With STAMP Theatre’s The Trial now a week ago today, performing to strong audience quantity and reaction, I will take a retrospective look at the process of creating the show to examine the production’s strengths and flaws in order to assess how our company, and its members, can improve. As Jerzy Grotowski states, ‘you can’t ignore the result because from the objective point of view the deciding factor in art is the result’ (1981, p. 201).
To ensure everything required for a successful show was completed, I created a day-schedule (STAMP performance day schedule); tailored to have more time than perhaps necessary spent on technical details, as set-up, in my experience, often overruns because of unforeseen contingencies. I also wanted to have one cue-to-cue, to adjust ourselves to the lighting (which I would be operating with our stage manager and lighting designer’s cue sheet), and one final dress rehearsal. I also added several breaks due to the same reason of running only one dress rehearsal – so the technical staff and performers would not be exhausted for the night ahead.
I have placed the performance day schedule next to the actual timeline of the day above (the latter in document form here [performance day breakdown]) to show the difference in what was expected of the day and what happened. As we completed the technical details relatively quickly, we were able to have a cue-to-cue one hour early. However, I mistakenly set a dress rehearsal directly after this, as there were lighting states to improve after the cue-to-cue. Even with this, because of the extra technical allotment, we were working on time. The dress rehearsal was especially vital for me in operating the LX; although we had a simple technical procedure due to our lack of stagehand set-changing or sound, and I have had experience in working LX boards professionally, due to the quick lighting cues of the piece (which numbered more than 90) I had to adjust myself to where difficult cues appeared.
Throughout the day, when changes to the schedule were made, I acted as a go-between for the actors, the director, and our technical team (consisting itself of stage manager Darren Page, chief technician Martin Rousseau, and our lighting assistant Alex Kent). Problems arise in the schedule when there is miscommunication, and so I made everyone know clearly what was going to happen, and when. This was a very direct experience for me in terms of the importance of the producer – with the director affirming the look of the set, lighting and proficiency of the actors, I had the responsibility of making sure tasks were carried out. Although there are a few minor changes I would have made to the schedule (such as having allotted time after the cue-to-cue, and having the actors come in as early as possible [an amendment the director fortunately made]), I am assured that the technical success of the show and ability to perform tasks in good time was strongly aided by my scheduling foresight and on-day communication.
Although I believe the performance was a success, I believe I could have done several things as producer to increase the company’s effectiveness. Contrasting with my self-analysis for communication on the day, I failed to rotate several details between myself and the venue, which led to a clash in timetabling. I also expressed interest in connecting our marketing department more with the community, specifically in school workshops, which although was cancelled because of concerns with time, could have been done with effective planning. Nonetheless, I am glad to have experienced mistakes as well as successes, as if I had neither of each I would not be able to improve myself as a producer. As Grotowski states: ‘It is after the production is completed and not before that I am wiser’ (1981, p. 98).
Word count: 630.
Overall word count: 2,737.
Works cited
Grotowski, Jerzy (1981), ‘American Encounter’, Towards a Poor Theatre, ed. by Eugenio Barba, London: Methuen, pp. 199-210.
Grotowski, Jerzy (1981), ‘Methodical Exploration’, trans. Amanda Pasquier and Judy Barba, Towards a Poor Theatre, ed. by Eugenio Barba, London: Methuen, pp. 95-100.
