Economics by Design

Matthew Freeman makes some good points about the role of the playwright in small low-budget theatre. His argument is that the economics of small theatre in the US should not dictate the visionary style in which the work is written. The comments derail a bit from this central theme, but the idea is a strong one and important for both writers and producers to consider.

Within the context of low-budget New York theatre he mentions there is an obvious kind of aesthetic limitation that might silently be placed on a work. Large cast with a small number of props and set pieces, perhaps adhering to the unities to avoid costume changes etc. etc. While this is easily producible, it may not be easily successful. Limiting ones vision creates a constricted work and usually leaves a piece with a tension that is not useful. A tension of a piece unduly contained and not fully expressive of the writer's intentions.

In my post a few days ago I talked about the merits of leaving a design open to the imagination. The context for that was a discussion surrounding a show I just opened where, with our very limited budgets and resources, we attempt to create a vast and expansive world. This can be done by clearly and cleanly choosing what and where elements will exist. How to construct a visual vocabulary that allows for locations as diverse as an open glade, a valley, a mountain top, a balcony, a bedroom, a graveyard, etc. etc. Creating a space where all these things exist in an emotionally true way with very limited budgets is no simple task. But it is doable, and as Freeman points out, should allow the playwright freedom to write their vision, not a cliffs notes version there of.

I love minimalism. I think there is an expressive potential in a minimal aesthetic that rarely exists in larger productions. It can operate to focus the attention down to the cleanest expression of the idea and the emotions in the play. However, there is a difference between minimalism by design and minimalism by economics. The former, like the Opera of Johannes Schaaf, is a beautiful meditation on the power of simple forms. The latter, is an artistically destructive way of thinking.

I have lit plenty of productions where I had a very limited number of dimmers at my disposal. You can see one now if you want. But the challenge with these situations is to think, not of the limitations but, of the possibilities. By reaching beyond your means, you can stretch out the resources into a fuller design idea. You will always be limited. Even in large scale opera at a certain point there is limitation. But the power of an expansive visioning of the piece, of seeing potential and possibility in every aspect of the work, is needed now. This is part of the New Optimism that must guide theatre in this new millennium. As my director for Cupid and Psyche said, "we may be laying in the gutter, but we are reaching for the stars."