My friend Bryan can be a real jackass. I say this completely out of love and admiration; he is one of my mentors and was the first director I worked with in my undergraduate experience as an actor, but he's a jackass in his relationships. The last 4 years have been really good to B, he has been the artistic director of The Living Room Theatre in Kansas City, directs usually 5-7 of their productions each year, lived in the theatre space, and has started a playwright series that does readings a few times each year at local bars and restaurants to bring revenue to both the theatre and the community.
Which brings me to his behavior: Bryan isn't always very good with breakups. Last year, he dated an actress with whom he would be doing one of these readings, and though things didn't end badly, they didn't end very well, and he was the source of a lot of gossip in the circles where they both socialized. They were cast by their mutual friend, the playwright, in this piece for the end of July called For the Women. It was to be read at one of the more popular venues in town and although there was some tension, both agreed to do it.
The marketing for this particular script was pretty wide-spread on social media, word of mouth and printed advertisements because the playwright, Alli Jordan, is a pretty well known artist in the KC community and Bryan is a relatively well-known actor/director/playwright there, as well. The playwright gave a brief synopsis of the play, but made it very clear to the audience and the actors that they wouldn't read it prior to the first public appearance of the script at the end of July so it generated some hype. They did a few public statements saying that their former relationship wasn't in the way, that as artists the respected each other and were happy to work together, and were looking forward to this project.
As the closing piece to the evening, Bryan, Alli (who would read stage directions), and his co-star had plenty of time to have couple of drinks, relax, and prepare for their slot. They set up on the stage and opened the scripts. Bryan, who is 1. hot tempered when he wants to be and 2. incredibly perceptive, realized very quickly that this play was written about his relationship with his co-star and they were playing themselves, although the playwright had changed their names. She took information she knew from his past relationships and inserted it in the play as well. He felt unsettled, victimized, and slandered by the way she wrote his character and was visibly unraveling during the reading, but held it together until nearly the end of the play when a section of dialogue was verbatim drawn from one of the fights he and his ex-girlfriend/co-star had before splitting up. At this point, he stood, turned the table, had a shouting match with the playwright and his co-star for how poorly he was being treated, how unprofessional it was to put him in that position, how he needed to take a stand for himself, unlike his literary alter-ego, and walked off stage. Both women were stunned, the audience was stunned, and the place was silent and unmovable until Bryan walked back in from outside, up on to the stage, and all three took a bow.
It turns out, this was written with all three of them involved in the creation process, and they were in on the play from the beginning. The playwright wanted a piece of theatre that examines how rumor, relationships, and behaviors can have an impact on perceptions of people who know you and to encourage the audience to examine their experiences of instances where they may have been part of the problem for someone's reputation or the victim of seemingly harmless but hurtful talk. Luckily, Bryan and his co-star had ended things on good terms and this was more of a ploy to market the play, but much like I set up at the beginning of this post, people have a perception of his behaviors due to an exploitation of privacy, over-sharing of personal details, and meddling. The play was a wild success because it was so unexpected, the actors played their truthful point of view, and it disrupted what this audience came in perceiving how evening would turn out. It became a dialogue between the artists and the observers, who were unknown cast members and gave them all more to work off of.
This story now brings me to the second part of the prompt: How do we bring theatre into the 21st century? In ways such as this. Our attention span as a generation is so succinct and we're made for instant gratification due to the technology at our fingertips, so given an opportunity to do a piece of theatre in a restaurant/bar/art gallery where you wouldn't typically find theatre opens up worlds of possibilities, accesses patrons who might not feel comfortable in a stuffy theatre, but are totally at ease at a table with a beer in hand, and forces the creative team to be innovative, minimalistic, and ready to use anything that comes their way. It sets up a rapport with the audience that they don't have to be trapped, and because this isn't a traditional theatrical space, they feel comfortable leaving if it isn't their aesthetic, but because of this freedom, most people are more comfortable staying to enjoy the art. The creation of new work, re-imagined work, and collaborating with other venues/locally owned businesses to build relationships and earn revenue on nights/months/seasons where the numbers are low is both smart and exciting, but forces us as patrons to experience something we may not previously have thought to put together. I'll leave you with this ted talk by Amanda Palmer if you feel inclined to watch 14 minutes on the art of asking, which I think is a way our 21st century theatre can go.
No comments:
Post a Comment