Live Theater at Edinburgh Showcase

Two trends has been present in the shows, I have seen at the Edinburgh Showcase 2011 presented by British Council. Both which make the question of why we make and watch live theater present.

Trend 1: shows that rely on new media, often to the degree where the live performers are either almost absent or reduced to pawns in a tightly scripted show.
Trend 2: shows that rely on live performers and the audience, often in a minimalistic set-up, where lights, effects and set are almost absent.

The weakness of trend 1 is that it takes us away from the immediacy and humanity of theater. We as an audience are reduced to pawns, silent consumers of a finished and non-live product. We might admire the cleverness, the effects and the skill of the production, but we are not a part of it.
The strength is that even with a weak idea, such a show, might exactly survive because of the effects and cleverness.

Trend 2-shows have nothing but the idea and the courage of the performers to succeed by. So even with a strong idea, if that idea hasn't been pursued with courage, analysis and imagination, the show can easily fall short. The advantage of these shows is the courage and humanity of the performer, which can save a mediocre idea.

To me trend 1-shows are a dead end for live theater. It baffles me to see a live performance, where the performers are not really alive, but puppets in a machinery. I really don't understand why anyone would go about making a live performance and then reduce it to something like a re-enacted film. It's like going to a concert where the singer lip-syncs, where the music is exactly like on the record.

In Teater 770° Celsius where I do my work, we search for the full live-experience of theater, we allow the mistake, the unexpected, to happen and enrich us and audience. I saw a lot of the same pursuit in the trend 2-shows at the showcase, which made me happy even when they didn't entirely succeed in that pursuit.

ISFO Competition

The International Student Film Organisation has asked me to post about their current short film screenwriting competition. Among the judges are Julie Gray, who has a good eye for scripts and deliver great feedback. Which is worth mentioning because the third prize for the 20 best scripts is a review of the script by the judges. Could be more valuable than the first prize of Mariner Writers Suite and the second prize, a scriptwriting book: "Screenwriting they can't resist".

So if you're curious, read more about it at their site.

And best of luck if you compete.

Out of Book

An expression from the world of chess, describes the phase of the game, when you leave behind the known opening moves and systems of 'the chess book'. This is where real players prefer to be, where the challenge happens. This is the critical state, in between chaos and order, where inspiration and new ideas emerge almost by themselves.

This is also where we should aim to put ourselves when working with drama, be it as writers, directors or actors. As professionals we have an understanding of the rules and systems of drama, and often we need to follow them strictly for a while, as we build up our game. But as soon as we have enough elements brought into play, we need to get out of book.

In my experience, by understanding the rules and systems from a more principled, dynamic view-point rather than as a rule-book, we put ourselves at a starting point, from where we'll quicker reach the 'out of book'-phase. Where the magic and the 'cooking-with-gas' happens.

By disciplining ourselves to constantly look for the unexpected, by reversing our own expectations, by letting any of our own mistakes or stupid criticism from others be a potential source to bring us out of book, we can get there, and stay there, and bring our game beyond book.

True complexity and sandbox-dramaturgy

Based on my effort to understand dramaturgy as principles rather than forms and my experience from creating two theater performances, developed and performed without a script, written or virtual, but with the principled dramaturgy along with devising and improv-techniques, I'm gradually getting ready to talk about sandbox-dramaturgy.

Often complexity is considered an essential quality in art. This is obviously true, but often misunderstood. An incomprehensible piece of art is not necessarily complex, but perhaps just meaningless on every level, hiding behind avant-garde rhetorics. A case of the emperors new clothes.

Science has some very simple definitions of complexity, which could or even should be applied in the understanding of art. Put simply, complexity arises when enough elements within the borders of a system are able to interact and influence each other. And enough elements are quite many, like every word, line, visual, sound etc. in a film. They all need to have connections. They need to operate within the boundaries of a system, or else their connections are not valid, but accidental and not contributing to the accumulation of complexity.

In art this creates the effect that fx. a play can be interpreted in many ways in new performances, while still remaining true to the original text. There are many connections to be made validly within the system of the play, and within its context of the larger system of the theater as an art form, and the even larger system of the human experience.

This is also why art will always be most exciting on the crossroads of the avant-garde; the formulation of new system rules; and the tradition; the established golden system rules which refer to the accumulated system experience of both the art form and human experience. If you leave the tradition completely behind, there are not really any system boundaries, and then no complexity. If you stay completely inside traditional rules, the connections of elements inside the system are bereft of value, as they have all been understood and explored long ago, and thus no real interaction and influence happens between the elements.

My sandbox dramaturgy is an attempt to define tools needed to create the framework for a live theater performance, which is both consistent and satisfying dramatically and yet never repeats itself, but will be different in every performance.

The sandbox-dramaturgy consist of building system boundaries for a dramatic universe, using simple, understandable dramatic tools, like place, time and basic conflict and theme. This is the sandbox. Then it needs to be filled with sand by using the dramatic principles to create elements inside the system; primarily the characters, but also visual, text and other elements, which can be brought into play inside the system boundaries. And actually, if this is for a theater performance, you also need a steady inflow of new elements. Which can both come from the audience, the performers/creators and/or any other other outside source.

This creates a performance, where complexity emerges by itself, which will be constantly renewed in new performances, by meeting a new audience, by accumulating experience, redefining rules as the old ones fades in substantial meaning, but still remaining the same system, exploring the same dramatic territory.

This kind of work is hugely fascinating as a scriptwriter/director, and as you let go of your control of the detail and every moment, you'll discover much more about what drama is and can do. Experiences which can also be brought into more traditional ways of creating drama.

Jokums sprogområde

Debatindlæg til Politiken, d.10/3 2011 - uredigeret version

(For english readers, this is an opinion piece I wrote for a Danish newspaper, about the lack of proper development of new writing in Denmark, especially at The Royal Theatre)

Jokums sprogområde

Jokum Rohdes nye stykke, "Manson", der lige nu spiller på Det Kongelige Teater, er fremragende eksempel på, hvad der galt med udviklingen af ny scenedramatik i vores lille sprogområde og især på Det Kongelige Teater. Det stykke skulle aldrig være sat op, men det sker det desværre alt for ofte, at ufærdigt eller dårligt håndværk sættes på scenen. Magter det teater overhovedet at løfte deres lovbundne opgave om at spille ny dansk dramatik?

Det er ikke nogen nem sag at lave dramatik - det er komplekst, selv det mest enkle, og dertil en mærkværdig blanding af subjektivt og objektivt. Fra dramatikerne, over instruktørerne til skuespillerne. Især skuespillerne, der skal stå frem og levere ordene. Derfor klapper jeg gerne efter endt forestilling, selv hvis den ikke har været synderligt god, for om ikke andet at vise skuespillerne respekt for indsatsen og modet. Men efter alle ordene i "Manson" havde lydt, kunne jeg ikke få mig selv til at slå mine hænder sammen i applaus. Stykket var for pinligt.

Sådan plejer det at være med Jokum Rohdes stykker, alt for mange ord, alt for lidt dramatik. Derfor har jeg tit undret mig over hvorfor Det Kongelige er blevet ved at bestille stykker hos netop ham - men dennegang er det bare endnu værre. Nok især fordi han forsøger at slå det største brød op, så kollapset føles så meget mere pinligt. Anmelderne er er alle mere eller mindre enige. Stoffet er interessant, der er bare for alt for mange ord. Hos Information siger Anne Middelboe f.eks. “jeg kunne næsten ikke holde ud, at teksten til Manson ikke er blevet beskåret med samme kraft som ligene i forestillingen - og at teksten endte med at lemlæste sig selv med sine alt for mange ord”.

Men det ville ikke have været nok at skære i teksten. Det som mangler er en klar dramatisk idé, som værkets struktur bygges op om. Selv hvis den idé havde været noget om kaos eller lignende. Og der kræves et håndværk til at eksekvere idéen. Det er ligesom vittigheder. De virker hvis de har en klar idé og udforming - selv hvis vittigheden er absurd. Men her mangler både dramatiker, dramaturg og instruktør tilsyneladende enhver færdighed til at finde og levere vitsen. "Manson" er det værste eksempel jeg har set. Det er vel ikke alene Jokum Rohdes skyld - han har bare skrevet af karsken bælg, opfyldt af fantasifostre og civilisationsvæmmelse. Al respekt for det, men han kan bare ikke håndværket og den klare tankegang, som gør at man kan slippe afsted med det, som han forsøger på. Men hvad jeg ikke fatter er, at Det Kongelige Teater beslutter at spille stykket. At bruge så store resurser. Vi taler om Store Scene og 12 skuespillere. Det koster kassen. Så skal man for fanden være ret sikker på at stykket virker. At vitsen er en vits - og ikke en sludder for en sladder.

Jeg har selv arbejdet en kortere periode som dramaturg på Det Kongelige og er i det hele taget godt bekendt med udviklingsprocesserne af ny dramatik i den danske teaterverden. Eller skal vi sige mangel på udvikling? At skrive dramatik er ikke nogen eksakt videnskab, og der findes en milliard måder at gøre det på, men som alt andet i verden er der mønstre og principper for hvordan dramatik fungerer. Det kan man lære og blive ved med at lære. Og et teater kan tilrettelægge udviklingsprocesser, som sikrer teatret mod at stå med et halv-godt/dårligt stykke. Men alligevel sker det igen og igen i dansk teater. Man bestiller et stykke, får et ufærdigt/klodset produkt leveret, taler lidt om beskæringer og forsøger så at få det bedste ud af det på scenen. Det er simpelthen for uproft og slapt. Og et ufatteligt resursespild.

Jokum Rohdes “Manson” er bestemt ikke en enlig svale de seneste 10-15 år. Da Claus Hoffmeyer overtog ansvaret for skuespillet var det med med en erklæring om at prioritere den nye danske dramatik og bød på en første sæson med mange nye danske stykker, der desværre stort set alle floppede. Et eksempel fra perioden er filminstruktøren Carsten Rudolfs “Genfærd”, hvor alle på teatret vidste at det var et stykke som ikke fungerede, men ingen greb ind. Under Mikkel Harder blev det ikke meget bedre, selvom han stod på en konference for ny dramatik og brystede sig med at de havde haft Jokum Rohdes nye stykke, “Pinnochios Aske”, i en udviklingsworkshop, men han glemte at fortælle, det ikke var Det Kongelige Teater, men en lille forening, Dramatikercentrum, som havde arrangeret og bekostet den nævnte workshop. Og nu har vi Emmet Feigenberg som skuespilchef og man kunne have håbet på bedre, eftersom han hentede Jesper Bergmann ind som chefdramaturg, der kommer med en masse udviklingserfaring fra radioteatret. Men når deres store satsning er “Manson”, så er det håb brast.

Hvis vores lille sprogområde med nogen form for stolthed skal kunne henvise til vores nationalscene, så må vi hæve udviklingsniveauet af ny dramatik. Én ting er at et mindre teatre ikke har overskuddet og kompentencen til det, men at vores nationalscene ikke har, det er pinligt. Både for de skuespillere, der hver aften skal stå på scenen og forsvare teksten – og for publikum.

Hvis Det Kongelige Teater ikke meget snart viser sig modne til til at løfte opgaven, som jo er en del af bevillings- og lovgrundlaget, bør politikerne fratage dem opgaven og overføre midlerne til et (nyt) teater, der udelukkende varetager udvikling af nyskreven dramatik, som f.eks. Royal Court Theater gør det i London.

A Child is Born

I've been commissioned to write and direct a Christmas play for Grønnegade Teatret, a regional theater here in Denmark. I'll give an account here on the blog of the process. The title will be "A Child is Born", which is the first words of a famous Danish christmas hymn. Let's recap the story of the process so far.

After sending letters to theaters around Denmark, suggesting different ideas for performances. Based on that letter I was invited by the artistic director, Peter Holst, to come up with ideas for two performances. We met and I pitched two ideas verbally. After some time and back and forth on email, they asked for a synopsis on the idea for the christmas performance. In two weeks I developed the vague idea into a full 5-page synopsis and based on that the theater commissioned the play and decided also to hire me as its director.

The initial idea was quite vague. I suggested to make a christmas performance with some edge. I told Peter Holst that I would like to work with the conflict between people who love christmas and those who hate it. In Denmark we have this expression, "hygge", which means something like being cosy. Actually its more than an expression; its a national state of mind. Something every Danish person should strive attain as often as possible. And Christmas-hygge is the ultimate kind of hygge. It is a great feeling, but of course it can also become a great pressure. Often you'll end up with families where - for the sake of 'hygge' - we never confront any issues. Still, this being a christmas performance it still has to be some kind of comedy, so I decided to have two characters, slightly exaggerated, one who loves christmas and hygge intensely, and one who hates it above all else. And to make matters worse or better, dramatically, they are married.

And as I kept thinking about christmas, I realized how much it has become the celebration of and for children. This lead me to an old fascination with the image of 'the adoration of the magi', often painted especially by the renaissance painters. It shows the three wise men bowing down before the newborn Jesus. I wrote more about it in a previous post. The main thing in my process was it made me realize the deeper level of my idea, what I call the mystery. And so I knew there had to be a child. Immediately I knew the child was dead and that this would be the reason for the two main characters' exaggerated attitudes to christmas. The mother trying to forget and move on has thrown herself into celebrating christmas like there's no tomorrow. And for the father everything is an abyss and all attempts to go on living, hollow and hypocritical.

I also felt that the child should somehow be in the play as a character. The ghost of the child, perhaps. Or as an angel? Or it could even come back from the dead. I just knew two things; I wanted the child somewhere on the stage and I wanted some kind of miracle to take place. And then I was ready to work on my synopsis. Ask all the right questions to myself about form, structure and content. A part of the set-up at the theater also demands the inclusion of some local amateur actors. And to solve this I drew upon my experience with devised, interactive, improv-theater to come up with a scenario for the play, where we can use them as guests at the wife's christmas party, along with the rest of the audience. If you are able to read Danish, you can read the resulting synopsis here.

Now I'll embark on preparing to write the play. I'll rework the synopsis with some new/modified ideas, I've had since I wrote it. I'll also take into account, that now I know my the cast - at least the actors for the two main characters, so I can write directly to their strengths and weaknesses. And here on the blog I'll try to document the process. You're welcome to comment, question or discuss.