Author: Swim Pony

Swim Pony: Loud, strange and never seen before on earth! Swim Pony is committed to the creation of unique live performances that are joyful and defy tradition in order to bring contemporary audiences beyond their experiences of the every-day.

Maybe we’re just doing it wrong

Day one: I try the best I can to try and articulate a huge looming dark cloud of a feeling.

Day two… is a little harder. So I’ll start basic, with a mission statement. This is, in theory, where the work begins, right?

Swim Pony is committed to the creation of unique live performances that are joyful and defy tradition in order to bring contemporary audiences beyond their experiences of the every-day.

It’s not perfect. It sounds a little frou-frou fancy, right? I don’t know that I always feel like the things I make really do connect beyond the fact that they happen to be things I find interesting one year to the next. I also wonder sometimes if the need to define and explain causes us to create boundaries on our work that ultimately inhibit it. But that’s another essay, so for now, let’s proceed.

When I re-read that statement, these are the parts that stick out as mattering the most:

Swim Pony is committed to the creation of unique live performances that are joyful and defy tradition in order to bring contemporary audiences beyond their experiences of the every-day.

If there’s a reason I choose THEATER over some other way of expressing, it’s that I want it to matter that it’s LIVE and that it’s that goes BEYOND every day life.  Without the first it could be recorded and without the second I could just experience it directly.

This gets me to my despair with naturalism.

What do I mean with that term? Well, (and I’m going to have to generalize here) I’m mostly talking about plays that:

–       Use a fourth wall to pretend like the audience isn’t there

–       Focus mostly on interpersonal dysfunctional of relationships, families or work environments (aka people talking to other people about the things they do everyday)

–       Tend to be set in a realistic, often domestic, space like a house, workplace or social setting

I gave a talk once about devised theater and to prove a point, googled something like “best new broadway drama” or something like that (I don’t remember the exact search so don’t get all fact-checky on me with this) and this is the image that popped up:

play play

People talking to other people in a domestic setting behind a fourth wall

You have all seen this play.

It had a beige couch and a couple talking about how upset they were. Oh, and everyone is white and not too terribly concerned about money. They just have a really shitty relationship. It centered on two people who were movie stars. And The New York Times review probably called it “a searing drama.”

I’m exaggerating. But you know what I mean.

Searing as these performers might be, is there anything about this experience that isn’t better served as a movie? I mean that totally sincerely. If I turned this into a movie I could much more easily make sweeping visual transitions between realistic spaces, get much closer up and intimate with the performer’s faces (especially if I’m comparing to a massive broadway house), and create a far more “realistic” setting. I’d even go so far as to say that the world I’m asking you to buy into (by dimming the lights, by telling you to be quiet) is a lot easier to jump onto when I know that it’s going to keep going whether or not my cell phone accidentally goes off. And to boot I can get it out to a hugely larger number of people.

This shortcoming is not the fault of a single actor or director or set designer.  This is a shortcoming of the entire community that engages in the medium of theater. Someone, please convince me otherwise. Because some days I feel crazy, like we’ve all just decided to ignore what seems obvious. And by engaging that denial, we’re actually ignoring the things that theater DOES do that movies can’t.

The pretending the audience isn’t there. I need some help! Please, make it okay again. Something has flipped in my brain and I can’t go back. It feels like in a world that allows so many opportunities for us to disengage and isolate through technology, what a waste, what an incredible missed opportunity to create community or ritual or just connection by including them. By seeing them. By taking advantage of the moment to say, we are all here, together, and we are all going to pay attention to one thing, because how often does that happen? And you are NECESSARY for that to happen.  But I mostly feel like I could be there or not. Or that if I don’t laugh or audibly sigh I’m the problem. And the effort it takes for me not to notice the guy next to me coughing is not worth it because almost always I’d rather just watch the conflict of him and his cough instead of what’s on the stage.

Why is it always the moment when the play goes OFF script that the audience sits up and takes notice. We know this phenomenon and share these stories. When the lights went out and the play finished by candlelight. When the comedian cracks up and just can’t bring it back. When the set falls down. Two weekends ago I saw a show (out of town) where a guy did a spit take and hit a woman in the audience. BEST MOMENT OF THE PLAY. Is it possible that immediacy of moment, that moment where we are connected in surprise or discovery, that moment of being united together in how to navigate this journey can BE the whole thing? I still find it in rehearsal, but so rarely in performance. And for the record, I hate audience participation. But it’s mostly because I feel like that role has been predefined and if it goes poorly, I have failed the show, not the other way around.

I know, there are people who still prefer the old way to receive a story. And of course I have seen amazing naturalism performances. And of course the people who do this well are incredible talents. But there are fewer and fewer people who want this kind of experience and they are increasingly rarified a niche of the population. Are the theaters that do these plays like people who staunchly insist they only need a landline phone? There’s nothing morally wrong about that choice, but it’s going to mean you are working against a giant cultural tide that everyone else is riding. And slowly, are you making yourself obsolete to a large portion of people? Try and tell me that theater is as relevant a medium as it was 100 years ago before recorded film existed. I just don’t buy it.

I think I’m at the limit for today.

Tomorrow: looking at what theater superpowers I think it might we might have forgotten.

A

15,000 Words

Are we all playing the harpsichord?

Are we all playing the harpsichord?

Why make theater?

I’ll be honest – I have doubts. A lot of my friends have doubts. There seems to be something in the air lately. A worry, a question, about what the hell we all are doing.

Sidebar: A few months back I was rehearsing The Giant Squid at Swarthmore College and ran into my former thesis advisor. For those unaware, I completed a degree in chemistry and I really liked the stuff. And though I ended up pursuing theater, I loved hard science. It had rules but still allowed for experimentation. I liked understanding how the world works at the tiniest of levels. On my shelf I still have the thesis on chiral binding properties of copper-porphyrin aggregates and ct-DNA to remind myself the word laboratory didn’t always just refer to experimental theater but that I actually once worked in, you know, a laboratory.

So back to Squid, it was a super strange colliding of worlds to introduce the man who taught me the finer points of circular dichroism spectroscopy to the actor with whom I’d just discussed the best angle to allow a giant tentacle to wrap around her 14 months pregnant belly pad.

He asked why I had returned to the college. I explained I was putting on a show for the student body.

“Oh yes! And is that what you are doing these days?”

And I told him that, yes, in fact I had a small company in Philadelphia that made original works of theater.

“Fantastic! Why, it’s everything you always wanted Adrienne. Congratulations.”

When I tell this story in person I deliver that last sentence as a punch line. I exaggerate the “Fantastic!” and pour on feigned gushy-ness for “everything you always wanted.” As if it’s funny, ridiculous even, to imagine that everything I always wanted was to run a theater company. And when I realized I was doing that, I also realized that there are lots of times when I talk about my work in this kind of diminishing way. That even though I spend so many of my waking hours advocating to others about what I do, I still find myself angry at my art form a lot of the time. And it’s a little scary, if I’m really honest about it, that as a person who does exactly that for a living, I ought be the last person who would want to make running a theater company sound like a laughable pursuit.

And yet…

As young creators, I think we spend a lot of time taking in information without really questioning: best practices of creating, tips about living a life filled with art-making, and information about systems that support the work we create. No one would deny that a life in the arts can at times be incredibly punishing. And while I deeply believe in the intrinsic importance of artistic experience as a concept, if I’m to keep at this particular mode of it for another 30 years, I need to know it’s worth doing this art, in this way, at this time. Because those same skills that I’ve honed to question my work to make it my best also keep me up at night asking: “Why do I make theater?” “Why do it this way?” “Why is it useful?” “Is the result worth the effort?” and “Do I even like it?”

I worry sometimes that I’m playing the harpsichord. There’s nothing bad or wrong about that instrument. It’s just not terribly useful or relevant to a vast majority of people in the world. So in the last few months I’ve been trying to pick that instinct apart. Figure out whether it’s conventions that I think the form has gotten stuck in, its place in a changing and increasingly technological society, the non-profit system that surrounds it, the harsh under-capitalization it suffers from, all of these, none of these… And in trying to figure out how to reconcile myself, I thought it might be interesting to share these thoughts and elicit responses from other smart people thinking about the same kinds of things. So for the next month, I’m going to write at least 500 words every day for 30 days to see if I can define what I really think about theater and how I make it. And after 15,000 words of my own (and hopefully a bunch from other people in response) it might be possible to get to the parts of live performance that are amazing and transformative so that I can cut out the other crap and really concentrate on making what matters.

Either that or make a quick pivot back to research chemistry so I can stop playing the harpsichord before it’s too late. (#stopplayingtheharpsichord)

See you on the other side

– Adrienne

Swim Pony’s Adrienne Mackey featured in GPCA Portfolio

Swim Pony’s Artistic Director Adrienne Mackey was featured as part of the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance Portfolio – one of the most respected data and statistical analyses on the arts sector in the country. She was chosen as one of just fourteen artistic heads of Cultural Alliance member organizations.

Check out her snazzy photo:

Image

Read the issue (and check out page 53 for Adrienne):

http://issuu.com/philaculture/docs/2011-portfolio

 

And read more about Portfolio here:

http://www.philaculture.org/research/2011-portfolio