Emerald Coast Theatre Consultant

This blog is about theatre and our responsibility in keeping it safe and alive!  Theatre cannot defend itself!   It is open to all regardless of their talent, education, background, desire, and any other wants that a human might have.  It’s also about time and the importance of time, and the responsibilities of anyone involved in producing or working in the theatre.

The information I offer for your perusal has been drawn from working for forty four years in theatre.  This blog and it’s birth comes from my need to offer my experiences to whomever wants to read about what I’ve gleaned from my theatrical tenure.

This blog is also for those who want to grow and expand their own world by using some of my experiences as their springboards to even greater theatre adventures.   Or not!   

Let your mind wander as you connect one square to another:  The Community to The Actor, The Director to The I. R. S., The Theatre to The Next Director and so on.   Try to imagine what possible relationship they could have to each other.   Thanks for reading.

Early on in my career I had the opportunity to work with the Cantor at the local synagogue.  His theatrical education was in the Jewish Theatre in NYC.  He had performed on Broadway and proved it by hauling out a large tome, turning to a well-worn page, and, sure enough, there he was! 

He was part and parcel of my theatrical education and a source until he retired and, with his wife, and moved North to the Seattle area to be near his children. 

I cannot imagine my life without his guidance, not only in theatre subjects, but in Jewish subjects and generally in life as well.   If I had a problem with a scene that was not communicating to the audience, he would come in, listen and pinpoint exactly the problem.  He had the professional objective ear that anyone caring to grow and develop could count on to right and incorrect reading or fine tune a bit of staging. 

I had the privilege and the honor to direct this man twice as Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof.   What an education that was not only for me, but also for the entire company.   He tied our rehearsals together like a neat package of joy every night and made the entire process of producing the play a joy every night and made it a learning experience for all of us.  But I get ahead of myself.  

Anyhow, shortly after I arrived at my first directing job where he was a board member, he and his wife came out of the current production and he heard me ask someone if they like the show.   I forget what they said, but I will always remember what he said:  “Never ask anyone what they think, Gordon.  It says more about you than they need to know!”  Then, after they left a few minutes later, he invited me for coffee and a bagel the next day.    Now that was a meeting I will never forget. 

The next morning, out the back door of the temple following the alley one street over we trudged to nosh a bit!   

Oh, my, how that man loved to share his knowledge with anyone who knew how to listen.   Fortunately, my nurses training had taught me to shut up when someone smarter than I was would speak.   I knew how to do that very well and came prepared with one of  those legal-sized tablets that lawyers use and several ball-point pens.   

He started out sharing with me how in the theatre, either in audience or anyone working in the theatre, considers themselves critics.   

Why, you might ask?   I’ll tell you! 

Because the theatre is about human relationships with all the various subtleties and not so subtlety, everyone, because they are living a life, feels that they are wise enough to criticize in the theatre.   And with that both he and I totally agreed.   

The real kicker is that what people might not recognize is that there is a difference between seeing a problem and correcting a problem.   And if someone says well, I thought you/they should have done such and such, well, that is a playwright’s problem.   And they will go on to say: They should have done such and such.   Well, that is where he stopped.    He said to me something that has been my benchmark to keep learning and growing the years I have worked in the theatre:   ”Hear all criticism of your work, Gordon, but listen to only those people you know have the background, the education, the experience, and the talent to help you.   Do not let criticism from a novice or a self-appointed critic get into your head, ever.” 

So, after years of directing play after play after play, now, when some one comes up and tells me what they like or don’t like about a particular production, I smile and listen attentively, recording exactly what they are saying, and, when they are through, I simply say:  “Thank you for coming to the theatre.  We appreciate you!” 

Now that doesn’t mean that I just discard anything anyone might say, but as I say to my actors when I am directing them,   “If I say or suggest anything to you, do not accept, blindly, my input into your performance.   Think about it, challenge it, agree with or don’t agree with it, but examine it in terms of what that criticism could do to your performance good or bad.” 

Most actors do not want to spend time thinking.  They just want to feel.  And that is all well and good, but when it comes to criticism, a little thinking on everyone’s part is a valuable use of time. 

Now I could go on and on about critics and who they are and what they do and experiences I have had with them, but suffice it to say that, in my opinion, a good critic is worth their weight in gold to the educated, talented, sensitive directors who care about a production and the growth of the actors under his wing who are going to carry the playwright’s work to the audience.    That is, after all, the job of the director, to get the play to the audience in the best possible condition he can muster.

If you have served on a board of directors for a not-for-profit organization, you probably know this: The primary responsibility of the board of directors outside of their serving the community in which it resides is its relationship with the State and the Internal Revenue Service.   

The government gives any organization its greatest monetary gift when it grants the organization its designation as a Not-For-Profit.  I am not going into how to obtain that designation (See the note on AACT which has all the information on it you will ever need), but if you have read the AACT entry on Mission Statements, you will realize that the Board of Directors main responsibility is to see that the mission statement is carried out by everyone working in, with or for the organization.   Should the mission statement vary in any way, the board is obligated to report that change to the state.      

Once the IRS has received and cleared all of the paperwork, you will most likely be granted a 501 C 3 Status.  This is the greatest monetary gift your organization will ever receive unless you know a lot of people who have big bucks to spare.   

Once the state and the IRS have completed their paperwork and completed their designation, well, from that point on, the organization must be absolutely transparent to any and all people who might be interested.  

I feel that there are two people that every Not For Profit board should have as members: A CPA and an Attorney.  Simply put, the attorney can ensure that the organization is complying with the laws of the state and the IRS and the CPA is there to make sure that all financial dealings are absolutely transparent.  Let me repeat: Anything financial.  It is extremely important that a 501 C 3 organization have a clear financial spreadsheet and an open, honest and flawless record of decision making by the board monitored by the CPA and an attorney whenever possible.

Over the years, when I was either a Managing Director or an Artistic Director of a theatre, I had requests to give a special prop to an actor, a member who wanted me to buy paint for them (at a 40% discount) for their personal use, and a host of other personal requests to use the 501 C 3 designation or Not For Profit Status.  The daily manager of the organization must resist that to the fullest.  The Not For Profit status is assigned to the organization, and should be used only for the benefit of the organization as outlined in IRS regulations.  That should be implanted firmly in anyone’s mind that might be tempted to try to circumvent what is open, honest, transparent and moral. 

Let me restate:  It is the business of the Board of Directors to make sure that everyone in the organization adheres to the mission statement. 

Many years go I took over as Managing Director of a Community Theatre in central California.  Shortly after that I had my first brush with alcohol in the theatre.

To say that I was a novice handling this situation would be an overstatement.    Here is the story and how I handled it.

When I first entered the building, the first thing I noticed was the way the “flats” were stored.  A flat is a unit of scenery, like a section of a wall, usually made out of canvas stretched over a wooden frame. Many flats are now made out of luan, which is very thin plywood.  

Up above, around the audience and stage area, there was a walkway about ten feet wide and about eight feet above the floor.   In a U-shape, it surrounded the seating area right and left and upstage of the performance area.   The backstage area of that elevation was completely packed with flats of all different shapes and sizes framed in wood all the way from one by two’s to two by four’s and covered in either canvas or a very heavy quarter inch plywood.    Nothing matched.   No two dimensions were the same.  

They had to go and I had to rebuild.     

I needed someone to work with.    I inquired around the theatre for the best man to work with me and everyone suggested a man who had been working as a volunteer with the theatre for years.  

I contacted him, and we agreed to meet me every Saturday morning and work from seven until we got tired, which got earlier and earlier each Saturday.  I was under pressure to organize the shop so I could meet the demands of the planned six-season shows.

We had been working together for about three weeks when one day I went to get ice out of the refrigerator and there it was: six quarts of beer staring me in the face.    Now, I like a drink as much as anyone, but working in a shop situation is not a good place to be drinking.  

How I handled the problem without losing a volunteer.

By the time of my “discovery” time was getting short before we had to start rebuilding flats in an organized and efficient way.     

When we finished work on Saturday, I asked my volunteer if we could talk and he agreed.     I told him how important he was to the organization and it’s future, how much people enjoyed his work not only onstage but also backstage, and how much I enjoyed working with him backstage.  (I had not worked with him onstage at that time.) 

I then told him that the next thing I was going to say might hurt his feelings, but I had a responsibility to the theatre to make the place as safe as possible.  I noted that I felt the consumption of alcohol while working was not in the best interest of safety in the theatre and asked him not to bring the beer to the theatre.

He thought for a minute, while my heart was in my throat thinking that I might be doing all the tech work myself, and told me that it made sense to him and that he would no longer bring beer to the theatre.  For the next nine years we worked together onstage and backstage and I never saw him take another drink.    

As a young and “beginning” director, I put myself under a lot of pressure not knowing how he would respond to having a  “kid” tell him what to do.   I was lucky with this volunteer.  

The adage  “Always tell me the truth. That I can handle.  It’s the lies I can’t stand!” has worked with me since then.     I think to get problems out in the open and deal with them is the very best way.  It clears out the cobwebs, it airs out the place, and you can move forward on a more solid footing.  It might hurt, but at least it is out in the open and in the clean fresh air.  

After I left this community theatre, I returned to my profession as an anesthetist.  During my time in anesthesia, until retirement, I dealt with many people who were addicted to alcohol.     Nothing is more frightening to an anesthetist than to have to put someone to sleep knowing that they have been consuming alcohol (or, for that matter, any other non-prescription self-medication that they might or might not have remembered to tell you).   Though almost all anesthetics in trained hands today are extremely safe for the patient who is addicted, dealing with addictions in the theatre, though not physical, can be just as potentially damaging to the emotional well being of the addicted theatre participant.    

Actors will kid themselves about how having a drink before a performance helping to calm them down or some other such excuse, but it is potentially disastrous as far as the play is concerned.    But, if the actor is drinking in excess (and to some, one drink is excess), and using their nerves as a reason to imbibe, they are only kidding themselves.  It doesn’t make their performance any better and more often than not will undermine the confidence the other actors have in the drinker.    

I have absolutely no problem working with an actor who has addressed their addiction and worked through it in recovery programs like AA or RR.    I have often searched out and brought back into the acting community talented people who battled with addiction to great advantage for both them and the community.   

Early on I did have one actor in recovery that had, according the precepts of his/her recovery program, to tell everyone that he was an alcoholic and that he was in recovery.    This is long before the wide media attention on rehab and recovery that we have today.    What it did, at that time, was to undermine the confidence of the entire working ensemble.  Again, I was faced with handling the situation.  After talking individually with everyone involved, I brought it out in the open and we talked about it openly in a company meeting, to great success.  We continued to the closing performance without incident.  We were all the better for it.

As far as drugs that I have been associated with in the theatre, I am happy to say that only once was there a major problem.  Fortunately I caught it early enough to replace the actor, recast the role, and get the individual into rehab.   

A few months ago I talked to a man with a doctorate in psychology from a northern university.  I asked him what I thought was a very simple question concerning addiction.   I asked him if there was such a condition as “addicted to your ego” in the psychological canon.    His response startled me.  His answer:  “Well, Gordon, we all have egos!”  And I waited for the next sentence.  And I waited, and waited, and waited.  There was none forthcoming.   I guess he didn’t want to get into the deep well and get mired down in garbage, so we didn’t go there.  I wonder what your thoughts might be on that?  Please feel free to share them with me by leaving a note!

Later, however, I was thinking to myself how easy it would be for someone to manipulate a cast just by telling them how great they were doing.   Wouldn’t that be a revelation for the annals of psychology?  I can see it now in the weekly headlines:   “Cast of (name your performance being performed by theatre of your choice) adjudged addicted to compliments!”   

Now we all like compliments, especially in the theatre where, when working with less than talented directors and coaches, most of the performers are inexperienced and rely on the coaching of the director-du-jour.   

So, addicted to compliments and kudos and rejecting any type of wise input, little changes.   It can’t because there is no input other than a surface, move here, go there, sit here, walk there type of work.   Directors who act simply as “traffic cops” are absolutely able to feed the addicted egos with false compliments, but are not able to feed the latent talent that yearns to get out and express itself.   

I figure there is a personal hell just waiting for directors and artistic directors who simply “use” performers but fail to improve and educate the actor so they are a better artist in their next role.  It probably is very hot down there and very quiet–with no applause.

Morbidity:

As a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist for many years, we learned early on that we needed to closely review each and every patient with which we had contact.   The goal was to improve the patient care for the next patients and to share that growth with others.    Sometimes it would be a chipped tooth or a bruise.   It even went to far as to examine openly and objectively even outcomes with disastrous consequences.    It was not easy to do personally or professionally but we all knew that we would get better with each case.    It is now, in most hospitals, the way monthly meetings are handled.    

The end effect of this is growth by examining the negative outcomes.

When I started in theatre, we had no such examination.   We had every one telling us how “wonderful” we were and how great we did.   Of course , early on, those were professors who had to keep numbers up so their classes wouldn’t be cut.     Anyhow, you get the picture.   Pretty soon you started to believe it.   The you got addicted to it.   And along with that addiction to “wonderful”, you died inside, your spark for exploration and growth died, each play you did died a little more each time, and finally, the venue where you were working was still standing but was dead inside.   Still doing show after show after show with no growth or clarity or expansion.   Just the same old thing over and over and over.   And boring.   Then you sit there and wonder why the houses aren’t full after all of your “wonderful” talent that you have poured into each presentation.  

And you might even question why no one is coming to see your work.   And you blame everyone but yourself.  You blame the community, the actors, the playwright, the board, the economy.   You name it.   Everyone but yourself and your growth.     And when I am able to look at my work and say that is not good, how are we going to change that to make it better or how are we going to re-hear (as in listen) to it to make it more communicative, I know I am growing.   Then I thank my lucky stars that I had good training in Morbidity and Mortality at those once a month sessions.    When I started doing that, I started to grow and develop.   I could feel it in my bones where previously, without that objective look, I just felt I was doing just another play for no good reason.

I mention open reviews (or M and M) to one of my professors from my early school days, and he echoed my thoughts:   “That was very hard!”

Of course it is!   Who said it wasn’t.   But at least you are growing and learning.   That is what the theatre is all about.   And that change from the same over and over again to something different each time, is what keeps the audience coming back, the theatre alive and, more important, it keeps us alive.    

I have suggested doing M and M reviews to several theatres over the years and came up with mixed reviews.   No kidding!   At one theatre, a session became a pecking with everyone not involved with show and whos hands were clean of the work involved, criticized everyone with theatre blood on their hands.    We promptly changed that to keep it objective.    The other extreme was where a self-appointed theatre maven only wanted to hear good comments and would not listen to anything negative.   Now that’s real growth, isn’t it.    

And Directors are teachers, but certainly not with that attitude because a director has no friends.

Anyone got any thoughts on this, just post it below.

Looking back at the chart on the first page of this blog, you’ll see that the artistic director resides between the community and the theatre and the director is located between the play and the audience.    Given that, then, how is good or bad taste determined.   

For example, if an Artistic Director of a producing company in Salt Lake City opts to present Angels In America (the Mormon church is skewered), he/she and their theatre might/could/will/shall expect major repercussions given that SLC is the seat of the Mormon sect.   Now, this is not to say it should not be presented, but it is a good sign that the theatre management should expect a response from the community that it might or might not be expecting.     The same might be said of a theatre in Milwaukee presenting a play about the evils of drinking beer or a theatre in New Orleans that opts for a play that suggests that listening to jazz causes sterility and birth defects.   The examples are humorous, yes, but a lesson can be learned about taste.     

When selecting a season, who should bear the brunt of a tasteless bit of business that might creep into a show.  

Usually, I would say, the person who helms the production:   the director.  

Recently I saw two presentations at a local theatre which demonstrates how loss of objectivity and a lot of bad taste overshadows good intentions.    One was in a French Farce (which was, IMHO, neither French nor a Farce nor Funny!) where a female character bent over to unlock a door and her paramour walked in behind her and stood there with his crotch touching her butt for a total of perhaps a minute or so.   And to be honest with you and judging by how much squriming in the audience, it seemed like a hour.   The second example, in the same venue, a well known but extremely difficult musical given into the hands of local and inexperienced thespians, the same type of offensive occurred.   This time, a “substantial” woman bent over to pick up something, back to a male character, and stayed there for a long, long time supposedly enticing or interesting the male character,  who was sitting behind her with her butt in his face, ogling her behind in hopes that they might develop into a warm and more than just a friendly relationship.   And while that was going on, one look at the audience and their shuffling and fidgeting would have told even the most casual observer that perhaps it was too long to hold that picture.   I mean, the audience got it and fast.   It was, frankly, embarrassing.   How stupid to you think a mature audience can be is the question.   Do they need to be insulted by that kind of physicality that is so lacking.   I think not.  

And if you think bad taste is limited to only amateur productions, think again.   This next example is one that will absolutely boggle your mind.

And if you think bad taste is limited to only amateur productions, think again.   This next example is one that will absolutely boggled my mind.

The setting was the stage of an excellent professional theatre festival north of our northernmost border.  I will avoid mentioning them by name for fear they might cancel my favored patron status, and then..no more free drinks!   The production was Romeo and Juliet.   The audience was full of students from the area’s elementary, middle, and high schools, public and private.    The production was moving along and the students were engaged and attentive.  Likewise were those of us who are much older.   Then came what I will refer to as the “cucumber bit!”    The nurse, appearing rotund in a large skirt hiding a young man underneath, is surprised to see him emerge from beneath the skirt.   Not only did he emerge, he brought with him a cucumber which the nurse tried, vainly, to retrieve.   Now, at that point, it was a marginal bit of fun business.   But, no, we had more to see, unfortunately.   The cucumber was then thrown back and forth from young man to young man until finally, as a final grand gesture, he sniffed the cucumber at length, slowly,from one end to the other .    At that point, had any one in charge been listening or watching, the audience had become almost silent with a few titters here and there.   Even the students were surprised, to say nothing of their chaperones and two older ladies sitting nearby.  

One can only guess the response after the play by season holders, single ticket holder, potential donors, and any number of the students’ chaperones.    

Now, to me, that was in bad taste.   Pure and simple.  

Again, according to the graph on the first page of this blog, our job is to connect the play with the audience.   And it should be free of just any kind of personal view of life that a director feels compelled to add.

Now, that said, had the audience been solely adults that would have been more acceptable given that you expect a mature audience to be more “worldly wise” and capable of having more fun with that type of business.   

But at a theatre of this magnitude and reputation one would expect that SOMEONE would have suggested a slight modification to that bit of business given the range of ages in the audience.   And like I’ve said before, my take on it.

This play is Shaw at his absolute best.   Well, Ok, then, it is “A True History That Never Happened”, but what the hell, it is not only a feast to the eyes, but the mind as well.

Beautifully directed by Eda Holmes with Set Design by Canellia Koo, Costumes by Michael Gianfrancesco and Lighting by Bonnie Beecher, the spectacle is most satisfying, drawing you not only to the time but also the place.     Bravo.

I have seen this play the previous two outings at the Shaw, and each time I never come away bored or saying I don’t want to see this again.   It is full of thought provoking comments clearly delivered.   A real feather in the Shaw Festivals hat this year.

Go see it!   You will be enriched greatly.

You are probably wondering why iun the world I would put Jackie Maxwell’s name after a play that she directed but didn’t write.    There is a very good reason.

I am only going to focus on one play “Still Life.”    Director Maxwell’s handling of the characters who inhabit this refreshment room of the Milford Junction Railway Sation is a treasure trove for anyone interested in staging theatre.   If you are watching with a critical eye, you can see the thought process and the detailed work involved in staging the piece.   Almost like doing a watercolor, Ms. Maxwell builds the bustle and sighs of this play with such care and an obvious sense of pace and timing that you are immediately drawn into the play.

If I recall correctly, when you read these one acts by Coward, they are complete in words but something seems lacking.   It is to The Shaw’s benefit that the directress creates such an inviting and loving place for his play to unfold.    Seeing the entrances and exits of a host of participants, each one with their own goals and drive and wants and haste, is like watching life, Still Life.   

This production begs the question:   Have I ever done this, been like this, felt this in my own life?  Did I miss something that I should have recognized and identified with?   Is my life a quilt of unrelated incidences that somehow in the end will make a solid fabric.

Theatre that gets us to think about our lives and our contributions is theatre worth seeing.   This play and it’s very personal affect on me is the reason for attending the Shaw.    Great work from a very talented festival.