Minor Expletives

A question that’s been poking at me for a while now.

that I need (and maybe I’m not alone) a way to make performances quickly and outside of the structures laid down by the current status quo. To be clear: the status quo, to me (now, here) includes most “working artists” – since we are deeply invested in and reliant on the current structures.

There are so many systemic changes required on all levels and I believe firmly in a governments role in funding the arts – but I suspect it is up to us, as artist/makers to find a better way.

I don’t know what it is but here are some thoughts

- it’s cheap. cheap to make, cheap to see.

- it’s fast. get’s made quickly, or at least is able to respond to the speed of life. (there is another kind of desperately needed work that is not at all about speed, but that’s a different post)

- it’s funny.

- it has songs.

- it is in relation to the publics that we are a part of. to the stories and imaginations that make it up.

- soft professional liberalism won’t help.

While I am cynical and and a little burnt by the big puppet / public spectacle world – I still have curiosity. Especially around Welfare State International. This is a great bit (the whole article is worth it too…)

We joined to make playful art outside the ghetto. Not to work three years ahead in a goal-orientated corporate institution where matched funding and value-added output tick boxes destroy imaginative excess. The art business puts jobs before vocations. Overintensive risk management, child protection, alarm systems, licensing, family-friendly badges and employment laws invade with a suffocating culture of smug inertia.

via Where should British theatre go now? | Stage | The Guardian.

first: Dedicated to the Revolutions is at Magnetic North June 16-19
second: Life Time Subscriptions to Small Wooden Shoe – limited number arenow on sale.
third: A workshop that Jacob and Michael Trent are leading at Dancemakers.

and Thank you to everyone who participated, helped and joined us forLife of Galileo. It was a remarkable and moving night with 32 people on stage, over 500 people in attendance and over $4,000 raised for the Actors’ Fund. Pictures (some already here) and a recording of Laura Barrett and Matt Murphy’s beautiful song will be coming soon. [Subscribe to our blog here or become a fan on Facebook here to be alerted when we do things. I try to keep emails to a minimum (so that you know I mean it) – but if you want more Small Wooden Shoe in your life, those are the best ways.]

–

1. Join us in Kitchener-Waterloo from June 16-19 as we perform Dedicated to the Revolutions as part of Magnetic North Theatre Festival. We’re honored to be part of the festival and to be performing in the dense pocket of science and technology that is K-W – home to RIM and the Perimeter Institute.The show has grown through the pleasure of returning to work after time has past, so if you saw it in Toronto, we’d be curious to hear what you thought of the difference. And if you didn’t see it the first time at Buddies, this is as close to Toronto as we’re going to get for a while.
There’s a few things happening around the show and festival:

On Wednesday June 16, there is a bus that’s part of the “THE TORONTO SPECIAL”: For June 14, 15 and 16 Toronto arts practitioners can buy a one-day special for $100. It includes the bus leaving at 10 from Toronto to K-W and back late, access to the day’s Industry Series programming and tickets for two shows. All reservations must be made in advance through Gayle Diguer at GDiguer@nac-cna.ca or 1-519-772-3783.

On the Thursday June 17, after the show, as a Magnetic Encounter, there will be a short and raucus debate: Whereas: String theory is not like poetry and Whereas: The Uncertainty Principal does not apply to romantic comedy plots; BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Science and Art may no longer share metaphors. Arguing for the Opposition will be Evan Webber and CBC Radio’s Bob MacDonald (Quirks and Quarks), arguing for the Affirmative will be Jacob Zimmer and a guest from the research community of K-W. Very good times.

On Friday we do a talkback after the show and Saturday we do 2 shows – so the matinee fans can get in there. On Sunday we travel home – which won’t be so fun to watch.

2. Small Wooden Shoe is offering 20 LIFE TIME SUBSCRIPTIONS. Yes – exactly what it sounds like. You can get a ticket to any Small Wooden Shoe show, anywhere in the world any time for the rest of your life. You let us know when in the run you want to come and we give you a ticket. Happen to be in Wales at the same time as us? You can get a ticket. In twenty-two years, as we celebrate 30 years of making theatre and bringing people and ideas together with a huge show – you can get a ticket.
How much for this unlimited thing that also shows your support and belief in the work we do? $500.
Click here to buy using Paypal.
We will send you a nice card, individually numbered, that you can use for the rest of your life.
If you buy before Monday June 14 – your subscription includes Magnetic North.

3. A workshop with Jacob and Michael Trent at Dancemakers.As part of Dancemakers Emerging Dance Artists Project, I’ll be joining Michael Trent (Dancemakers Artistic Director and resident choreographer) in leading a six day workshop July 19-24. It will be for theatre and dance practitioners wherein everyone is invited to train, perform and generate. Six days of doing and talking about the intersection, conversation, overlap and difference between disciplines without relying on slashes or hyphens.
Mostly physical, occasionally heady but never boring. Strategies in composition and creation including Viewpoints, debating and other improvisation tactics as well as writing and lots of moving will be used.
Led by Trent and Zimmer and informed by the participants’ contributions, the workshop is $400 and spots can be reserved by emailing edap@dancemakers.org

Small Wooden Shoe stages a reading of Brecht’s
Life of Galileo

7pm – Sunday, May 30th – Convocation Hall

By donation to The Actors’ Fund of Canada
Tickets will be available at the door starting at 6pm
Doors open by 6:30pm

A staged reading of a great play in a great hall with a great cast and with the humblest of thanks.

35 or so of Toronto’s theatre, music and film community come together to read a new translation of Brecht’s Life of Galileo – an ever-relevant story about the complicated relationships between power, history, individuals and freedom of thought.

This night, this reading, is thanks to Tracy Wright. In more way than I can express, she is what makes it possible – what brings us together to do this crazy thing. And people who make crazy things possible are always in need of thanks. Tracy has made many crazy, beautiful things possible.

**********UPDATED******************************
Tracy Wright passed away June 22, 2010. A letter Don wrote can be read here. I miss you Tracy, and am thankful you were in my life.
**************************************************

This one’s for her.

Fiona Highet will read the part of Galileo.

Joining her in this landmark event are Andrea Davis, Andrea Donaldson, Ann-Marie MacDonald, BrendanGall, Cara Gee, Caroline Gillis, Clinton Walker, Daniel MacIvor, Darren O’Donnell, David Fox, Earl Pastko, Erin Shields, Evan Webber, Frank Cox-O’Connell, Gregory Prest, Guillermo Verdecchia, Kirsten Johnson, Lyon Smith, Matt Baram, Michelle Polak, Nadia Ross, Naomi Sniekus, Ravi Jain, Richard Allen Campbell, Robin Fulford, Sky Gilbert, Tony Nappo and more. This group of collaborators spans several generations of great Toronto independent and contemporary theatre makers coming together for one night only.

Toronto musicians Laura Barrett and Matt Murphy provide the live soundtrack to this momentous event.

We thank you for your support and hope to see you on the 30th

- Jacob Zimmer

All proceeds will go to The Actors’ Fund of Canada. With over 10,000 professional members, The Actors’ Fund provides emergency financial aid to assist cultural workers in recovering from an illness, injury or other circumstances causing severe economic and personal hardship.

Made possible with the support of the Toronto Arts Council and the Ontario Arts Council
And the assistance of Canadian Stage’s Festival of Ideas and Creation and Buddies in Bad Times Theatre

Life of Galileo
Directed by Jacob Zimmer with Brendan Healy
Translated by Birgit Schreyer Duarte with Jacob Zimmer
16mm film: Mark Loeser
Artistic Producer: Erika Hennebury
Associate Producer: Leora Morris
Stage Managed by Maria Popoff
Photograph of Tracy Wright: Guntar Kravis
Portrait of Tracy Wright: Kirsten Johnson
Lots of help: Naomi Campbell, Richard Feren, Jennifer Jimenez, Sherrie Johnson, Chris Lorway, Maureen O’Donnell, JP Robichaud, Trevor Schwellnus

This seems true. And something I’m trying to figure it out in the theatre. (Galileo, What Keeps Mankind Alive)

Beyond the excitement and buzz factor, what’s the value of doing this project so fast?

Magazines don’t have money to pay anyone anymore. A lot of people are expected to invest a lot of time to get published but then don’t get paid very much for their efforts. This was a way for us to get super-talented writers and only ask for a morning of their time. And it was a sort of question in our heads: do you have a higher probability of getting great creative work from people because we made it fun and not burdensome? There was a “let’s make it happen” attitude that I think was really appealing.

via Museum 2.0: Adventures in Participatory Journalism: An Interview with Sarah Rich about 48 Hour Magazine.

These days (or maybe in the days just passing) there is a desire for truth and/or authenticity that gets worked out in verbatim theatre (also dance) – at the same time as these claims there’s backlash when we find out someone was lying and historical accuracy seems important. David Hare has written a nice piece at the Guardian about some of these things.

What than to do with Galileo? The correspondence between historical truth (such as we know it) and Brechts’ play is spotty. The timeline is off, the relationship with his daughter is misrepresented – as is his relationship with the Catholic faith and the terms of his imprisonment.
As opposed to a bio-play, Galileo is a parable based on a historic character. It can’t let the history get in way of the intent. What the play wants is different. And I support this. The authenticity claims of verbatim ring false for me and adherence to historical facts doesn’t map on to the value of a work.

But is there any responsibility to tell the audience this?

Attending a play entitled Life of Galileo, it’s not unreasonable to imagine that what happens in the play also happened to the historical figure.
I don’t want to apologize or even imply the play is weakened by its inaccuracies (since it’s strengthened,) but there is a part of me that worries for the reputation of Virginia.

Thoughts on ways of dealing with this?

With Small Wooden Shoe I’m working on Brecht’s Life of Galileo – a big crazy reading with Tracy Wright as Galileo on May 30 at Convocation Hall.

Other than it happening a little sooner than I had anticipated and that causing stress as a producer, I think this is going to be an amazing event.

But that’s not what I want to write about here (neither the publicity nor the stresses of producing). I want to start writing regularly about the art questions. It’s a very fast process we’re going through and I’m going to learn a lot about the play and the translation (by Birgit Schreyer Duarte with myself) and I want to track some of that here.

There are so many things to talk about – the play itself, the themes, the history, the fact that I might be happier with staged readings than I would be with a production, how to deal with Brecht.

I plan to write regularly over the next month about many of these things as they come up.

Is there anything particular you want to hear about? I’m better at answering questions than just free form writing.

More from 99 – this time as a guest at Parabasis

it puts into my mind a bigger question: is there a difference between writing to an audience, writing for an audience and writing about an audience, particularly if you’re engaged in anything at all activist in your work? And should there be only one audience? Shouldn’t a work be able to reach more than one group, provide more than one kind of entertainment?
…
Not every audience needs every message, or needs it in the same way.

He’s referencing some very useful Scott Walters posts
—
The other night I was at a theatre festival that at the end of the night had a band play. And while I had enjoyed my night before the band, watching the band I started to think about who needed who. (As opposed to who made who – also a great question)

In the first few moments of the performance, it became clear to me that I needed the band. I needed the way the singer sung and the keyboards got played. I didn’t know, before they started, that I needed them – I knew some friends liked them – but I didn’t know I needed them.

And I had a feeling that they didn’t need me as much as I needed them. And that that was as it should be.
I was, in that moment, sick of being needed by the shows I see, by the performances of those shows. [This all sounds terrible, I know that - but I need to track out this feeling.] That I had needs (dammit) that I didn’t even know, and what I really needed was for some performance to come out and meet those needs.

Maybe the devastating scarcity (funding, audience, fame, lunch-money) and desperate need for self-expression/exhibitionism to ward off alienation results in shows in which the creator “needs to say something” “needs to express” him or her self.

I want to be in shows in which something needs to be said – not for the well-being of the maker (though that will always be part of it) but also, and most importantly, for a need that is outside the maker. For a need in the public – who are sitting in the audience – who include me.

There is a crazy ego in these statements – I get that. But no one decides to – willingly, often – step out and speak in public without a fair dose of ego.

And I need to be clear that I want avoid patronizing and talking down. Because nobody needs that. So any real consideration of the needs of others removes patronizing – removes any desire to prove superiority – removes all non-consensual power games. Because nobody needs those things. Really.

And so, rather than an ego that is about exposure or dominance, the play of needs might be about consideration and kindness (when sometimes a splash of cold water to the face is the kindest act – this isn’t about only soothing or not saying hard things)

This is all fine to say – but what does it look like?
A certain confidence. A certain care and craft.
Some leadership and vision.
Self-reflection and observation of the world around us.
Because I don’t think my needs, honestly examined, are so unique or special that others won’t share them.
But this will lead to some bold, scary moments.
For everyone involved.

I’ve wandered and rambled from the original posts, but still think the wanderings are related – the need to have a great conversation with the local grocer is a very similar to the need theatre fulfills for me. Good ideas, good will, good time.

Whenever my theatre has failed it’s been by forgetting what I actually need from the theatre. Both as an audience and a maker.

99 Seats is talking about media complaints about the media in Most Everything That’s Wrong With American Journalism.

The specifics are helpful and the analysis right on – and connects with a thread I’ve been thinking about for a while.

In a large group discussion about, I think, politics and theatre from a year or so ago, we got to complaining about how the “media” told stories a specific way, creating identities and fault lines, how they were responsible for keeping the “people” down.

I think there’s a lot wrong with various media types and modes and I think it’s useful to name the damage they can do (see 3:15 – an oldy & goody)

But when we, as people who make things for others to see, talk about media as not us -  denying that it is something we participate actively in by creating events that create meaning – it drives me a little crazy.

Of course small scale theatre is a different, less broadly influential than networks or newspapers – but that doesn’t change my responsibility to make work for the world  I want to live in – to resist trends in other media and power structures that create fear and alienation. Because of our scale – because of the freedom it can give – we can speak towards a better, different way.

It is an amazing trick that even Newsweek writers seem to take part in, and the CBC does it all the time (with questions like “Do you think the medias reaction [to the story we've spent 3 hours in a row talking about] is overblown?”) –  so I guess it’s no surprise that we on the margins can  play too.

But it doesn’t make it better. And I’d like to think that we can do better.

Is this unfair?

There are more interesting things to talk about.

Part of the problem with the side bar to the article on Peggy Baker that people are talking about, is that it deflects from some of the very important and difficult things about gender and dance production that Baker raises.

Baker made a point in her speech about embracing androgyny and deploring gender stereotypes.
…
“I think that’s why I’m not a ballet dancer,” she explains. “Ballet is about dividing men and women. Women dance on pointe shoes, boys and girls don’t take class together. You also see it in folk dancing, where women do one step, men do another.”

And about producing on a “minor” scale (minor is my word and will continue to be developed here – hence the title):

When I mention a dream gig – say, choreographing a piece for the National Ballet of Canada – she smiles and shakes her head.

“I’d rather show things in more intimate settings – the Richard Bradshaw Amphitheatre rather than the mainstage. I’m talking with the AGO about creating dances for different galleries. And I loved my recent Nuit Blanche experience.”

Small-scaled, then, but never small-minded.” RTWT

Both of these quotes are worth spending a lot of time with. They’re thoughts of an artist who has deeply considered her craft and the world it exists in. They’re deeply challenging to the status quo of dance discussion in this city and country. Way more interesting then a writer under a deadline spicing up a story with false comparisons. And yet, they’ll go under-discussed (except maybe in study group or late night in a bar) — again — unless we decide to talk about them.

We get to choose what to talk about.

Artist and writer Chris Dupuis has taken some well aimed swings at a side bar in this weeks NOW.

The “who’s the next… Peggy Baker, Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan” form is generally a trite move to force a connection. At best it might be an understanding of working in tradition and a way to contextualize new work — but really I’m just being nice to give that much credit. It’s simplistic and un-useful and often damaging to everyone involved.

Chris is right on in identifying the gender trouble and disciplinary ideology in Sumi’s piece and I’m glad he wrote a response.

But there’s a larger thing in the wider complaining about the coverage in the mainstream press (and make no mistake — NOW is mainstream) that happens in Toronto: The mainstream press is in trouble — it’s thrashing and dying and grabbing for every ad dollar out there.

And as scarcity presses down on the print media and local TV and radio — contemporary art practices are just not part of the money numbers game. Theatre has it great compared to dance and dancers can look to poets if they want to feel good about their coverage.

While I think calling out damaging articles is important — it’s the other promise of Chris’ Time and Space that feels more urgent, more useful.

We are not mainstream — so we need a not-mainstream “media” — and we need it to be informed and thoughtful and engaged in the practice and removed from advertising prerogative and well written (more smarts / less jargon.) And the only way we’re going to get that change is by being it — sorry to get all Gandhi, but he was right.

The French New Wave invented themselves in part with Cahiers du cinéma — writing well about each other and insisting that there was something important going on* (and of course it is important that something important is going on. The cycle of bad work and bad writing about it needs to be broken at all points.)

No one is going to do it for us. And there is no longer much of a limit to distribution or word count. Only to our willingness to step up and do it. Which I acknowledge can be a big and scary limit.

This is the beginning of me trying to do it here — I’m not going to write reviews — but I am going to participate through writing that is distanced from my roles with larger entities (Small Wooden Shoe, Dancemakers…)

[* The New Wave example came through Jacob Wren and his blog - but I can't prove it because I can't find the post - but in the process I remembered how much the blog is really worth going back over]