Page 24

Season 2 Episode 1.5: Renderrabbits

unnamed

 

We heard some great stories in the first half of our recording sessions at the High Performance Rodeo in Calgary where we are Listeners in Residence.  We thought we’d share little something, just to whet your appetites. Enjoy this short preview episode with an interview we did with animator Tyler Klein Longmire about watching old VHS tapes and drawing The Whaler for his animated short film Renderrabbits. Check out more of the story behind Renderrabbits in the SWS Gallery. 

The Deep Field Podcast are Listeners in Residence at the One Yellow Rabbit High Performance Rodeo with You Are Here Too – Recalling The Whaler

January 15 & 16, 22 & 23 – 9:45pm – midnight, Listening Party January 29 @ 9:45pm (Laycraft Lounge, FREE)

If you’ve ever seen Michael Green do The Whaler,  you have every naked detail etched in your mind. It was wild theatre at its hilarious best — wet, nude, and undeniable.

During the Rodeo on Friday and Saturday nights, The Deep Field Podcast team will be looking for you with tape rolling, to record your tall tales of Michael Green’s The Whaler . Share what The Whaler means to you, and celebrate what you remember.

As the High Performance Rodeo’s official Listeners in Residence, we will borrow your voices to build a chorus. A cacophony. A sea shanty.

If you never caught the spectacle, you can find out all about it on January 29 (Listening Party). Join us for a Listening Party where we compose YOUR remembrances, YOUR belly laughs, and YOUR voices shouting out “I AM THE WHALER!” one or two – or a hundred – times more.

 

VancouverPlays Explained

10389645_776328639084447_1506682581021569522_n
Vancouver theatre critics at the Jessie Awards 2014. Featuring Mark Leiren-Young, Jo Ledingham, Colin Thomas, and Jerry Wasserman.

I had been a professional stage actor and UBC English professor for more than a decade when I started reviewing Vancouver theatre for CBC Radio in the mid-1980s, first as a stringer for the national program State of the Arts, then for 17 years as a regular weekly critic for CBC Vancouver’s The Afternoon Show. In 2004, when the show permanently eliminated my theatre slot, as well as book reviews, in favour of a sex column and pop music, I decided to create a website, www.vancouverplays.com, to review local theatre and dance. At that time there was hardly any online arts coverage in Vancouver.

Once my site was up and running I also pitched myself to The Province, the local tabloid that had stopped reviewing theatre in the mid-1990s. Luckily for me, Province subscribers had been complaining about the lack of local arts and entertainment coverage so I was hired as the paper’s freelance theatre critic. With many policy changes and turnovers of editors, my Province gig lasted on and off until 2015. Meanwhile, I continued to teach, act, and run Vancouverplays.com, now solely devoted to theatre. (A few years ago I dropped dance coverage because no dance companies were buying my ads.) Currently in its twelfth year, the site has logged over 1.2 million visitors and archived more than 600 reviews, 95% of them written by me.

Linda Malloy, my wonderful designer and webmistress (as we both jokingly call her), posts the material I send her. I do everything else: edit all the text I receive from publicists, update and refresh the site weekly, write a weekly editorial for the home page, solicit the advertising, do the billing. I also write nearly all the reviews. Since I have been traveling for extended periods during the past few years, I have given over some reviewing to another local journalist. In an attempt to instill some ethnic diversity in the all-white Vancouver theatre critics’ community, I have also recently begun assigning reviews to two UBC Theatre grad students, one First Nations, the other Asian-Canadian. But I feel most comfortable when I can take full credit or blame for whatever appears on the site.

I consider myself a public intellectual and would describe my style of theatre criticism as informed populism. My approach to reviewing has not changed very much whether live on air for radio, in print for a newspaper, or online for my own site. I’ve always chosen the shows I want to review, and I’ve been unusually fortunate, I’m sure, in never having any of my reviews censored or rejected on radio or in print. I had to stick to a format (five or six minutes on air, 600-800 words for the paper), but except for one editor at The Province, no one ever so much as trimmed a review of mine. I told the next editor I wouldn’t write for the paper anymore if they cut my words, and he agreed not to. I was also somehow able to get away with reprinting all my Province reviews on Vancouverplays.com without formal permission from Postmedia. Luck? Chutzpah? I don’t know. The only real difference in reviewing for my own website is that I can write as much as I want and use words I couldn’t use on CBC or in the paper.

VancouverPlays Hompage
Homepage of VancouverPlays.com

Today, Vancouver has many theatre bloggers and online reviewers, but mine is likely the only website fully supported by paid ads from local theatre companies. I don’t feel that this has put me in a serious conflict of interest. It’s no different than reviewing for a newspaper that carries even more expensive theatre ads. Besides, I’m already in conflict in so many other ways—reviewing friends, former students, actors I’ve acted with, directors who have directed me and might, I hope, again.

I studiously avoid cheap shots, but when a show sucks, I say so. Yet none of my advertisers has ever pressured me to write puff pieces or pull my punches. I’m a huge fan of theatre, a booster of the local theatrical economy, and I tend generally to be a positive guy. I think my reviews reflect all that. I would hope that the financial support I get from theatre companies has everything to do with my knowledge and experience of theatre, my reputation for integrity and good writing, the quality of my site, and the numbers of would-be ticket buyers who visit it.

As for the future, Linda will redesign the website this year to get us better Google results, higher placement on the page when someone searches “Vancouver theatre.” Otherwise, it’s steady as she goes. I’ve avoided Twitter because of the extra time it involves, though I’m likely to suffer for that as social media continues to replace mainstream media as people’s primary source of cultural information. The steady demise of newspapers and other opportunities for informed theatre criticism to reach a wide general audience is an unfortunate reality of our times.

No one is going to make a living blogging theatre reviews. But critics will continue to be a crucial element of the cultural ecology. The Calgary Herald’s Stephen Hunt calls us “the honeybees of Canadian culture. We pollinate it.” Since there seems to be no shortage of people who want their critical voices heard, it’s important that we find ways for those voices to be as educated, aware and diverse as possible, and for the pollination to be efficient, effective and widespread. In the most recent issue of Critically Speaking, the newsletter of the Canadian Theatre Critics Association, Hunt proposes “a Canada Council for Critics.” 1% of the Council’s budget, or about $2 million a year, he suggests, “could fund over 100 digital critics across the country, so that they could have a deeper sense of professionalism, and also a longer-term commitment to learning and receiving training for their craft. A whole lot of Canadian artists would get critiqued as a result.” 

Good theatre criticism is hard, important work, and those who do it deserve to be recompensed for their labour. In our brave new world where writers, filmmakers, musicians and other cultural workers are struggling to figure out how to make the online world profitable for them, I count myself extremely fortunate to be able to generate some revenue doing one of the things I love most. Though the profit I derive from my website divided by the number of hours I put into it works out to less than minimum wage, it keeps this bee a-buzzing.

 

Criticism and Community

2015 TTCAs

I think it’s important to begin this article by acknowledging my own hypocrisy.

In writing this piece that had its genesis in my incredulity that the Toronto Theatre Critics’ Awards (TTCAs) continue to have an all-male jury five years after being founded, I have managed (with co-editor Adrienne Wong) to pull together three articles by white guys from across Canada to form this edition. This is something that rarely happens on #cdncult, to go 3/3 like that. I think it speaks to the structural bias that exists within theatre criticism itself.

Back in November, critic Kelly Nestruck published an article in The Globe and Mail that took umbrage with Ross Petty’s approach to casting his pantos “in 2015”. Petty commented, “I cannot hire somebody of a different colour just to satisfy a portion of the audience that feels they are not being represented, I need to hire the most talented people that there are.” Nestruck’s article took him to task on this casting philosophy in what is probably the least-glowing preview article I can recall. (The last line is “Boo, Mr. Petty. Boo.”)

So I wrote to Kelly Nestruck and said, “Great article, I totally agree this sort of answer is unacceptable – but how is this different than the all-male TTCAs?” In return I received a suggestion to send a list of questions for the ‘Critics Circle’ (as they prefer to be understood – not as a jury), that could be shared with the group as the informal nature meant there was no one spokesperson.

The responses I received from Nestruck, NOW’s Glenn Sumi and Torontoist & Globe and Mail’s Martin Morrow left me confused about where to go with this line of questioning. Each agreed the composition was problematic – all cited structural issues that were challenging reform. At the risk of being reductive I can summarize the dilemma as:

The Circle is drawn from ‘professional’ theatre critics – currently defined as those holding the ‘head’ critic position at each of the outlets that still manage to cover theatre and print on paper + Torontoist. Because the media is made up mostly of guys, so is the circle. As of late, non-head critics have been able to give input (for example Carly Maga at The Toronto Star), but even if membership were to be officially expanded to this cohort, would secondary critics have seen enough shows to be qualified to determine what was best each year?

All of this indicates to me that the TTCAs are in a tight spot. Despite the genuine hope for change to come from membership, change SEEMS to be controlled by the hiring practices of a media industry struggling just as much as theatre to achieve gender equity. But to do nothing is to continue our annual ritual of tweets and blog posts challenging the merit of a series of awards determined exclusively through the male gaze. They are probably one winner who ‘can’t even’ away from having an award turned down.

It seems to me the hope is The Star will hire a woman to replace head critic Richard Ouzounian to increase the critical perspective. Sure, maybe – but I hope even if that happens they use this moment as an opportunity to broaden, or perhaps deepen, the principals of The Circle. In Kelly Nestruck’s official response he gave three principles that to his mind underpinned the awards so far:

“To create more of a theatre awards season in the city; to increase the visibility of professional theatre criticism and theatre critics here; to have a party where critics and the theatre community could come together.”

I can get behind the first two for the most part, but I hope the individuals who compose the Critics Circle engage in an interrogation of the third and what it means.

If the intention of the Critics Circle is to “come together” with the theatre community, well, you should take note of how the community works. We’ve created systems to determine merit within the theatre community, be it an award or a grant, and in any case, an all-male decision-making body is pretty much out of the question. There is probably an actual rule about it at the arts councils and Google search “Jessie Awards” “diversity” if you don’t believe me about the other stuff.

While I recognize a critic’s circle is distinct from an arts jury, I’m not sure the semantics are relevant to what the word community means at its core. The word implies a shared sense of values and principals that define what the community is. And while it has been a while since my sociology minor, I do recall that part of defining who is part of the community is determining those who demonstrate a commitment to shared values. Those who do not are “other” and not part of the community. There is always an “other” – the community defines itself in part by what it is not.

So there is an opportunity here regardless of whom The Toronto Star’s new theatre critic is. It’s one where our critics, who will continue to play an essential role in the ecology, could also become part of the community. They can do it by demonstrating a commitment to our shared values. This can’t be done simply by welcoming a female member courtesy of someone else’s hiring decision. But this can be done by proactively addressing gender inequity within the Critic Circle’s composition. When critics and artists come together for a party this summer, will it be as “other” and community or as a community?

Our critics are constrained by the same structural bias that led us at #cdncult, without even noticing it until it was too late – to curate this all-male issue. It’s not easy. All of us get it wrong sometimes – think about how deeply difficult a time this has been for the theatre community and equity issues. It takes active resistance to reshape these practices and I don’t know the answer exactly. I do know that passive acceptance of others’ decisions is not the path forward, and efforts to effect change is what the rest of the community is up to these days.

Artistic Director Writes to Critics – You Won’t Believe What Happens Next!

boy in moon
The Boy in the Moon by Emil Sher at the Great Canadian Theatre Company. Photo by Andrew Alexander.

In a curious reversal of the Old-Man-Yells-at-Internet trope, I am increasingly aware of the internet yelling at me. The digital age, it yells, is upon us, and everything that you have ever believed about theatre is going to change or die. Given my experience with the internet to date, I take its shrieking with a grain of salt. Most recently, the internet was yelling at me about the dearth not only of legitimate theatre critics, but of any critics at all.

Whether we liked them or loathed them, the established critics in the mainstream media could once be relied upon to cover our work in a predictable pattern that aligned with our own marketing and production schedules. But as media moguls continue to slash operating budgets, the old framework has disappeared and we now face an amorphous inventory of neophyte bloggers, established critics, veteran bloggers, academics, retired critics, Twerds, Facebookers, cub reporters and Daniel Karasik.

I see such a varied response to our work as an opportunity rather than a disadvantage. The more prepared we are to embrace a multitudinous response to theatre, the more likely we are to build a collective understanding of excellence versus mediocrity. (As an artist I have been responsible for works at both ends of the spectrum, and trust me: nobody is immune to the latter.) It is easy, however, when looking at the range of skills in the inventory of critics, to focus on the negative aspects. With the rise of the self-anointed theatre critic, we have also seen an unsettling increase in uninformed and ill-informed criticism. Or have we?

When the regional newspapers still covered theatre, the reviewing was often pawned off on junior reporters who were also responsible for minor sports, social events and news from the service clubs. This was certainly my experience when I was Artistic Director of the rural Blyth Festival for ten years. The local papers covered the hell out of the shows – but the reporters had no idea how to write a review. After complaining about this for a few years, I decided instead to look at my role in the equation. I was desperate for the coverage, but I had done nothing to help address the gap between community reportage and professional theatre review.

So, we hired a critic from Toronto to spend a weekend conducting a workshop for local writers. The first exercise was to assess the reporters’ working knowledge of theatre, wherein we were alarmed to discover that none of them had an accurate sense of the director’s role. Most were operating under the assumption that the Stage Manager was responsible for blocking the show and that the designers showed up to do the actors’ makeup or maybe paint the set. Nobody had heard of a maquette. By the end of the workshop we had made measureable, if slender, headway and it was apparent in subsequent reviews of our work. No longer were actors lauded for their choice of costumes, nor were directors praised for the lighting designs. It was a baby step, but a step nonetheless.

best bros
The Best Brothers by Daniel MacIvor at the Great Canadian Theatre Company. Photo by Andrew Alexander.

With the rise of the blogger, a different challenge has emerged. Not tied to deadlines of any sort, the volunteer blogger critic may have a lot to offer, but little incentive to maintain the traditional relationship of theatre and reviewer. In Ottawa I have noticed an almost comic inconsistency among the bloggers in terms of attendance and timeliness of the reviews. Recognizing that they are not seeing the situation from our point of view, I wrote a policy document of sorts and sent it to the theatre critics on the Great Canadian Theatre Company’s (GCTC) media list.

Clarity being the essential ingredient, the piece promotes an understanding of our mutual responsibilities and expectations. That is really all it contains – a list of GCTC’s responsibilities (ie: timely information, access to artists for interviews, production photos, access to the script, tickets to opening night, etc) and our corresponding list of expectations (ie: the critic will attend on opening night or within three days of opening, the review will be posted in a timely manner, etc.). As an added incentive, we have made three spots available for embedded criticism, allowing three critics to attend several hours of rehearsal at various stages (ie: table reading, blocking rehearsal, technical rehearsal). So far, this has all received positive feedback.

If it seems simplistic, it is deliberately so. There is a deficiency in the current relationship and I cannot solve it in a vacuum. For example, it serves no purpose to complain to my peers when a blogger requests comp tickets to a preview, because the blogger is not privy to that conversation. As much as I like to maintain flexibility in our relationships with stakeholders of all stripes, I believe that the only way to address the deficiencies in our relationship with the myriad critics is to state our case in bold and clear terms. To whit: both parties need an incentive to co-operate. I will gladly provide tickets to reviewers, but only as long as they acknowledge the value of the relationship.

This deliberate simplicity is a first step towards deeper engagement – an engagement that will only reach its potential if I begin by laying out clear expectations, accompanied by meaningful incentives for a new brand of critic. Access to a rehearsal, for example, is a counter-intuitive exercise, but it creates enormous potential for the critic to gain insight. As theatre itself shifts to embrace an immersive approach, why shouldn’t our traditional relationships take the same step?

If all goes according to plan, the critics who cover my work will invest more deeply in the process. In my wildest dreams, they will avail themselves of our resources to a greater degree by reading scripts in advance, conducting interviews with designers and stage managers, rather than always defaulting to the actors and directors. Critique will extend beyond observation and delve into rigorous critical thinking that will, in turn, challenge me to improve my practice. If, by engaging my critics, I am able to elevate my own game, then the inevitable hurdles along the way will be worth it.

#CdnCult Times; Volume 6, Edition 6: CRITICISM

“When it doesn’t suck, it blows.” Best worst-review I’ve ever gotten.

We can’t help it, theatre makers have a symbiotic relationship with critics. We need their previews and reviews to sell tickets to our shows, and to sell our shows to presenters. There are cities in this country where a good review can make a show, and there are certainly cities where a bad review can break it.

Critics are ambassadors (like it or not) bringing theatre to the general public. What is their role in the changing media landscape?

As newspapers struggle to redefine their niche in the digital age, column-inches devoted to the theatre are disappearing – are the educated individuals writing those columns also endangered? Arguably, the art of criticism itself is threatened, at the same time that platforms for publishing reviews online is burgeoning.

In this issue, Vancouver actor, writer and professor, Jerry Wasserman writes about his work as a critic over the years, moving from radio to print to a self-published website. Eric Coates describes his efforts to improve the quality of discourse from reviewers as well as the better defining the relationship between critics and the Great Canadian Theatre Company. And finally, #cdncult Editor-in-Chief Michael Wheeler challenges the Toronto Theatre Critics Association to join the wider community’s efforts to better reflect the diversity of Canadian experience within its composition.

As it happens, this is a task we at #cdncult failed at in this issue. Instead we have three smart, white dudes talking about theatre criticism.

We can do better.

And we will, because ultimately, the value of criticism within the theatre community is to promote analysis and discourse about the work towards improvement of the work. And like any discourse, conversation is enriched by the variety of voices that contribute to it.

An open letter to a community enraptured by open letters

Dear Letter Writers,

Piss off, and fade away.

An open letter is a very valuable thing. But when it’s overused it just comes to mean nothing. When a media service publishes an open letter, it is for the purpose of dissemination to a wide community. The idea being, concerned citizens are given the chance to publicly address the targeted recipient in the purview of a larger public. This may then force a response from that recipient. For example:

 

An Open Letter to Coca Cola,

You’re evil. Stop privatizing water.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen

 

A Response:

No.

Happy Holidays,

Coca-Cola

P.S. Ho Ho Ho ©

 

So, an open letter can be used to make a statement. The powerful body’s response (or lack there of) will, at the very least, colour the overall picture of that recipient in the views of the larger community of readership.

So, why are open letters becoming so prevalent?

I wonder about this. Maybe we’re all just angrier. There is a lot to be angry about… but what if there’s not actually more to be angry about? So here’s a stab at what I think is going on:serotonindopamine

There’s a science to “why we post.” Supposedly, it’s a dopamine rush. Any old post, when it’s “liked” or “favourited” – it gives a sense of validation. And actually causes a small neuro-synaptic rush. It’s the same kind of thing that happens when you express your outrage of something in your life to a friend, and they say: “You are so right.” So that’s all well and good, right?

Well, not really. As it turns out, the more we do this – the more validated we are constantly – the more we crave and demand it. A lack of validation, or worse yet a criticism, starts to cause us irritation. Gradually, it makes us less tolerant of opposing views, and it even can transfer to an increase in “real life” micro-aggression, or anxiety. It’s like an addiction. And that also means part of the picture is dependence and withdrawal.

Dead Letters and Live Artists

While there are certainly exceptions to the rule, in general, I feel that open letters by (and perhaps more apt would be between) theatre artists seem counter to the art from. What is theatre, if it’s not a forum for the exchange of ideas? A performance is live – and that’s what makes it dynamic. Likewise, conversation is live.

To delve into a little bit of Kantian Aesthetic thinking – if we consider the binary of concept vs image – theatre is image. It is the liveness itself that keeps it as such – an ever moving and malleable thing between the performer and the audience. It’s affective less than intellectually finite. Open to interpretation.

The opposite of image is “concept” – which is a known. A dead letter. The imag(e)inative potential of a concept is basically nullified by the existence of the concept itself. Concepts are useful in terms of stepping stones to a larger imaginative idea. They are the roots we can grab hold of while we topple blindly down the cliff face of imagination.

bannerspiderweb

Theatre, live performance, whatever it is we do… is like a village square. To extend the metaphor – an open letter is a fortress. A fortress constructed and crafted from an often well researched argument. It conceptualizes its statement and works to create barriers – or castle walls – to any disagreement. It’s almost totalitarian in that way, whereas the city square is relatively democratic. I don’t want to come to your castle to be lectured at – it’s pointy and cold. I’d rather live in the village square. And the reason? Because there, we talk.

An open letter side steps conversation. It allows its audience to take a somewhat removed objective stance and say whether they agree or disagree with the concepts put forth. Meanwhile, that same audience can distance itself even further by responding in similar letters – rather than doing something crazy like talking to someone about it. Maybe even talking to the writer. And why would you want to talk to the writer anyhow? They’ve said their piece, and often when someone disagrees or “denies” them that requested dopamine satisfaction – they get angry.

As live artists, we have the capacity to make statements in real life. We have platforms. We’re generally pretty ahead of the game in terms of rhetoric. When we sit in our fortress of solitude and make statements – we are prescribing a wavelength and trying to force others to accept it rather than jamming on an idea. It’s not necessarily malicious. But I do think it’s lonely. And that makes me concerned.

Look, if you wanna say something controversial, progressive, accusatory or perhaps even offensive – go right ahead. But please face me when you say it, and know that you very well may be challenged. And you’ll be challenged in front of everyone. And there, in front of a community you would otherwise write to from a safe distance, you can confront your opinion and try to justify it, or you can learn to listen.

Understand, it’s ok to be wrong. All you need to do is listen, hear, consider, and say “Oh, right. Yeah, I was wrong.” Or say “I’ve listened, and I still don’t agree.” But say it. Don’t be an isolated indisputable concept. Be an image. Let me see the image of someone who is hurtful and uninformed negotiate how they must now share space with the people they just pissed off. That’s interesting. And maybe, just maybe by hearing the genuine inflexion in someone’s voice, or seeing the immediate facial reaction, or feeling the way the tone shifts in the room will at least give perspective as to why they don’t like what you’re saying. Or why you’ve just said something they needed to hear.

The more we rely on these open letters, the more we choose to broadcast rather than engage, the more we distance ourselves from the actual importance of the art form we work with – we are abandoning the medium of liveness. So let’s do something radical. Let’s try being in the same room. Let’s try talking to each other. And let’s make mistakes.

Good and Never Good Enough

NYE
Photo: Matt Reznek – Bold Rezolution Studios.

I always thought I knew what it meant to be ‘good’.  When I was little, I was always the kid that helped wash the paint trays, stack the chairs, and put the books away.  First one to run back to class when we heard the bell ring after recess.  So, obviously, I loved New Years resolutions – a framework that allowed me to pledge to be not only ‘good,’ but ‘better.’  As a rather single-minded young(er) artist, I can tell you for sure that every resolution I’ve had since I was 9 years old was about theatre.  In lieu of whatever else 9-year-olds make resolutions about (do they even make resolutions?  Is that a weird thing for a kid to do?) I resolved to sing better, read more plays, get the lead in the fall drama show.  None of that changed through high school and into theatre school.  Every year at midnight I pledged myself to work harder, be better, know more, do more.  I had learned what it meant to be ‘good’ – to be well-behaved, disciplined, focused, and technically proficient.  I wanted to be better.

Many of my resolutions had a lot to do with what I thought an actor should look like and how I thought they should behave.  As a young actor starting off in musical theatre, I bought wholesale into the concept of ‘type’.  You could be categorized and find your place in the canon easily. Better to know it and accept it now rather than be surprised later.  You were either a Laurey or an Ado Annie.  Either Hope or Reno Sweeney. Maria or Anita.  And the worst thing is, I don’t remember anyone telling me this.  But I do remember looking at who I (consistently) saw on stage and who I saw in the mirror, and decided that I needed to change.  I bought into this while simultaneously believing that in ‘real life’ it would be offensive and absurd to determine a person’s qualities by their physical appearance.

How did I make sense of that blatant contradiction?  I guess it is because I also believed that a good actor was rigorously disciplined and faithful to the hierarchy of the industry.  I leaned on that hierarchy for support while I struggled to make sense of how things ‘worked’.  In my quests to figure out if I was an ingénue or a wacky supporting lead, I never considered the third option: burn it down. Start again.  I like that one better.

I will forgive you for rolling your eyes at me if you figured this one out years ago, but since I really just got here, I reserve my right to naiveté.  Or at least to admit that I only recently figured out that it’s all broken.  It doesn’t work.  These systems don’t make any sense because they’re catered to nonexistent binaries and assumptions. Let’s be real – through a dozen open letters, through too many shocking statistics, through a thousand conversations in theatre lobbies and bars, we’re confronting a Canadian Theatre with a desperate problem of exclusivity (and don’t think for a moment that I don’t know that these conversations were happening long before I was stacking chairs in my primary school classroom).  I grew up in a theatre that ignores people of colour, people with lived experience of disability and who live with labels or diagnoses.  A theatre that minimizes or erases the narratives of people integral to the communities they call home.  And then, for me, the hardest part of all: that despite 17 years of New Years resolutions, I still didn’t know how to be ‘good’.

‘Dismantling the systems of oppression at work in our daily lives’ is not the kind of resolution you announce to a room full of people before taking a shot of tequila.  These systems are embedded into our narratives, our language, and, on a more micro level, the way we work in theatre.  But this year my most joyous moments in rehearsal halls have been spent with people who have been excluded from this industry in terms of ‘type’, and in working rooms that have banished the ideas of hierarchy or a one-size-fits-all version of discipline and rigour.  I’m grateful to the many artists that have shared their point of view with me this year, helping illuminate how exclusionary many of our working practices and traditions are.

We are not taught how to be truly good.  But we have the power to change that.  Confronting that change requires the courage to know that for a while, I will never be good enough. I will make mistakes.  I will struggle to join discussions of critical race theory that are decades old.  I will discover that words I use almost daily are ableist in origin.  I will discover that that one time I subscribed to Eurocentric stock characters, I was not doing anyone any favours (especially myself).  And then I will feel terrible for a while.  I will feel like I will never be good enough.

And then I will get the hell over it.  Ironically, I know and welcome this feeling, because when I was a ‘good’ theatre student, I listened when I was told that in order to do my best work I had to become comfortable with ‘making a mess’.  In this case, my work is the immeasurably more intimidating work of creating a Canadian Theatre that is a welcoming, engaging place for all artists and audiences.  And ‘making a mess’ means slowly dismantling the systems of oppression that have made their way into my work, and accepting my inevitable failure to do so.  The stakes are much higher. But being ‘good’ has never been easy.  Knowing that for a while I won’t be good enough is not easy either.  As allies, we want our ally-ship to be as simple as our compassion, but that’s not the world we live in.  Embracing complication means embracing failure, and the willingness to continue on in humility and good faith.

So I promise to draw on the incredible generosity of the artists I’ve worked with this year to move forward as a more thoughtful, intuitive, and responsive artist and person.  To turn that anxious desire to please others into a more productive and progressive ability to improve the systems we work in (and for that matter, to reassure any young woman of the theatre who is sweating over whether to choose a party dress or a pencil skirt that soon enough none of that will matter anymore).  I’m grateful that I’m growing up, and growing out of the theatre I was raised in. I am grateful too for the many midnight resolutions that lead me to where I am today.  And so, although the foundations may have changed, the wish stays the same: when the clock strikes midnight, I’ll make the same resolution I’ve been making since I was a kid.  Please, let me be good.  Let me figure out how to be good.

 

You are not special

2401473931_32505efa09_o
Photo by Sage Ross. Licensed under Creative Commons.

A friend of mine turned to me and said: “Every thought I have, I immediately check the Internet to see who has thought it before me.”

This struck me hard. There was violence in it. How could a truly brilliant and highly accredited individual be so reduced by a few short clicks? Shouldn’t my friend be more confident naturally? Shouldn’t they simply know how great they are and leave it at that? But how can they know how swell they are if “knowing first” is where the glory lies in the knowledge economy? What should their strategy be for navigating the choppy waters of contemporary mores around thinking? What kind of solution might my friend find for allowing room to think without the fear of being out-thought? I mean… how are they to know how well they think if they are not on a top 10 list for thinkers for 2015?

If you did not know that others were thinking it, would it diminish you as much as it seems to do by knowing that others are thinking it? … I am asking for a friend.

Polish theatre maker Tadeusz Kantor said something that has stayed with me for years. Amid a completely unperturbed meander, he stated (and I am paraphrasing from memory) that he is the inventor of everything that he has not previously encountered. Even if the Internet were to have shown him that three thousand people have already done what he was attempting to do, it would be of no value to him. His mind and his muscles were free to roam the world without concern for doppelganger creators roaming it elsewhere, with similarly brilliant ideas. He remained confident that he was the inventor of his own creations. And, of course, he was.

He was born in 1918. It was a different time.

Today Kantor’s approach feels untenable; the world has become a funnel. Unless we approach our work and thoughts like the hermetic Unabomber then we will constantly discover how un-special we are. Indeed the spectre of the Unabomber’s freakishness, the danger of his singular vision, serves as a parable to keep us in the thrall of an ideology that seeks to reinforce the mono-chroming of all things.

Late-stage capitalism needs to make value out of everything it can. It demands that taste and/or popular vote determine the worth of invention. The market of creation is connected to ownership as much as it is to the creation itself. So if you don’t make it out of the gate first, then your idea – no matter how unique it is to you – falls into the waste bin of excessive notions.

So what is my brilliant friend to do when I know they are brilliant but they discover that they are not brilliant enough to be first?

Does being first even matter?

To say ‘no’ is to challenge the hierarchies of values imposed on us by neo-liberal thinking. Time is valued. Labour is valued. Information is valued. But what of emotion, impact, and affect? How do you weigh or place a monetary value on the effect a notion, idea or event has on an artist or audience?

And what of the tragedy that awaits if the stillborn idea, rejected as “derivative” or “unoriginal”, may have led the artist to the truly sublime original idea?

The difficulty we face as artists now is that we can easily access a living record of what everyone else is thinking and doing, along with what they have thought and done, and possibly infer what they will think and do. Not only do we need to do the every-day artist’s work of quieting our inner editor, we must also do that knowing that our ‘editor’ has the citations and evidence to back-up each and every critique.

Is it possible that originality is overrated? By yielding to the cult of being first, are we worshipping a false deity? Long-time One Yellow Rabbit ensemble member Denise Clarke once said to Adrienne Wong (who paraphrased from memory when she told me) that when the Rabbits discovered that other artists were working on the same material or ideas as them, the OYR ensemble didn’t take that as failure, but rather an indication that they were mining the right territory. Zeitgeist.

Which brings me back to my friend and their habit of holding new ideas up against the immense record of creativity that is the Google Search…

Stop checking the internet. But if they can’t… resolve to be mid-pack with their thoughts and keep going. Finally, resolve to recycle rather than trash. Instead of “just because it’s been done before it shouldn’t be done again”, it is precisely because it has been done that it should be done again. The world is still round after all.

#CdnCult Times; Volume 6, Edition 5: BECAUSE IT’S 2016

If you are worried about things like Equity, Climate Change, Refugees, Data-based Decision-making, Electoral Reform, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and a host of other social justice issues – it’s hard not to feel like in Canada we are turning a corner at the end of the year.

When we look back on these halcyon Sunny Ways Days (aka before the inevitable fall from grace) the feeling can be encapsulated in 7 syllables from Prime Minister Trudeau on why gender equity was important in his cabinet (sparking a legit #cdnpoli Gangster Meme in the process):

 

Given this newfound optimism, we asked three Canadian theatre artists to reflect on their resolutions and hopes for 2016. In Toronto, Jiv Parasram makes an argument for this to be The Year of No More Open Letters. From Ottawa, Sarah Garton Stanley unpacks the nature of original thought in an increasingly online and connected era. Vancouver’s Christine Quintana reflects on resolutions past and her changing priorities as a socially engaged theatre artist in 2016.

What do you resolve to make happen next year? Because its 2016. *Drop internal gangster beat soundtrack*.

Adrienne Wong & Michael Wheeler
Co-Editors: #CdnCult V6E5