WHO'S IN CHARGE AROUND HERE?

A blog by Roger Gonzalez

After quite a few years involved in local theatre I am starting to believe that there's no fixed, across-the-board hierarchy in practice at the local theatre group level.

Sure, we have expectations that certain titles like director or producer or production manager or even stage manager carry some authority when it comes to a production, but the truth is that often there is more confusion backstage about leadership than meets the eye. Recently, I’ve noticed that the problem is becoming rampant and in most cases has an effect (as in disastrous)with what ends up on the local stage.

The way it is supposed to happen (at least as I was taught) is that at the most basic level the director maintains final say on what happens creatively on stage, particularly with the acting. The producer's job is to oversee the whole production including hiring the director and giving the director free creative liberty, albeit with some behind the scenes collaboration. And other key members of this "collaborative effort," include the lighting and sound directors, set designers, costumes, props and stage managers whogenerally work together to actualize the director’s vision(with their individual experience and creative input seriously taken into consideration to help achieve that end.)

It is a process that if handled fairly and consistently can work.

To do so, the presence of mutual respect, trust and the ability to work creatively together needs to blossom fast. Yet this is something that in most cases takes time to develop and the potential for derailment is alwayspresent.Which may explain why once this type of comraderie clicks, some artists tend to stick together for years to come.

I, however, don’t believe this is happening enough on our local stages. I sense this because I’ve now witnessed it repeatedly and in more than just one group. I am not looking to blame here, but in pointing it out, maybe we can fix the problem.

One thing I've noticed is that many groups surprisingly fail to designate a producer to each of their shows. This is a huge mistake. For any director to have to jump in and start worrying about doing jobs that go beyond the description of director is just not productive. But it happens all the time. What occurs in these situations is that suddenly all the wrong people start assuming jobs and responsibilities that go beyond their domain of influence.When this happens, it does not take long for toes to be stepped on, assumptions to be made and even the occasional ego-driven mutiny to quickly develop.

It is a formula for disaster.

Without a clear definition of boundaries, responsibilities and authority suddenly everyone is directing or producing the show. And that is when...well, you know what hits the fan. Yes, the shit!

As an example, I was once rehearsing a scene alone with a fellow actor when a director who had directed another production for that group showed up unannounced and sat down to watch us rehearse. I barely knew this "director from a past production." Our current director, whom I still highly respect, had just walked out of the room to discuss costumes. Of course, we kept rehearsing, mostly working on memorizing lines. Members of that group often walked into rehearsals and just sat and watched (another no-no in my book). But after a few minutes of observing us, this other director came over and proceeded to give us his opinions on the scene, his personal “tips” on characterization, motivation, delivery, and, yes, even blocking.

I was floored! He was directing us completely behind the other director's back.

As far as I was concerned, all good intentions aside, he was out of place...completely. So as not to insult anyone (including to my fellow actor who had previously worked with this director and was listening intently) I simply walked away mid sentence and told him “thanks...would you be kind enough to share your thoughts with the current director so that he could later discuss with me?” He didn’t, of course, and that was the end of that.

Had our own director found out, I don’t know what he would have said. But I am certain we all would have been embarrassed and a certain amount of trust wouldhave been quicklylost.I am also sure, the tension would have shown itself onstage.

As I write this, it occurs to me how often I've seen this happened and how simple it would be to fix the problem and let the process proceed as intended.

My suggestions are simple. But I’d love to hear yours.

1. Start from the beginning, even before the next production begins casting, by defining who does what, who has final say and what is expected from every person in the production staff. Like a business plan, write these directives down and share them openly. Make sure the cast is aware of this pecking order. Each position or title should fall within some chain of command. Adapt as needed as you go along but stick to the game plan while the production is running. To infuse any new title or person of authority midstream would be foolhardy.
2. With point number 1 taken, directors and anyone else assuming these titles should be in full agreement with the responsibilities set forth by the group. The time to speak would be before work begins and not a second later. Treat any new relationship like a contract negotiation, but perhaps more informally (this isn’t Broadway and big salaries don’t exist). Shake hands and agree ON DETAILS.
3. Manpower (or womanpower as the case may be) is a commodity in independent theatre. But if and when possible, there should be backup people to always cover in the event of someone suddenly dropping out or unable to complete his or her duties. Think in terms of having a plan “B.” Do this across the board, on and off stage and even with the actors if possible. Use assistant directors, stage managers and in some cases even assign these tasks (like being on book) to the actors.
4. Be open to letting directors and actors invite their people to help with your production. The more the better. Not only is there already trust involved, but as long as the directives and responsibilities are clear from the very start, there should be no confusion as to what the job requires. You just may end up developing a fresh rotation of talent that will prevent existing members from overload and burnout, while at the same time growing your group.
5. On the subject of overloading and burnout, this can happen quickly when the same people in the group are involved in every single production. At the beginning of the season, the group should divvy up the entire season’s workload and have a back up plan just in case. It is important to be flexible. You can’t have good artists work on every show. Creatively, it is draining, especially when many of these same folks have day jobs and families. Spread the work and be more open to being inclusive. If you don’t have the people then search for them...or don’t do as many shows in a season.
6. Personally, I am a believer of the single "visionary leader." Every group should have that one person (call her whatever title you want) who is the visionary and spiritual leader of the group’s mission. Founders and creative directors are good for these roles, but if not, thena board should consider electing someone to that position. Be smart about this. The buck must stop somewhere.

One final note: temperamental leaders are only interesting in fiction and not in real life. Theatre at this level is about having a creative, fun experience. Yellers and screamers, people who curse out others, punch themselves in the head or criticize their fellow production staff behind their backs under the pretense that it’s for some greater creative good are just dead weight. Period. Get rid of them or publicly take away their power.

Treat your theatre group like a business. Have a goal, a mission, an organizational chart and even a business plan if possible.

Tell me what you think!

Roger