner.

Epic:  I thought it would never end.

Muscular:  Written by a bloke.

Crepuscular lighting:  I couldn’t see a thing.

A welcoming venue: The ladies’ loo actually flushes.

Devised play. A total mess.

It’s on the Guardian website.

PS: Exactly what “Martyn Roberts” is trying to prove is beyond me. It’s obviously a pseudonym. I suspect I know who’s hiding behind it.

Tesco     posted 21 Apr 2007, 05:26 PM

Hey, you’re not Tesco, I am!  Hwvr v grateful for your restorative input; systems were starting to close down ……

Ryan Hartigan    posted 21 Apr 2007, 05:35 PM / edited 21 Apr 2007, 11:57 PM

Dear TESCO,

Thanks for your suggestion, but I don’t believe this to be true. It certainly wasn’t what I had in mind – although are we allowed to invoke author’s intention in this debate? 🙂 In fact, I’ve tried to be at pains to suggest the distinction I’m drawing. I logged my initial post as I believe, as Martyn had suggested earlier, that the bloody-minded black and white argument (devising vs. writing) comes at the expense of a great deal of the artistic value that rests in between the two apparently rigid and impermeable categories. I don’t agree that “writing” and “devising” are usefully polarised terms, and as I’ve suggested, there is a huge amount of grey area in between, in terms of both creative process and indeed the artistic product. Certainly there’s a continuum, with varying degrees of contribution from different parties, but I’d believe that my suggestion was a bigger problem if I could be convinced that I was unhelpfully blurring more useful and clearly delineated distinctions.  All the more so if there weren’t some fairly heavy cultural politics pulling the strings behind some of those viewpoints. 

As far as I’m concerned, what is tending to happen is that we are in pursuit of debating labels, and labels, when applied to cultural movements or objects, tend to be more of an issue of convenience than illumination.

nik smythe          posted 21 Apr 2007, 07:00 PM

when i called ‘satire’ i was referring to theatresports specifically, it being comedy based and often exploiting stereotypes. of course the broader world of improv goes beyond that, eg Playback theatre. technically it’s remotely possible someone could watch an inspired theatresports sketch, go home and write it word for word into a play, put it on and turn a profit. two things there: 1) even though it’s scripted, the work was actually devised, no? and 2) could the theatresports team have a case against the plagiarist, or does it need to be written down to be copyright?

Living theatre    posted 22 Apr 2007, 04:39 PM / edited 22 Apr 2007, 04:40 PM

I’m amazed at the persistence of this debate and a little distressed at its tedious arguments of insidious intent.

Who is the most prominent spokesperson for the English theatrical establishment? It’s the one the British Council sends out here.  It’s Michael Billington.

The fact is that theatre establishments everywhere feel threatened by devised plays. Because it’s not just “genius writers” that devised plays abjure. There’s also the matter of “genius directors”. Who really needs them? After all, they’re a fairly recent innovation.

The solo genius, writer or director, is not necessarily the only one who can produce the goods.

And theatre establishments can’t accept that.

As contributor after contributor has stressed above, there are many and varied ways of getting a script and a performance together. There are ways which need neither writer no director but just a dedicated group.

Actors together can produce work with as strong an identity as writers and directors alone. And listen — they’re just so much more open to new ways of making theatre.

Oliver Driver       posted 23 Apr 2007, 02:37 PM

In regards to who owns ‘Based on Auckland’.

The Silo Theatre owns it.

Abigail Fielding-Smith     posted 23 Apr 2007, 09:42 PM

1 devised play for sale. Contact Shane.

TWO DOLLAR SHOP         posted 23 Apr 2007, 09:57 PM / edited 23 Apr 2007, 09:57 PM

I’ll buy it.

Sal          posted 24 Apr 2007, 12:13 AM

If the devisers’ names are on it I’ll go up to $2.50.

Eli Kent                 posted 2 May 2007, 01:06 AM

Just thought I’d use this very interesting discussion to pop in a shameless plug. I am currently in a devised play which opens at BATS theatre next week as part of the Comedy Festival. It’s called The Hunting of the Snark and we have devised it using the poem of the same name, by Lewis Carroll, as a base. I have found the entire process at times frustrating, infuriating even, but also incredibly rewarding. I think that devised theatre, although sometimes a little messy, has the potential to carry with it a certain vitality and spark that is often missing from other more conventional methods these days. Our show is on from the 8th – the 12th of may at 6.30 pm. $15 waged, $12 concessions and groups of 6+. Come check it out and LET THE DEBATE CONTINUE!

John Smythe      posted 2 May 2007, 10:45 AM / edited 2 May 2007, 10:48 AM

Totally shameless – fair enough, Eli. And thanks for pointing to an important distinction. The Hunting of the Snark is clearly a devised adaptation. Lewis Carroll’s original “agony in eight fits” gives you all a huge head start on the scriptwriting side. What you are devising is the way in which it gets made into a live theatre performance.

And had Carroll died less than 50 years ago (to touch on the original “who owns what?” point of this forum), your co-op would have had to negotiate adaptation rights with his estate.

The copyright in your co-operative adaptation is a different matter, however, and can only apply to its tangible transferable form (note: that wording should not be taken as a legal opinion). For comparison consider Alannah O’Sullivan’s adaptation of Spike Milligan’s Badjelly the Witch, which exists in script form and is regularly licensed for performance.

joshua judkins   posted 2 May 2007, 03:24 PM / edited 2 May 2007, 03:26 PM

I hadn’t really thought about the adaption distinction before John, but it’s certainly an interesting one to consider.

Immediately my mind is taken to the work of Inside Out, and their adaptions of Carson McCullers tales (one successful, one disasterous) – then their memorable versions (a decade-and-a-half apart) of Thomas Mann’s ‘The Holy Sinner’ (one successful, one disasterous).  Then I shift to Trouble’s ‘Black Monk’ (short story by Chekov), and indeed Snooze – which apparently was essentially a devised adaption of Duncan Sarkies script (which got them in the trouble that gave them their name).

Finally, it comes to rest on a described image of Stanley Kubrick – standing on set with Anthony Burgess’ ‘A Clockwork Orange’ in his hand, pontificating over what he’s going to do with the rape scene they’re about to film. “How about singing a song?”, he asks Malcolm McDowell. “Well, I only really know one…” is the reply, “Singing in the Rain.” (the exchange is paraphrased here, but I’ve never forgotten reading about it…)

I’d love to hear from those who’ve experienced both creating devised productions from scratch and adapting existing works – how have the two methods compared?

Rachel Robbins posted 4 May 2007, 09:16 AM / edited 4 May 2007, 09:23 AM

As I understand the terms, The Hunting of the Snark is an adapted show, created by Lewis Carroll and adapted for the stage by others, whereas, say, Up Close Out Loud is what we’ve come to know as the devised work — that is, where there once was nothing, now there is:

“directionless dialogue… foetal hugs.. didn’t speak to me or hang together… lack of story development and depth… nothing of substance… nothing new… light tales…generalised, slightly cliched directives spoken to us at random: ‘act for yourself’, ‘face the truth’, ‘challenge yourself’, ‘do it all with love’ …speaking directly to the audience can get tiresome… self indulgent monologues… experiences went nowhere… dissolved into the night, left underdeveloped, trying to cover too much…”     (K Ward-Smythe)

ALF PUNTER, JONATHON BANNERMAN, WHERE WERE YOU???

Bill Sheat             posted 7 May 2007, 02:38 PM

When I first read the early postings on this I decided that it was too complicated to get involved.

All this changed when John Smythe accused me of being Alf. This caused me to decide to dip my toe in this raging puddle.  I have disregarded the smart alecs and others who have used this as a platform for jokey comments and attempt to deal with this topic with some seriousness.

1. A group embarking on a collaborative work must agree right at the beginning as to how ownership is to be treated. It is impossible to sort it out after the work becomes a hit in the West End or on Broadway or even if it is invited to a Festival in New Zealand.

2. How might the participants go about establishing a formula for sharing royalties? I suggest they agree to appoint a facilitator who acts as an arbitrator. The facilitator holds a meeting, wites down the agreement reached and everybody signs it.

3. The formula described by Annie Ruth as applied at Toi Whakaari makes a lot of sense where the work is being presented under the umbrella of an organisation

4. What formula should apply? The obvious one is equal sharing. This does not take account of the possibilty that one of the participants makes a more significant contribution than most of the others. I suggest that this can be taken care of by allocating, say, 25% to be held by the faciltator to be allocated at the facilitator’s discretion to recognise greater contribution. This 25% could also be used to bring in someone who comes in later in the processs. If the 25% is not used up it should then be spread amongst the participants equally.

5. All participants should agree to accept the rulings of the facilitator.

6. The suggestion that Playmarket play the role of facitator seems to make a lot of sense.

BIll Sheat

Anon#63              posted 7 May 2007, 03:44 PM

Why dismiss the ‘jokey comments’? As far as I’m concerned most of the ‘Jokey’ remarks on this site contain far more wisdom and honesty than the acres of solemn, convoluted ponderings.

Michael Smythe                posted 7 May 2007, 03:57 PM / edited 7 May 2007, 05:02 PM

Anon#63 – You and the other 62 of your ilk must be the audience that Frontseat was targetting. How else do we explain their frenetic ‘whatever we do we must not let people think we take this stuff seriously’ approach to arts journalism? I say many thanks to Bill for his wisdom and honesty.

John Smythe      posted 7 May 2007, 04:22 PM / edited 7 May 2007, 09:51 PM

My thanks, too, to Bill – on behalf of the many dedicated practitioners who will benefit. (Bugger off Anon #63, I’m going to be serious for a moment.)

Yet again, as he has done throughout his professional life, Bill has offered sage, sound and free  advice to the immediate benefit of some and the long term benefit of many. The fact is, professional theatre in Wellington, if not in New Zealand, would not be what it is today without the key contributions of Bill Sheat over a good half century.

Felicity Anderson             posted 7 May 2007, 04:55 PM

It’s the big tangent of this thread I’m interested in… Wasn’t the King James Bible devised by a committee? No single vision, no sole genius writer, no sole genius director, just a group of like-minded performance artists (of sorts) come together to give us a show that was singular and coherent? And devised?

Rachel Robbins posted 7 May 2007, 04:58 PM

I thought the writer of the King James Bible was an H. Ghost and the director God.

Felicity Anderson             posted 7 May 2007, 05:02 PM

All directors are called God.

Rachel Robbins posted 7 May 2007, 05:04 PM

All writers are touched by the Holy Ghost.

Super Dooper    posted 7 May 2007, 06:59 PM

And look at it. The Bible reads like a long Wikipedia entry. Its focus is too strong in some places, its intent unclear in others and the moments of affecting poetry frequently offset by writers’ indulgence. It’s contradictory, insightful, mean, beautiful, vague, inspirational, boring, lacking in credibility and piercingly true all at once. If the entire Bible were to be adapted for the stage, then the devising process would suit it down to the ground.

Anon#64              posted 7 May 2007, 07:13 PM

hehehehe  yet more true words spoke in jest

Moya Bannerman            posted 7 May 2007, 07:17 PM

So why is it called “the good book”? As for a devised adaptation of a devised book – it’s almost worth it to see what Alf and his (her?) troops would do!

Anon#63              posted 7 May 2007, 08:12 PM / edited 7 May 2007, 09:52 PM

!!had no intention to insult BillSheat whose advice on devised works was great – just objected to his remark re jokey posts (and if JSmythe thought he was Alf he can’t be all bad)  No, the ponderous solemn ones are ….. well you know who you are.  And if you don’t, we do!!!!!

Alf Smythe-Smythe         posted 8 May 2007, 08:47 AM

Bill, Bill, Bill. Oh, Bill, Bill, Bill. You’re late to this thread so you may not have picked up on the Big Issue. The Big Issue is not the ownership of devised theatre but the disownership of it. Since this thread began a total of three devised shows have launched themselves out on our stages. Here are the comments from reviewers on each show, in order (each cited above):

Devised show #1:  “Not completely satisfying… out of step with the realities of theatre… confused and fragmented… plenty of sound and fury [but] difficult to work out what was being signified…” (I think that was from Nick Smythe)

Devised show #2:  “We are obliged to cram into a corner of the Central fire Station’s backyard and watch a young woman graffiti artist at work spray-painting a wall through a stencil… there’s an interminable wait for further and more interesting action… the remaining cast finally arrive in a long line humming to a guitar… they evoke nothing more than a bunch of young thespians taking themselves awfully seriously… then we have to stand by and watch and listen to more — much more — of the humming and strumming and walking to and fro in a space littered with green recycling bins and a couple of wheelie bins… again, interminable…”  (definitely John Smythe)

Devised show #3:  “Directionless dialogue… foetal hugs.. didn’t speak to me or hang together… lack of story development and depth… nothing of substance… nothing new… light tales…generalised, slightly cliched directives spoken to us at random: ‘act for yourself’, ‘face the truth’, ‘challenge yourself’, ‘do it all with love’ …speaking directly to the audience can get tiresome… self indulgent monologues… experiences went nowhere… dissolved into the night, left underdeveloped, trying to cover too much…”     (K Ward-Smythe)

Bill, are you with me? Do you get what’s being said here? Do you see the big picture? It’s not a facilitator that’s needed. It’s a strait-jacket and a mouth-gag.

Anon #63             posted 8 May 2007, 09:05 AM

See?  Is anyone more passionate about theatre than Alf?  And yet his posts are regularly dismissed as frivolous!  This is a chap who – however misguided some may think him to be – cares deeply and who deserves replies as profound and witty as his own.

Alf-hyphen-Mulheron    posted 8 May 2007, 09:22 AM

Oi! Who is this erudite interloper attempting to manufacture credibility through re-branding?

Anon#666           posted 8 May 2007, 09:26 AM / edited 8 May 2007, 09:27 AM

Excuse me. Did I hear a whistle blow? Is this devised work finally all over, or is it only ‘Alf time?

John Smythe      posted 8 May 2007, 09:37 AM / edited 8 May 2007, 01:41 PM

As we suck on our oranges, or more bitter fruit, perhaps we should ask coach Bill for a legal opinion on whether someone who purloins some else’s nom-de-web on a Forum site is passing off or letting off – themselves, that is.

PS: This is the 99th post to this forum. Has any of it been quoted in class or referenced in an assignment yet?

Alf-A-Male Lasagne         posted 8 May 2007, 10:13 PM

This forum reads like Jumpers by Tom Stoppard.

Except that makes more sense.

Another Anon    posted 8 May 2007, 11:01 PM

and also, unlike Jumpers, this forum is a DEVISED WORK!

nik smythe          posted 8 May 2007, 11:01 PM / edited 8 May 2007, 11:06 PM

it’s more like an epic soap opera, over 100 episodes! laughter, tears, mysterious disappearances…this show’s got everything, except maybe a bit of romance… perhaps we could hook Alf up with a better ‘alf.

neil furby             posted 9 May 2007, 11:07 AM

Its been a quite a journey this forum even when : ” The bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.”  Carroll, Lewis. The Hunting of the Snark: Preface note

martyn roberts posted 9 May 2007, 05:06 PM

I laugh. We all laugh. Then cry. Weep in fact, as the future of theatre gets washed away by the rising tide of middle-class boring scripts for the ever decreasing middle of the road audience who insist on not being challenged, offended, empowered nor enlightened. RIP Theatre. Long live Theatre!

BERNADETTE CROMBIE posted 9 May 2007, 08:00 PM

Wow! So this is what it’s all been about! Hey, Marty, some of us are laughing at you. This was your last entry:

“I love alf

I think alf is cool. He says funny things. He is named after my favourite TV character who is also hairy and has 4 fingers.

ice cream is nice. My favourie is chocolate. It is yummy.

I bought a mint at Tescos once. It tasted funny. I like mints. Oddfellows are my favs.

My best colour in the whole wide world is B L U E.

alf is cool”

Hey, man — I think it’s you that’s RIP!

Fiona Scott-Lesley            posted 9 May 2007, 08:04 PM

I’m sorry, what is Martyn trying to say? Can any of us help you, Martyn?

martyn roberts posted 10 May 2007, 12:48 AM

bernadette –  you are obviously late to the play. Next time get in on time and you won’t have missed the beginning. I still have the original posts but I’m not going to reinterate them for your benefit. Laugh all you like. It is a comedy after all. Thats the point. Get out of the notion that somehow we are trying to solve anything on this forum and laugh for God’s sake, (excuse me while I yawn). The scary thing about witnessing the tedious drivel that spews forth from a lot of the posts here is that some of you actually go to the Theatre and watch our work. Christ on a stick please stop trying to make sense of it all. Its actually only entertainment. You pay – we play. You go home – we go home. It will never change  the world regardless whether it is devised, improvised, revised, imbibed, or plain ol scripted. Join a Book Club if you are so fascinating to listen to. Yes there is no Santa, we never went to the Moon, the Twin Towers were demolished by dynamite, Theatre is dead. Long live Theatre.

nik smythe          posted 10 May 2007, 01:02 AM

what i hear in Martyn’s lament is despair over people who criticise not just specific shows created through a devising process, but even the notion of ever using such a process at all, rather than more proven methods.  Like the twenties when people said ‘who needs talkies?   silent film works perfectly well, dialogue is just indulgent rubbish.’   the message i get from Alf and his cronies is ‘don’t push the envelope’.

Rachel Robbins posted 10 May 2007, 08:08 AM / edited 10 May 2007, 09:02 AM

MY POEM    by Martyn Roberts, Year 12

I laugh.

We all laugh.

Then cry.

Weep in fact,

as

the future of theatre gets

washed away

by the rising tide of middle-class boring scripts for the ever decreasing middle of the road

audience

who insist on not being challenged,

offended,

empowered

nor

enlightened.

RIP Theatre.

Long live Theatre!

4/10, Martyn. Imagery a bit tame and sometimes leads to confusion. “Washing away the future” is an odd combination of metaphor and abstraction. You then unwisely pursue the metaphor (but a gold star for doggedness!) and present us with a “rising tide” and “the ever decreasing middle of the road”. Is the tide rising to cover the middle of the road? Are we at a coastal resort? And how does the middle of a road “decrease”? Is it, in this case, because of the rising waters?

Katurian               posted 10 May 2007, 10:42 AM / edited 10 May 2007, 11:08 AM

Well, Rachel Robbins,

Since you’re the expert in analysis, perhaps you could explain why it is that the rest of us should be awestruck at the “profundity and wit” (as one contributor suggests, and I’m still looking for)  of Alf and cohorts?  Most particularly, I’m interested in your analysis of the argument “all devising is bad”.  I’m thrilled to wait for the next exciting installments, including “why all food is nice” and “why all writers are good”.

John Smythe      posted 10 May 2007, 12:24 PM

Having ascertained this is indeed the same Martyn Roberts who contributes so much to the quality of our performing arts and whose lighting designs have so often been extolled on this site, I feel compelled now to say:

This Forum facility is not offered as a long drop for members struck down with a sudden bout of the shits. I for one find aggressive, offensive, derogatory language intimidating and therefore unhelpful in an arena designed to facilitate the free flow of opinion.

If one thing unites us it is surely our appreciation of good communication. May I remind you of the truism offered on the Forum page: Communication is Conversation as Contribution. And please, everyone, take the time to draft your posts off line and review and revise before you expose it to public view. Or if you must be impulsively spontaneous, please consider the principles of good improvisation (not dissimilar from the above).

Satirical, wacky, weird, wondrous and funny posts are all fine when they don’t beat up on others.  I’m tempted to add that since we’ve gone well over the ton with this topic and it keeps losing its way … Put it this way: if you want to make a clear and focused point about something, I suggest you initiate and nominate another topic.

Alf Christmas      posted 10 May 2007, 01:38 PM

What does Martyn mean, Yes there is no Santa?

Rachel Robbins posted 10 May 2007, 01:43 PM

No, hold on John, I don’t understand — is Martyn saying devised theatre is not meant to make sense? Or is he trying to be clever and say we’re all to dumb to understand whatever it is he does?

BERNADETTE CROMBIE posted 10 May 2007, 02:24 PM

Why does Martyn always write “Theatre”? With an initial capital?

Rachel Robbins posted 10 May 2007, 02:28 PM

Because devisors see it as a place of worship.

Thomas LaHood                posted 10 May 2007, 03:24 PM

I like to read this topic and think of all the watchful eyes of non-posting readers, who contribute nothing but observe and silently form their own opinions…  it kind of makes me feel a delicious mixture of shame and indignance… like watching a devised show…

martyn roberts posted 10 May 2007, 07:42 PM / edited 11 May 2007, 10:23 AM

Dear Teacher,

Thank you for my report. I am pleased to see I have achieved the NCEA standard and can therefore relax knowing I will pass my exam. I wish to point out that mixed metaphor is the way we think these days and yes its like rain on a sunny day, we are made wet whilst in the prime of our love. Thanks too for headmaster blowing my cover, and while I was hiding behind my actual name I feel compelled to point out that I am in fact not me but him, the other me being a me in disguise. If you see me walking down the street, just walk on by. Its not me. cos thats the way aha I like it.  … — …

Nate      posted 11 May 2007, 10:10 AM

Are people devising plays because they can’t find already written scripts that they like?  Are there not enough good NZ scripts being written?  Or are there plenty of scripts but just not about the topics that acting companies are interested in?

nik smythe          posted 11 May 2007, 10:47 AM

it is really a matter of choice, and what they want to acheive.  a devised piece will have a different energy to a tightly scripted piece, for better or worse.  whatever the chosen form is should serve the intention of the work.

by Johns suggestion i’ve begun a new forum for discussing what does and doesn’t work for us in theatre, as that for me has been the most interesting meta-topic on this thread, since original query on devised work ownership i think has been dealt with more or less sufficiently. 

Moya Bannerman            posted 11 May 2007, 10:55 AM

Maybe it’s ego, Nate, like the ‘auteur’ director syndrome in film. Some creative people can only get interested in their own ideas. (A bit like people who get more pleasure from masturbating than doing it with a partner?) Somewhat conversely, some people work better in groups than on their own (a bit like an orgiastic opposite of the above?) so prefer to formulate their ideas and develop the work with a group.

The only question for me in the end is, is it any good? Do I trust it? Am I engaged? What’s in it for me? Does it reconfirm what I already know, extend me beyond where I’d normally go, interest, excite, challenge me …? And is it honed to maximum effect so that nothing obscures its full potential do achieve any or all of the above? (Do I get off on watching others at it?)

The big risk with devising is that the performance tail can wag the writing dog. The how gets decided before that what and the why are clear. (Premature ejaculation?)  It’s a huge ask to achieve all that’s required to create a successful show through the devising process, and monumentally expensive if you actually pay everyone for all the time they spend in the process.

Writing/rewriting, workshopping/revising, rehearsing, opening then doing it again night after night, getting better every time … It’s a tried and true process that has a lot going for it. (A bit like seduction, foreplay, intercourse, orgasm, afterglow?)

neil furby             posted 11 May 2007, 11:02 AM

Are people devising plays because they can’t find already written scripts that they like?  Are there not enough good NZ scripts being written?  Or are there plenty of scripts but just not about the topics that acting companies are interested in?   I suppose people like to devise plays because they feel like having a crack at it Why they do beats me, as there are lots of great New Zealand scripts around on all sorts of diverse and interesting topics   Directors should direct written script and actors act out the parts in a play Why complicate the process with devised work??   Moya please settle down and take a hot shower immediately 

Moya Bannerman            posted 11 May 2007, 11:08 AM

Sorry Neil, it’s a mindset provoked by binging on the Comedy Festival.

Thomas LaHood                posted 11 May 2007, 02:44 PM

I think it’s already been mentioned, hasn’t it, that the process of devising helps to explore beyond boundaries erected by traditional scripted methods of theatre creation… I think back to my own successful collaboration with Jo Randerson, Mel Hamilton, Harriette Cowan and Saran Goldie-Anderson – the ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY WALKING tours of Fringe 06, and it was elementary to devise because the very nature of the show, being outdoors, in movement and subject to many external variables like drunken streetwalkers and weather conditions, meant we had to be more flexible than a script could ever allow.

The desire to devise to me is akin to the desire to invent, to pioneer, and even, dare I say it, to deconstruct – because this world is too f*ing complacent and too attached to its notions of what it means to be civilised.  I think this is probably what Martyn is driving at – it’s just thinking outside the square, you squares!

martyn roberts posted 11 May 2007, 06:32 PM / edited 12 May 2007, 10:44 AM

In his book ‘The Empty Space’ Peter Brook defines the theatre in 4 ways. The Deadly Theatre –  conventional theatre, formulaic and unsatisfying, created within structures determined both by text and the space called ‘a theatre’. The Holy Theatre – which attempts to rediscover  ritual and the spritual aspects of drama, a revaluation of a lost sense of communion if you will. There is also Rough Theatre whereby the immediate environment of the drama is interrupted and contributed to by both other improvising players and audience alike, the space itself can play its part too. (Perhaps Thomas this is where you sat with your pieces?(Rough does not equate with poorly or crude in his definition you understand)). And finally Immediate Theatre whereby the practitioners attempt to find total truth and meaning in every given moment, and seek to reinvent the drama anew every time it is performed. There is more to these simple overviews and I recommend a read, but perhaps if we look collectively into our Theatre past we will find familiar arguements appearing over and over again that try to ‘move us forward’ somehow from a seeming impasse with the status quo. I advocate more doing (go see the ‘hunting of the snark’ crew and their wonderful take of that poem) and less ‘not my cuppa tea-ism’. Everyone is right, there is no wrong, I will see the sun again tomorrow.

“Many audiences all over the world will answer positively from their own experience that they have seen the face of the invisible through an experience on the stage that transcended their experience in life. They will maintain that Oedipus or Berenice or Hamlet or The Three Sisters performed with beauty and with love fires the spirit and gives them a reminder that daily drabness is not necessarily all.”  Peter Brook .-.. — …- . /  .. … /  .- .-.. .-..

Hopeful                posted 12 May 2007, 10:38 AM

I hear you Martyn and I think that a lot of the problem is actually now with Deadly Reviewing.  When Deadly theatre is encouraged by reviewers who either can’t tell dead from live and/or who pull their punches cos they feel they have to be ‘nice’ and it’s ‘cruel’ to say what they really think, it has a deadly effect on eveything that goes on.  Also reviewers are too often brave in private and cowardly in print – this seems to have been the fashion lately with all types of reporting, and look where that lead to in Iraq!  Deadly results all round.  Let’s have the guts to say what we really think, all of us, not just the official reviewers whose qualifications for the job are often extremely dubious; this site is a great place for practitioners to have a bigger say and counter a lot of the tame stuff that goes into print.  Honest criticism however tough and apparently ‘unconstructive’ nevertheless has the constructive, positive effect of encouraging the really live, ‘immediate’ among us.

neil furby             posted 12 May 2007, 10:59 AM

“Tradition itself, in times of dogmatism and dogmatic revolution, is a revolutionary force which must be safeguarded.”

Peter Brook

Lopezz posted 13 May 2007, 02:10 PM

I couldn’t agree more, Hopeful. War declared on Deadly Reviewing.

Katurian               posted 13 May 2007, 07:01 PM / edited 13 May 2007, 07:05 PM

I agree, although with a significant proviso: the best responses are certainly honest, but they’re also well informed. Honesty without any brain doesn’t necessarily result in anything worthwhile (viz. much of the above discussion). The movement beyond Deadly Reviewing requires critical writers who understand that when they are at their most effective, while they might not always seem to have a direct effect, say, in terms of relationship with ticket sales, they do play a role in how we see the work and perhaps even what work could be produced.

This includes preparing the ground for what is to come, and seeing beyond the artistic forms that they are accustomed to (even if they don’t like them, they can at least see what’s at stake). And, on that point – this is fast becoming a new forum topic, with some interesting potential, and probably needs to shift elsewhere. Not long ago, people were throwing around the idea that there was a duty for artists. So, is there a duty for the critics? 🙂

John Smythe      posted 13 May 2007, 07:24 PM / edited 13 May 2007, 08:07 PM

Prompted by ‘Katurian’ I have transfered the last five posts to a new Forum entitled:  Deadly theatre? Deadly reviewing? A duty for critics?

See also the other spin-off Forum: When does theatre work?

Rachel Robbins posted 30 May 2007, 08:32 AM / edited 30 May 2007, 01:10 PM

 They can’t seem to help it, can they? On and on they stupefyingly go, romping themselves mindlessly across our wretched stages, devising away, devise, devise, devise, devising us all to bloody hopeless death. Oh, for a doctor in the house with needles of lethal injection.

“… at last, the substantive drama, I think… except no true passion… mum is a non-entity in the story… so is the vendor… if there is any community upset, we don’t hear about it…the camping ground idea appears to have been dropped… Kelly’s objections seem trite, naïve and selfish… I mean what’s all that about hearing the sea? the sea’s not being sold… nothing is offered to counter such thoughts… thinness of the work on display… no cathartic collision of previously set up elements… no pay-off… no real sense of outcome let alone resolution… the true purpose of the production, then, appears to have been to display a range of clever theatrical devices… so much potential withers on the proverbial vine… lack of the dramaturgical skill and wit… the medium is the superficial massage….” [J Smythe, reviews, May 30]

Devisers – please, do us all a favour.

Alf-Louis Smythe              posted 30 May 2007, 08:43 AM / edited 30 May 2007, 01:17 PM

I ran into Peter Brook a while ago in Paris, at a café out the back of the Gare du Nord. He has his dilapidated theatre nearby, the Theatre des Bouffes du Nord. I had previously got to know him in London—a lifetime ago, when I was living in a squat near an RSC pub. I’d got to know him really well but then we’d had a violent row and never spoken again. Until this time in Paris, when, out the back of the Gare du Nord, he recognised me, leapt up and shook my hand. We sat down and he had an absinthe, to which he was partial. We tip-toed carefully around the topic of theatre, which had been the source of our falling out, but eventually, inevitably, got onto it. He started talking about tragic theatre. He said the chief source of great tragedy—the tragedy of Aeschylus and Sophocles—was human freedom. Oedipus was free, Antigone and Prometheus were free. He said the fate we think we find in ancient drama is only the other side of freedom and passions themselves are freedoms caught in their own trap, etc, etc.

Then he started talking about the theatre of Euripides, which of course announced the decline of tragic forms. A conflict of characters, whatever turns you may give it, is never anything but a composition of forces whose results are predictable. So everything is settled in advance. Again, etc.

Anyway, he carried on along those lines before I interrupted and said I thought that young audiences are bored with text-based plays, and crave group-devised work, visual and physical theatre, and site-specific experiments.

He grew suddenly cold. He told me he believed that theatre should fulfil its historic role of putting the writer at the centre of the theatrical event, that theatre achieves its greatest resonance when it expresses a solo writer’s vision.

Well, I said, Petesy, I felt this was a faintly f***ing derrière garde argument and he began to scream. He made a long screaming speech that the greatest theatre came through a single mind and the endeavours of his theatre would always involve an interpretation of that single mind and he asked me to name any attempts to the contrary that had been anything but deadening failures and I couldn’t. So he calmed down and he said to me that every so often he would come across what he called “the witless ones” who burble out what he called tired and reactionary arguments like “everyone is right, there is no wrong” and bloodless platitudes like “I will see the sun again tomorrow” and once more he grew white with rage and he screamed out into the Paris night – I remember it distinctly – “There are f***ers who are right and there are f***ers who are absolutely f***ing wrong!” and “When the night falls on a production, that should be it! There should be no tomorrow! The audience should be crying out like John Donne against the rising of the sun!” And he warned me that the Anti-Christ, the Beast 666, would come disguised as a passionless deviser mouthing watery banalities.

I wished him well and returned to my hotel room just off Rue de Mouffetard.

[I’ve inserted *s not out of prudery but because many who surf teh net from work have anti-p**n firewalls ‘protecting’ them and such a one has already classed this wondrously erudite and witty post as p**n. Sad but true. – JS]

Samba posted 30 May 2007, 09:10 AM

To the raving + bitter anti-deviser of many pseudonyms + far too much time on his hands – I’ve got the answer!  DON’T GO!  Watch TV!  Go to the movies!  Read a book!

Pissed off             posted 30 May 2007, 01:46 PM / edited 30 May 2007, 01:48 PM

Here we go again another attack on a devised play simply because its devised. Am I the only one or are others wondering why it is that the reviews section of this site led by its main Wellington reviewer always attacks devised productions and then is conveniently backed up by more attack postings on the forum section which is moderated by the same reviewer? You people have so got it in for devised plays and I suppose you’re all triumphant because you have achieved what you set out to I mean go anywhere in Wellington now and mention that you’re with a group doing a devised play and everyone falls over laughing. Do you know how disheartening that is do you know how frustrating it is for those of us trying to take Theatre in a new direction to be constantly mocked just because we’re not Tom Stoppard?

Pissed off too     posted 30 May 2007, 01:57 PM

I am writing to back up Pissed Off. I was with a group aiming to do a devised play for a possible production. Everyone we spoke to drew our attention to this Forum and spoke about the toxic atmosphere around devised plays. The girlfriend of one of our group told some people her boyfriend was working on a devised play and they jeered her so much she asked her boyfriend to pull out. Anyway, we ended up taking a vote against proceeding with the play. It is disheartening.

Samba posted 30 May 2007, 04:08 PM

Yes; so quite obvious that Alf Louis-Smythe (etc), Pissed Off and Pissed Off Too is the same person –  with even more time on his hands than I thought.  Get a life mate.

BERNADETTE CROMBIE posted 30 May 2007, 05:40 PM / edited 30 May 2007, 05:40 PM

John, it’s such a relief to have this debate up and running again. You have to admit over the last few weeks things have been a little dull on the old site, what with hapless Murray Roberts wittering off to drop his damp platitudes all over the place except here where one of the Alfs with a gleaming bucket and rude mop can do a swift clean-up. What I want to know is — is “Samba” or “Sambo” or whatever really Murray Roberts?

Samba posted 30 May 2007, 05:44 PM

No I’m not! Jesus, get a life, you half-wits. Are you glued to this site or something?

John Smythe      posted 30 May 2007, 06:08 PM / edited 30 May 2007, 09:25 PM

Any analysis of my contributions to this forum will prove I am not in the least opposed to devising per se. I was truly looking forward to LandLies in the hope it would soundly rebut the army of Alfs. No-one is sadder than I that this did not occur.

I have carefully noted all the good pints in my review – and let me be clear that the theatrical inventiveness to which I give due credit would be very welcome in any production, devised ot written. But nothing can disguise the fact that the story itself is tissue thin when it comes to explores the themes it has set up and gaining full value from the characters, relationships, wants, needs and desires that it has established.

I truly do not care whether an individual writer or a devising group brings their raw material to its full potential – just as long as someone does, or has a good crack at it. What worries me about LandLies is that those involved may be so preoccupied with HOW they are doing it that they have lost sights of WHAT they are doing and, most importantly, WHY. 

If anyone has an alternative view of LandLies, please let them share it using the Comments function. I will certainly be adding all available reviews as they come to hand and if they differ considerably from mine I will be delighted.

By the way, I do not “moderate” these forums – no-one is excluded except robots who blog spam. Whenever I do have to do something I declare it

Bernadette, I am not able to detect who the real people are behind their pseudonyms – nor would I reveal them if they choose to be anonymous. As for “Murray Roberts” – who is he? Martyn Roberts is the person you have crossed swords with before – but please, don’t reduce this to a personal slanging match

Michael Smythe                posted 30 May 2007, 06:34 PM / edited 30 May 2007, 06:58 PM

It must be said that Alf-Louis Smythe was clealy an imposter. Anyone with a modicum of breeding would know that an authentic name-dropper getting plastered in Paris would place the hyphen before the Smythe.

But taking John’s point about moving above and beyond the personal slagging match it is useful to return the theme of this forum as an example of devised work. Have we now witnessed a new sub-genre in which one author adopts multiple personae and argues with himself? His wrighting is clearly creative, but is it dialogue or monologue?

Alf-Louis Smythe              posted 30 May 2007, 09:13 PM

Isn’t it obvious I’m Fanny-Moll Herron??

Moya Bannerman            posted 30 May 2007, 09:20 PM

But of course! Who else would be so effluently Alf-fluent?

Alf-Louis Smythe              posted 31 May 2007, 08:43 AM

Oh come now, don’t pretend you didn’t know, Ms Smythe-Bannerman!  (May I call you Johnnie)?

martyn roberts posted 1 Jun 2007, 01:56 PM

shoosh john, let the BERNADETTES of the world fall on their faces! (She who has her name always in capitals, caps lock is to your left honey). Damn the torpedoes I say to all those wee sensitives who feel they can’t now be taken ‘seriously’ because of this forum. The best defence is attack so lets pour forth an almighty wave of devised theatre onto the crusty trojan walls of the middle class theatres. Play loudly the tune of actions over words and meaning in expressionism like discordant trumpets. Tear at the root cause of the blancmange that masquerades as insight on our nations stages – fear of risk. Wage war on the sad souls here within that rabble and curse in jealous spite at dynamic change – they are stones being worn down by the tides. I am Murray! Hear me roar! We will prevail! Unleash HELL!

John Smythe      posted 1 Jun 2007, 02:31 PM

Ar, me ol’ geddon, it’s a very big wheel but it does keep on turnin’. Roll on, I say!

And let more and more playwrights also “Play loudly the tune of actions over words and meaning in expressionism” – as many have and do. Let producers, directors, designers and actors, too, understand that just because a written play looks like words on a page, there is almost always a helluva lot more to it than that.

The ancient Greeks, Shakespeare, Ibsen and Chekov respond very well to expressionist treatment, by the way. And look at Theatre Militia’s recent production of Tony Kushner’s A Bright Room Called Day.

There are devised scripts (including those written through a workshop/devising process), devised productions, directed productions of devised scripts, devised productions of written scripts, devised productions of devised scripts … and everything is possible within each model.

I think what much of this discussion comes down to is the assertion that ‘devised productions of devised scripts’ are more likely to become subverted by premature performance – like a one-night stand that seemed like a good idea at the time but leaves the participants feeling unsatisfied, if not quite bad about themselves.

PS: Has anyone – have any some – ever attempted to group devise a review? Any volunteers?

neil furby             posted 2 Jun 2007, 10:48 AM

This forum “What is a devised work” is a devised work itself.  It  would be great to read this forum on stage with each writer stepping out of the shadows to reveal themselves to the public? Their heads would be held high as they expound on the subject of devised work. The audience would be allowed to pass comment and perhaps sometime in the early hours of the morning a collective agreement may be reached as everyone falls into fitful sleep to experience another form of devised work dreaming.

Thomas LaHood                posted 2 Jun 2007, 12:03 PM

yuck

I wouldn’t go to see a performance of this forum

no way

self-indulgent tripe

Julia Forsythe    posted 2 Jun 2007, 02:26 PM / edited 2 Jun 2007, 02:34 PM

A devised play can be good or bad (work or not work) just as a scripted play can be good or bad (work or not work).

I have been taught that even with a devised piece you must formulate a script- that the semi improvised nature created in rehearsal  needs to be locked down in some way in order for it to work- surely then if devised work is done in this way it is little different to a play off the shelf. We have seen fine examples of this with Le Page’s work.

To me, both these forms are similar and should not be judged on their form but on their quality.

Although this forum has had debate on devising I certainly wouldn’t credit it with putting people off devising, espceially as I think it is well recognised that devising is an important part of theatre making- past, present and future.

Michael Smythe                posted 2 Jun 2007, 08:38 PM

Neil writes, “This forum, ‘What is a devised work’ (sic), is a devised work itself. It would be great to read this forum on stage with each writer stepping out of the shadows to reveal themselves to the public. Their heads would be held high as they expound on the subject of devised work.”

The problem is this, Neil, and it’s been troubling me for sometime. What if Alf Punter, Alf Smythe-Smythe, Alf-Louise Smythe, Bernadette, Abigail, Rachel, Fiona, Jonathon, Felicity, etc, etc, have all been one and the same person, so that this one and the same person has been writing and directing this forum by way of these various personae? If that has been the case, this forum would not be an example of what I have called elsewhere sub-genres of devised works (forgive the long-windedness, it’s a family trait). Quite the contrary. It would be an example of the writer at the centre of the theatrical event. This forum would have achieved its resonance because it would have expressed a solo writer’s vision as expressed through personae. As I said, I’ve been troubled by this thought for awhile now. I do feel there is a writer lurking behind a lot of this, just as there are figures hanging about its fringes (poor Martyn) who clearly should not be allowed near the written word.

Michael Smythe                posted 2 Jun 2007, 09:56 PM

This is now getting seriously out of hand. The previous post was not made by me.  I am the genuine Michael Smythe (John’s brother, Nik’s father) who has placed previous posts under this name.

Placing posts under other people’s actual names is fraudulent and undermines the integrity of this site. Please, whoever you are,  do not wreck a good thing by abusing your freedom of speech.

chorus posted 3 Jun 2007, 12:21 AM

oh you pompous old fart

Neil Furby            posted 3 Jun 2007, 08:06 AM

This is insane! It’s like a play by Pirandello and feels like the author is taking us into his final act. Which is the real Michael Smythe? The first or the second? The first certainly sounds like Michael and I think is putting up an intriguing argument, but Michael always does. Then who is the second?

nik smythe          posted 3 Jun 2007, 11:53 AM

and by extension, who am i?

John Smythe      posted 3 Jun 2007, 01:05 PM / edited 5 Jun 2007, 05:08 PM

Just because Iago is a devious bastard that doesn’t mean he is not right when he says:

“Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;

‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands:

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him

And makes me poor indeed.”

Let’s have no more of it, I say. Play fair.

neil furby             posted 3 Jun 2007, 03:19 PM

I not write my last comment either !!

Paul McLaughlin               posted 3 Jun 2007, 04:07 PM

These very issues with pseudonyms, petty name calling, and now malicious posts purporting to be from other contributors are exactly the reason why many, myself included, no longer participate in Theatreview. Theatre is hard work, and these squabbles and mis-guided attacks on people/pratitioners don’t advance us at all. It’s a pity, as John’s ideal for these forums was admirable.

Neil Furby            posted 3 Jun 2007, 04:21 PM / edited 3 Jun 2007, 04:23 PM

Look, on reflection, does it matter if there are posters that are figments? It’s what is said that matters, surely? Do we condemn the content of a play because its characters are figments?

One of the Michael Smythes has been arguing that this forum is a sub genre of what we know as “devised work”. The other of the Michael Smythes postulates that the forum has a coherency and resonance because it is — he argues — largely the construct of a single author. One of the Michael Smythes is a figment of his own imagination. The other is a figment of someone else’s. But what about what they’re saying? You can quote Othello  ’til the cows come home. The play, the play’s the thing.

chorus posted 3 Jun 2007, 06:55 PM

All hail Neil Furby!  Exactly. This whole thing began because of the Smythe-led obsession with ‘real’ names and their disturbing attempts to twist people’s arms to use them. Bound to fail. Aliases rule – give up the ridiculous displays of moral outrage and indignation and address the argument  – if there is one! And if the isn’t – hey, enjoy the anarchy!  Lighten up!

Yvonne Harwood              posted 4 Jun 2007, 05:02 PM

I’m sorry Paul McLaughlin seems so peeved with the forum as I’ve been following this thread with fascination. I’d like to make a comment. Paul seems to be avoiding the latest twist in the argument here. He claims this forum thread consists in “mis-guided attacks on people/practitioners.” But one of the Michael Smythes seems to be arguing that the attacks are legitimate theatre, NOT in fact mis-guided but in fact GUIDED, and that the unique resonance of this forum thread is because it is – allegedly – largely authored by a single imagination and not devised by a company. Paul can’t see the big picture. He’s lost in the deetail.

Michael Smythe                posted 4 Jun 2007, 05:53 PM / edited 4 Jun 2007, 07:39 PM

Yvonne and others seem to have got down to defining devised work as work not scripted by a single author. A few posts back the real Michael Smythe (me) raised the question of playwrighting as dialogue or monologue.

To state the obvious, a playwright must empathise with many different characters to create convincing conflict or even conversation. In theory then, a group of people role-playing different characters is a legitimate way of devising dialogue and action. If it fails is the theory at fault or the practice?

I know earlier posts have distinguished between improvising and devising, but surely the former can be a tool for the latter. That faultless authority, Wikipedia, says about Mike Leigh’s 1996 film Secrets and Lies: “Although Leigh is credited with writing the screenplay, most of the performances were actually improvised: Leigh told each of the actors about their roles, and let them create their own lines.” (The film was a critical success with a 93% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes).

Presumably Leigh directed with a clear vision and the ability to control the editing of many takes. Can we conclude that for a stage play one person, a wrighter or a director, must exercise similar vision and editorial control  for a devised process to work?  I am genuinely interested in the views of experienced practitioners. In my field of design there are parallels between the vision of a single designer being realised by others, and cross-disciplinary teams working under the direction of a leader.

Another thought. Is devised work erupting internationally or is it an expression of Kiwi egalitarianism?

playwright           posted 4 Jun 2007, 08:34 PM

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe 🙂 🙂 🙂

John Smythe      posted 5 Jun 2007, 11:23 AM / edited 6 Jun 2007, 03:34 PM

I look at it this way: there is creation and re-creation (and recreation is a synonym for play … but that’s by the way).

The craft of playwrighting involves the creation of entire lives, communities, histories, circumstances, wants, needs, desires and the obstacles that impede them, all structured in a way that pursues clear thematic and dramatic purposes by giving the play a place to start and a place to end, with the ‘traffic on the stage’ between being engineered to best fulfil those purposes, by way of performable / presentable / produceable action.

The crafts of acting, directing and design involve the recreation / realisation of the text through the creation of performance; physical, visual and aural design elements, and production dynamics.

If a devising group pursues the latter objectives without paying due attention to the foundations and contexts otherwise evolved through the craft of playwrighting, the medium will inevitably become ‘the massage’, the work will be accused of being superficial and debates – as we have seen – will rage.

When Mike Leigh “told each of the actors about their roles, and let them create their own lines” for Secret and Lies, that devolved responsibility to the actors for creating the tip of a very big iceberg. Our own Fiona Samuel and Duncan Sarkies have used similar strategies. But all three take final responsibility for crafting the text that finally ensures the work adds up to more than the sum of it parts.

Dare I add that a relatively common problem with group-devised works is that they add up to less than the sum of their parts? But not, of course, always.

nik smythe          posted 5 Jun 2007, 04:49 PM

as an industry friend pointed out to me recently, the biggest problem with most Kiwi theatre, devised or otherwise, is a frequent sense of ‘unfinishedness’, attributable to the length of rehearsal time being generally somewhat less than ideal. it’s possible due to the fresh creation aspect of devising that it would ideally require even more rehearsal time than the average pre-scripted work, whereas from experience the reality is more commonly the reverse.

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary              posted 7 Jun 2007, 03:00 PM / edited 7 Jun 2007, 03:02 PM

Smythe (smeith)  n. [L., perh. F. smerde] Type of blanket fog, thick and wet, covering all with dense inpenetrability. Hence as a verb: to smythe, to be long-winded [espec theatre colloq]

  1.  Life comes at you so gay and blithe

       Til wretches cover it with smythe.  JONSON

  2.  It was the most entertaining thread on the forum, then it got smythed.  PUNTER

Ms. Katurian       posted 7 Jun 2007, 05:38 PM

Masturbation is very entertaining for the person doing it, too. But unless you’ve got any neat tricks, it can be pretty boring for the spectators. Go get a towel, and get a room. Come back when you’ve cleared the tanks. Same applies for the progeny of Punter.

nik smythe          posted 7 Jun 2007, 08:29 PM

sorry punter, i did use big words didn’t i, and lots of them. i forget how cool it’s not. please allow me to translate myself: my friend what works with scripts says most nz theatre is underrehearsed. since devised work includes making a script, it needs longer to rehearse than a play with a script already, but they usually have less.

BERNADETTE CROMBIE posted 8 Jun 2007, 08:20 AM

Wasn’t there another posting  yesterday evening by Michael Smythe? In reply to the other Michael Smythe? It seems to have been removed.

Yvonne Harwood              posted 8 Jun 2007, 08:24 AM

There was another posting after that. It’s been removed, too.

John Smythe      posted 8 Jun 2007, 08:40 AM

Yes, a posting was removed because it was incoherent, irrelevant and dishonestly posted under a real person’s name already established in the conversation. The other posting, from the real owner of the name, was removed with his agreement because it would make no sense on its own.

I’m sad that after more than a year of being able to ‘let it be’ I’ve had to intervene and moderate this Forum. If anyone can explain to me why this malicious activity is happening, please do so (click Contact for my email address).

Chorus posted 8 Jun 2007, 09:07 AM

Oh enough of the moral outrage.  This activity is not ‘malicious’ or ‘dishonest’; it’s mischievous at worst, extremely entertaining at best; and an entirely predictable and healthy response to pomposity and longwindednessn and to the domination of ‘Smythes’ in what is presented as a public theatre forum.  We don’t like being censored, told we’re ‘sinners’ or ordered about – or patronised as minor members of some ‘Smythe’ tribe. 

If Smythes pulled their heads in and had the good sense to use pseudonyms then we might get more genuine objective debate.

Polly A posted 8 Jun 2007, 09:28 AM

Enough of the Smythe-baiting already, not least because more long-windedness has issued from the faux-Smythes than the genuine ones. Personally I am interested – and willing to forgive verbosity – in anything posted as a committed contribution. And I tire very quickly of posts from those who like the sight of their own words on screen when they have bugger all to say.

John Smythe      posted 8 Jun 2007, 11:34 AM / edited 8 Jun 2007, 01:13 PM

To return to the topic, if I may: Six Characters in Search of an Author by Luigi Pirandello (1921) wittily explores and deconstructs fundamentals of theatre practice through questions of character, context, reality, make-believe, the nature and value of ‘truth’ … While not specifically about devised work, it does focus on the dilemma of characters fixed in time and circumstance, but not yet used in a play that gives their existence meaning.

With a cast size of 14 it is unlikely to be produced professionally in NZ, but a rare opportunity to see it comes with the Butterfly Creek Theatre Troupe production translated, adapted and directed by John Marwick who makes it very accessible and entertaining.

Currently playing at the Muritai School Hall, Eastbourne (7-9 & 14-16 June) then the Gryphon Theatre, Wellington (22-23 June).

J Baker posted 8 Jun 2007, 12:50 PM

To my knowledge, at least three postings were removed last night. They all related to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary entry which was itself a rather pungent response to other postings. The first entry removed was by one of the Michael Smythes and seemed to be an elaborate demonstration of the OED entry, culled from earlier postings. The second was by the other Michael Smythe. There was a third posting. All were removed without explanation.

Yvonne Harwood              posted 8 Jun 2007, 12:55 PM

Well, shame!

t opiate                posted 8 Jun 2007, 01:05 PM

Who Owns Devised Work? wittily explores and deconstructs fundamentals of internet discussion thread posting practice through questions of character, context, reality, make-believe, the nature and value of ‘truth’.

Ms. Katurian       posted 8 Jun 2007, 04:17 PM

No. It doesn’t. Not least as deconstruction involves analysis.

t opiate                posted 8 Jun 2007, 04:22 PM / edited 8 Jun 2007, 04:34 PM

Gonna get drunk now. Have a happy Friday everyone.

BERNADETTE CROMBIE posted 8 Jun 2007, 04:25 PM / edited 8 Jun 2007, 04:26 PM

Shame on the censoring. There’s a whole imaginative argument running through this forum, on imagination-through-devising as opposed to imagination-through-a-single-mind, that is, being-in-itself as opposed to being-for-itself and it’s a shame to see it being stifled. It’s been argued that one of the Michael Smythes is merely a figment of his own imagination (demonstrably true) and the other is a figment of someone else’s (transparently). But they’re both legitimate entities. And isn’t that the crux of this debate? Why, then, are we censoring one of the Michael Smythes just because he’s not what the other Michael Smythe claims is “the real Michael Smythe”? (And, of course, because the moderator doesn’t like the content of the posting… and where’s that going to lead to?) There are any number of posters (and im-posters) on this forum who have adopted some sort of guise or other, some of them clearly adopting the other’s guise but doing so to pursue the argument. The moderator has made an unwise and intemperate decision, worsened by having claimed earlier that this forum had no moderator. He should reinstate the postings.

Ms. Katurian       posted 8 Jun 2007, 04:32 PM / edited 8 Jun 2007, 04:34 PM

No, t opiate. Knocking something over is not deconstructing. It is demolishing. Deconstructing, literally (and etymologically, come to that), means to undo, to unpick something to reveal how it works. It doesn’t even have to destroy the original model to do it. And I agree, it doesn’t have to be deep analysis, although it helps. And yes, some understanding of the thing you’re deconstructing is good, and should be revealed by what you do. In both cases, as with my previous quote, I’d find the quip more useful if it was apt. We’ve had a lot of demolition, not much deconstruction.

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary              posted 8 Jun 2007, 04:39 PM / edited 8 Jun 2007, 04:41 PM

Smythe (smeith) n. [L., perh. F. smerde] Person who exercises censorship whilst standing on moral high ground; also as v: to act out of nepotism, destroying documentation which might hold family members up to ridicule.

1.  Woe unto you,  scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto Smythes, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and all of uncleanness  MATT xxiii 27

2.  Someone took the piss out of Michael, so John smythed the forum  FURBY

John Smythe      posted 8 Jun 2007, 05:05 PM / edited 8 Jun 2007, 05:08 PM

I repeat, only two were deleted. The first was incoherent and ‘passing off’ which I – as the Ref – declare to be against the spirit of the game.  The second was irrelevant once the first was gone.

The ‘two Michael Smythes’ thing amuses me too. That gag has been well articulated now and has probably done its dash, don’t you think? But all that content remains for posterity.  So do the piss-taking dictionary definitions. So the accusations of censorship are hardly valid. 

I made a judgement call on one post (amid 180 on this forum alone) because it amounted to SPAM. Sorry if some are offended by that. We all get offended by different things.

J Baker posted 8 Jun 2007, 06:46 PM / edited 8 Jun 2007, 06:48 PM

In the interests of having everything out in the open, and after receiving a number of phone calls, I’ve decided to take this step. I agree with those opposed to the censoring of this forum. There was a query a month ago whether postings on this site had been quoted in university dissertations. I am studying theatre and thought it might be useful to keep a record of the forum for myself and regularly updated my own copy, and did so last night. For all those who want an uncensored version of this forum, here is the controversial posting that precipitated the extraordinary events of last night:

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Interior design and decorating are important and more likely to affect our conscious minds, provided all those hidden elements can be take for granted and the same is true of good play-making. Put it this way: is a group comprising a builder, interior designer and decorator and an Irishman likely to do a good job of building a house without the qualifications to be good architects, engineers, plumbers and electricians? That said, my opinion on which is better lies with the truists – “Good work is good, work isn’t” (Danny Mulheron).  The chosen former does not determine the quality, although a well chosen farmer of course will enhance it.  Which doesn’t automatically make it better than something within a short trouser length by way of giving their community a chance to respond to topical event through the efficacy of theatre.

1. This is not about what’s better or worse, it’s about the differences we observe. To generalise on the topic, because structure is so fundamental to how well a story gets told in any medium, it is the hidden dimensions of a good building that make it good to live and work in.

2. The foundations and core engineering allow us to trust the structure not to fall over. The plumbing ensures things flow in and out as we require them without our having to think about it.

3. The electrical wiring allows us to illuminate, warm and cool things as a means to some greater end.

But which form is the best choice depends on other circumstances – the content, the collective skills, the market.  Perhaps there is a danger of multi-level self indulgence with the input. But there’s specialist knowledge and public knowledge. When it comes to the buildings we inhabit, we all trust the architects, engineers, electricians and plumbers to get it right – and when they do, we take it for granted. Woe betide anyone who thinks they can just get an interior decorator, exterior finisher and landscape gardener to create the whole caboodle.

For me the works that confound all preconceptions are those involved with the project itself who might be able to add more layers to this conversation. I concur with Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. It is intriguing, and important.

To bring it back, the key question is: have the essential but invisible structural, energy-flow and waste-disposal elements been attended to? This is the key. It is the key question.

I would say that a group comprising carpenters, plumbers, electricians and painters devising a house by building it is more analogous – ie: the makers designing as they go. This analogy allows us to recognise the validity of the craftsman (man as in manual) developing the intrinsically human process of learning-by-doing into an art form was done collectively in the Middle Ages it led to the formation of craft guilds culminating in formulaic work that got stuck in a rut like so much at Circa.

* in the context of the creative production process and agree whole-heartedly: there are ways of being outspoken that make a positive difference and ways of complaining or bad-mouthing, usually behind the relevant backs, that are very counter-productive.

But theatre is about new ideas as well as great crafting so we should think of the artist. Everywhere I go people avoid the face value of issues by attacking the line of debate itself. Pathetic. Sure I use adverbs and the occasional gerund, yes I know people, but I’m driven by this question here.  There are those who just want to think they’re cooler or less pretentious than people who actually contribute to the on-topic issues here and personally I’m not convinced, and even less do I really care.

As I understand it there is creation and recreation like Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. As Danny has done throughout his professional life, offering sound and free advice to the immediate benefit of Marty Roberts and the long term benefit of many, would not be what it is today without the key contributions over a good half century and contributes so much to the quality of our lighting designs so often been extolled on this site. I feel compelled now to say.

Dramatised works that share a similar quest and arguably offer greater insights into the issues of intolerance, social alienation, and random and hate-based violence, such as Downstage, I do not mean to suggest it is impossible for that to be achieved and I do acknowledge the strength and immediacy derives from being “based on something that really happened in the very community that is now confronting it.”

Greater “dimensions of character, plot structure and theme” are easier to craft in fiction than fact-based work – fact fictionalised to achieve such values – and there is no doubt in my mind that such qualities improve plays in ways that can give them longer life. Socrates, Euripides. What form, what form? I AM THE GENUINE MICHAEL SMYTHE! PLEASE, WHOEVER YOU ARE, DO NOT DO GOOD A WRECKED THING!

To state the obvious, a playwright must empathise with many different characters convincing a group of people role-playing different characters is legitimate. If it fails is de Thierry or the practice? Surely the former can be a tool for the latter?

I look at it this way: there is creation and re-creation involving entire lives, communities, histories, circumstances, wants, needs, desires and the obstacles that impede them, all structured in a way that pursues clear thematic and dramatic purposes by giving the elephant a place to start and a place to end, with the triffid on the stage between being engineered to best fulfil those purposes, by way of performable / presentable / produceable action.

The crafts of acting, directing and design involve the recreation / realisation of the text through the creation of urinal design elements, and production dynamics. If a devising group pursues the latter objectives without paying at the box office then due attention to the foundations and contexts otherwise evolved through the craft of playwrighting, the modem will inevitably become the meringue, the work will be accused of being superficial and debates – as we have seen – will rage. Experience the reality! More commonly the reverse, of course with I believe the invective more in response to what these are saying… the fact that they is interesting to note given they are the most strongly opinionated, and indeed full of invective, for little reason other than that we are trying to discuss a specific!

With a clear vision and the ability to control we conclude that for a stage play one person, a wrighter or a director, must exercise similar vision and I am genuinely interested. Experienced practitioners in my field of design have parallel vision and cross-disciplinary teams work under the direction of a leader.

And another thought—

R. Zimmerman   posted 8 Jun 2007, 07:11 PM / edited 10 Jun 2007, 08:31 PM

…you walk into the room/with your pencil in your hand,

see somebody naked/say ‘who is that, man’

you try so hard/but you don’t understand

just what/you will say when you get home

because something is happening here/but you don’t know what it is

do you, Mr. Jones?

C Cornell              posted 8 Jun 2007, 08:22 PM / edited 10 Jun 2007, 08:32 PM

Stop! You’re trying to change my mind, I can do it on my own.

Stop! You’re trying to kill my time, it’s been my death since I was born.

I don’t remember half the time if I’m hiding or I’m lost,

But I’m on my way….

Searching for a ground,

With my good eye closed.

Moya Bannerman            posted 8 Jun 2007, 09:29 PM

Thanks to J Baker we now see that the “incoherent” and “censored” post is in fact a random amalgam of previous posts. And? Someone clearly has too much time on their hands. Or they’re feeding fodder to a thesis writer. Any thoughts as to what the title of the thesis might be?

BERNADETTE CROMBIE posted 9 Jun 2007, 08:34 AM / edited 9 Jun 2007, 08:36 AM

John, two questions. If a play were to have content that you thought “incoherent, irrelevant and dishonest” as you described one of the postings you deleted, would you agree to it being removed before anyone else could view it, before anyone else could make up their own judgement on its merits? This of course takes us right back to those threats over disrupting devised plays where the very idea caused you outrage.

Second, you later claimed you deleted the substantive posting because you believed it “SPAM”. Is this honest? As Moya Bannerman notes, it seems to be a construct from previous postings, all of them I think coming from you or Michael or Nik. And as J Baker noted earlier, the posting seems to follow on from the first of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary entries. The posting may well be incoherent. Perhaps that’s its point. But SPAM???

chorus posted 9 Jun 2007, 09:07 AM

Bravo Bernadette

Yvonne Harwood              posted 9 Jun 2007, 09:35 AM

I think you’re taking this far too seriously Bernadette. John made a mistake. J Baker has rectified it. Let’s leave it at that and move on. For God’s sake. Let’s get back to the topic. Who owns devised work?

BERNADETTE CROMBIE posted 9 Jun 2007, 09:39 AM

As good almost kill a man as kill a good posting. Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God’s image; but he who destroys a good posting kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye. Many a man lives a burden to the earth; but a good posting is the precious life-blood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life.

Yvonne Harwood              posted 9 Jun 2007, 09:44 AM

I hope you’re not using that to describe a posting that begins “Interior design and decorating are important and more likely to affect our conscious minds, provided all those hidden elements can be taken for granted and the same is true of good play-making” …

Carol Jacques     posted 9 Jun 2007, 10:26 AM

I have always wondered what out of work actors, director’s and the like do in their spare time … now I know, they stir the shyte out of a sensibly and reasonably asked question whilst consuming copious amounts of alcohol giving truth to the saying “the more you drink the righter you become???”.  I was interested in this topic at the start as I have some knowledge of the 2004 production and the blood, sweat and tears that went into it by the young actor’s concerned. I am now going to sign off from this topic which is going no where, which generally happens when people live in the twilight zone of life.

Actual Actor       posted 9 Jun 2007, 10:47 AM

Carol, please don’t sulk!  If you do in fact ” have some knowledge of the 2004 production and the blood, sweat and tears that went into it by the young actor’s concerned” the best way to get this thread back on track would be to share it.  Far too few people involved in that production have had the guts to tell us what went on, and it would drag the discussion out of theory-land (and away from all those damned longwinded non-practitioning academics) onto an actual case. Invaluable!

Dean Hewison   posted 9 Jun 2007, 10:49 AM

I don’t understand the troubled-artist-censorship-angst thing here… From what I can tell, the post wasn’t removed because of it’s content, but because someone posted it under another member’s name. I’d be pretty shitty if people were posting using my name. If the site made it so that a name couldn’t be used by more than one member, then everyone would be happy again.

John Smythe      posted 9 Jun 2007, 11:12 AM / edited 11 Dec 2009, 01:33 PM

Thank you Moya for giving the contentious post more attention than I did (I saw the – yes – dishonest use of a name and at least three sentences that were incoherent so made a summary judgement). Thank you Yvonne for supporting the move to move on. But Bernadette, your questions are there so I will answer then. (Those preferring snappy repartee or acerbic satire, sorry, I’d love to oblige. Another time perhaps.)

First: If a play purported to be by Tom Stoppard, Neil LaBute, Renee, Gary Henderson, Roger Hall, Hone Kouka … (i.e. a living playwright) and it was not, I would certainly expect decisive action to be taken (cf: the Fair Trading Act & my earlier quote from Othello about filching good names, used in this context to mean proper names as well as reputations).

If a play that I saw as incoherent and irrelevant had nevertheless managed to get on stage before a paying audience, I would review it accordingly – with due consideration of whether it was truly committed if misguided – and leave it to its own devices (as I have with the reinstated post, now disconnected from the false name).

Second, SPAM very often randomly mixes found text from classics or other writings, as one of many strategies to dupe the firewalls. So yes, it is redolent of SPAM. And yes, it makes a satirical point by presenting an incontrovertible example of pompous waffle that beats all others to a pulp. Cheers.

Further, re your paraphrasing of Milton (replacing ‘good book’ with ‘good post’), the operative word there is ‘good’ which, of course, is a subjective judgement. My preference remains to let visitors judge for themselves, even if a forum thread starts to look like a rubbish dump at times.

So as I present myself for corrective reconstruction before your ad hoc revolutionary committee, may I ask you: are you actively protesting the daily ‘censorship’ evident in the editing of newspapers, including their constant dismissing of submitted letters to the editor? Likewise, the many websites moderated in order to maintain the focus and editorial standards desired by the owners (who claim that right simply because they have invested time, money, skills, energy and long term commitment in the enterprise)?

Oh, J Baker, sorry if you missed it but as soon as I logged on this morning I saw yet another cheery post, in a brand new forum, from someone saying nothing relevant to the site and offering a link to ‘my details’ or something similar. I checked the membership list, saw a robot from Russia had joined under the name ‘beepbeek beepbeek’, so removed all traces in order to protect us all from viruses. Is that ‘censorship’ too?

Exit dancing to ‘We Don’t Know How Lucky We Are’ …

Elgathym             posted 9 Jun 2007, 02:01 PM

John you should be ashamed of yourself.  Firstly for the petulant, adolescent nitpicking above; and secondly for constantly forgetting that this site is not supposed to be about YOU! but about NZ theatre!

Eybothym            posted 9 Jun 2007, 02:52 PM

Bad call Elgathym. It is the poster of multiple pseudonyms who has relentlessly tried to make this forum about the generous generator of this very valuable site. Let’s debate the issues. That’s what John’s last post was doing.

Seth Simmons    posted 11 Jun 2007, 12:01 PM

John, being a technophobe I have no idea if this is possible, but is there a way to, for example, have an asterix or somesuch by names to indicate that they are pseudonyms? Most of them are, of course, pretty obvious but it would at least point out when people are masquerading as ‘real’ people.

Geraldene Hopkins          posted 15 Jun 2007, 05:02 PM / edited 15 Jun 2007, 05:03 PM

This thread is lingering so close to 200 postings… oh, please, please, please  — can’t someone do a devised play at Bats this weekend or in some site-specific hole like the Salamanca Rd cable-car tunnel and John can review it and the tumult that follows can lift us high over the mark, rung up the rein of a wimpling wing in ecstasy, off forth as a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend, etc: the hurl and the gliding — the achieve of, the mastery of the thing? … Know what I mean?

martyn roberts posted 15 Jun 2007, 05:26 PM

Better still can we just kill this damned thread. Or is this some nightmarish Hotel California-like  doom for all the participants here (real or not). We are eternally stuck on a wheel of negative bitch fighting because no one here is actually capable of getting off their butts and doing it. I’m out of here. Literally. Have good time with the pink champagne on ice…

neil furby             posted 15 Jun 2007, 08:47 PM

In the dark desert highway

Walking down the lonely road

Saw a forum posting, bulging at the words

Then in the dark distance in the shadowy night

Saw a group of posters

 A nameless bunch or right

And I pleaded with them

Asking them to cease

But they just keep on posting

 Is it never going to stop?

And these voices inside me keep devising my time

Some chance to remember  some chance to forget

William Stickers                posted 16 Jun 2007, 09:28 AM / edited 16 Jun 2007, 09:29 AM

And here is some blank verse entitled ‘Enough Already’:

Sasha Gloss         posted 16 Jun 2007, 03:11 PM

When devised work is made, who owns it? I ask this in regards to a show called Penumbra in the upcoming AK07 festival. I was lucky enough to see this piece of theatre when it was put on as my flat mate was in it at The NZ Drama School in 2004, it was a great show and I hope lots of other Wellingtonians got to see it. It was made by the class over a few years and a lot of the actors drew on their experiences, friends and family members to help create characters. It is now in the festival soon. Although nearly all the class still wanted to be involved, only a few of the original members are still in it (this was apparently because the festival asked that people with more experience and “bigger names” were cast, something which hasnt necessarily happened) but most arent and the work is now being put on without royalties given to any of the cast members who made it but are now not it in. This show deserves to have a longer life but I find it unbelievable that the director can just choose who he wants in it and then leave the rest and not even include them in the royalties (they were told they were getting royalties but now seems to have changed their mind). Some students have been told they arent even being given any tickets to see the show. I want my freind to speak out but he doesnt want to get on anyones bad side. What do people think about this? It seems pretty bad form to me.

Benet_ Shtein    posted 7 Apr 2011, 10:34 PM / edited 26 Apr 2011, 10:20 PM

The discussion is too long and it is enough but cialis online problem is serious and should be solved fairly anyway