I (Ralph Sevush) wrote the following letter to Suze Allen, the Guild’s regional representative in San Francisco. She had contacted us to ask about our position on dramaturgs and dramaturgy, in response to a query she received from a dramaturg, Todd Gutmann, who raised questions on his blog about the Guild (See http://opendramaturgy. blogspot.com/). She asked us for “any words of wisdom on this topic,” but I thought I should answer her anyway. Here, then, is my attempt to present her with the history and context for the continuingly volatile issue of dramatists and dramaturgs.
Hi Suze,
Thanks for forwarding Mr. Gutmann’s comments to us. Here’s the background on this issue: The stormy relationship of the DG to dramaturgs (and to dramaturgy generally), while actually preceding the Rent case, was crystallized by it and focused us on the ongoing danger for playwrights that dramaturgy can sometimes present [see the article, “How To Avoid Rent Control: Protecting Your Copyright When Working With A Non-Authorial Collaborator,” available in the Business Affairs Archive on our website]. In the case of Thomson v Larson, the DG undertook, at great expense, to submit amicus briefs on behalf of the late author Jonathan Larson (on both the trial and appellate levels), while the LMDA authored amicus briefs for the dramaturg, Lynn Thomson, who claimed to be a co-author of Mr. Larson’s work. Thankfully, the Court accepted our arguments (both at trial and on appeal) and found no co-authorship by the dramaturg in that case. But it could have gone the other way, too, and the LMDA would then have succeeded in undermining the nature of authorship and copyright ownership in American jurisprudence, greatly damaging the lives and the livings of playwrights in the process.
Todd Gutmann’s reaction to this historical context seems to be that we should get over it because it was thirteen years ago. We reject his position.
In the aftermath of Thomson v Larson, the Guild initiated a round-table discussion, inviting leading dramaturgs to come and discuss the author/dramaturg relationship with us. In attendance were such eminent practitioners as Oskar Eustis, Anne Cattaneo, Mark Bly, and other leading dramaturgs and artistic directors from around the country. It was an amicable and collegial discussion, but ultimately fruitless. Each time one of the authors present described a problem they’d heard about or personally confronted with dramaturgs (in both the non-profit and commercial theater), they were met by the response of “oh, that’s BAD dramaturgy; we’d never support that.” But of course, that kind of “bad dramaturgy” was what our members were (and are) being subjected to, and rather than confront their own colleagues about such conduct, the dramaturgs that were present basically agreed with our criticisms but felt it did not apply to them, or to the field generally. In that light, no further dialogue seemed useful.
What kind of practices are we talking about?
In the beginning, as I understand it, dramaturgy was an academic field, not directly involved with the production process. Dramaturgs did research and engaged in scholarship that provided a historical, cultural, and aesthetic context for the play that could be useful to the writer and director, as well as the theater and its audiences. Over the last few decades, the non-profit theaters began to hire dramaturgs to manage their literary departments and to read submissions and recommend them for possible production, and so dramaturgs became the "gate-keepers" of the non-profit theater. As such, they started having power over writers’ careers, and this power enabled the dramaturgs to have entry into the production process.
As a consequence, some authors began to view dramaturgs suspiciously, as the eyes and ears of the artistic director in the rehearsal room, guiding the development of the work in the way that best served the interest of their employer, but not necessarily the play or the playwright. They became an extra (and sometimes extraneous) voice in the creative process, often interposed between the director and the author, who would otherwise have had an unmediated and direct relationship. It has been asserted by some that this intermediation interferes with directors (who don’t much care for it, either) and confuses and infantilizes writers, who now have more masters to serve (and whom they better placate if they want their work done at that theater and don’t want to become known as a “problem child” in the industry). And always lurking in the background is the potential for another Rent-type claim by some dramaturg who thinks his/her contributions to a work make him/her a co-author, regardless of the author’s intentions.
It has been hypothesized that playwrights are increasingly more vulnerable to this situation because of the training they are receiving in schools. Dramaturgy departments are now as prevalent as playwriting programs, and the writing programs themselves are often run or taught by dramaturgs, rather than playwrights. So, instead of supporting and encouraging the development of each writer’s unique and idiosyncratic voice, writers at some undergraduate (and even graduate) programs are being taught to view their writing as works-in-progress subject to a collaborative process, where playwrights are seen as either scribes writing at the direction of their collaborators (i.e., directors and dramaturgs) or as talented but chaotic and undisciplined artists who need firm guidance from their collaborators in order to “fix” their plays.
Since schools generally use public domain work to train directors and dramaturgs, the European model of theatrical “auteurism,” where the director is deemed the “author” of the work, is a philosophy in full flower in the halls of academia, and it sets the tone even when working on plays not yet in the public domain, including new work. In this context, the play is a Rubik’s Cube to be solved; it’s a Rorschach test onto which collaborators can project themselves and see what they wish to see and say what they wish to say, regardless of the author’s intention. And so, as a result, some view the university theater department as a particularly hostile environment in which to cultivate the singular vision of a new playwright.
Are all of these feelings about the expanded and potentially detrimental role of dramaturgs and dramaturgy valid? Perhaps not, but the anecdotal evidence provided to us by our membership indicates that there is support for that view. Now certainly there are writers who find dramaturgy useful (including some on the Guild Council), and they work with and even employ dramaturgs, particularly when a director is not yet involved with a project.
Therefore, the DG has taken no institutional position in opposition to it. But in light of all this, we see no value in endorsing or promoting the field, either.
In fact, Mr. Gutmann’s own blog perpetuates misinformation that we certainly would not want to promote. For example, consider the following excerpt from his “Session 6: 5/27/14” blog:
“We also got asked about stage directions. Molly [Marinik, director & dramaturg] pointed out that as a director, while it is her obligation to make sure the dialogue is spoken as written, it is her prerogative about whether to follow a playwright’s stage directions. Writers should include those that they consider to be necessary to their storytelling, or that help a reader (whether that’s a director or producer or whoever else might be considering your play for opportunities or collaboration) to follow certain dramatic moments or shifts that would be clear when embodied in a theater. They can serve a similar function for a reader as regular punctuation—which is to say, that they can indicate where a phrase or beat ends. But the heavy lifting should and will be done by the dialogue, and describing the entire play’s staging or the characters’ emotions, is not necessary.”
But here is a relevant provision that is present in all DG contracts:
“No changes can be made to the Play (including its text, title and stage directions) without prior written approval of the author, and all such approved changes shall be the Author’s sole property, free of liens or encumbrances.”
So we disagree with the premise that a director has no obligation to follow a playwright’s stage directions. They are as much a part of the play as the dialogue. Of course, not all stage directions are created equal. Some are about character, theme, emotion, or narrative, while some are dealing more specifically with stage movement, images, and logistics. Obviously, it would be a foolish author who would not heed the advice of a director, whose job and expertise it is to adapt a written work into a performed work, about stage movement and visualization of the play. In fact, playwrights often don’t even include many of those types of stage directions in their original manuscripts, leaving it for the director to work out.
But directing an actor to deliver a line with sadness (for example) when the stage direction reads “gleefully” is a violation of the intent of the author. And setting the action of a play on the moon in 2020, when the stage directions say “1950s: a Midwestern town” is a violation of the intent of the author and should not be permissible without authorial approval. The fact that Mr. Gutmann’s dramaturgy blog states otherwise is an example of why we are not interested in promoting it.
Mr. Gutmann also wrote about the unavoidable volatility of all theatrical collaboration and wonders why the Guild would view dramaturgs differently than directors, for example, with whom authors have also had conflict over the years. We seem to be willing to sit down and discuss issues with the SDC and directors, so why not with dramaturgs? Well, it’s because directors are necessary collaborators in a play’s production, and a good relationship between an author and a director is the single most important factor for authors in getting their plays to the stage in a way consistent with their intent (other than directing it themselves). But, while non-profit institutions may need dramaturgs, authors do not. While “dramaturgy” (as an activity) may be necessary for a particular play’s development, that job is handled in the production process between the author and the director, when they both feel it is required and does not generally require a third party’s participation.
Writers don’t NEED dramaturgs, except that they’ve been taught (often by dramaturgs) that they do. But if a writer WANTS a dramaturg, they are certainly free to work with one, and there is plenty of information out there in the world to help writers do so. The DG Council, however, has not felt a need to facilitate the practice. The field seems to be doing just fine without us.
I hope this clarifies for you the Guild’s position on this subject.
Best regards,
RALPH