Edit: Details of this post have been edited or removed out of respect for the cohort members they concerned. For accountability, additional information about this edit can be provided with the consent of the parties concerned. Contact us at theshatteredglassproject@gmail.com.
Along with other theatre companies during the Great COVID-19 Timeout, The Shattered Glass Project has been trying to find new tactics and use existing tools so that we can go on making theatre. Some plans have had to be postponed, some are still up and running. The one program that oddly seems to be achieving more than our original plan is the TSGP Director and Playwright Incubator/Mentoring Program (I/M Program for short).
The I/M Program provides a safe space where women and non-binary directors and playwrights can work together, using feminist co-mentoring philosophies and principles of collaboration. We focus on empowering theatre artists who have often been underrepresented, by building new networks and relationships. We want to ensure that their voices are heard.
The cohort is composed of 5 playwrights and 4 directors, who range in age from early 20s to mid-50s, who have a range of ethnic/racial/cultural identities, and who use a variety of pronouns. They have a range of educational backgrounds, from current college student to MFA; and a range of professional experience, from academia to years of work in professional acting ensembles. They are a creative, inspirational, imaginative, hard-working, and dedicated group who were selected because they were interested in helping create a new kind of collaborative structure with and for one another.
We had originally intended to hold a public play reading and workshop on March 27th, which we obviously had to cancel. So that we could continue to move forward with at least some creative engagement, the group is having private play readings, just among the cohort, using Zoom conferencing software.
One cohort member suggested that we look at using Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process. While the cohort had spent time at the first meeting crafting a set of group norms, in the way we wanted to work with one another as a group and as individuals, we had not developed any kind of system or process for responding to plays during readings and workshops.
The Critical Response Process was developed by choreographer Liz Lerman in the 1990s, and published as a book in 2003. The CRP engages participants in three roles, that of Artist, Responders, and Facilitator, who work through four steps, after a presentation of artistic work in any discipline. Work can be short or long, large or small, and at any stage in its development.
1. Statements of Meaning: Responders state what was meaningful, evocative, interesting, exciting, striking in the work they have just witnessed.
2. Artist as Questioner: The artist asks questions about the work. Responders may express opinions if they are in direct response to the artist’s questions.
3. Neutral Questions: Responders ask neutral questions about the work. The artist responds. Questions are neutral when they do not have an opinion couched in them.
4. Opinion Time: Responders state opinions, subject to permission from the artist. The usual form is “I have an opinion about ______, would you like to hear it?” The artist has the option to decline opinions for any reason.
The I/M Cohort has applied these four steps following the readings of each of five plays by the playwright members of the cohort. Each of the four directors, as well as myself as the cohort coordinator, have served as the Facilitator for one of the five readings. As each play has been different, and exists in different stages of development, each response process has been slightly different. The important part has been having a framework in which to offer useful critique, rather than criticism, of each work of art.
Following the readings, each playwright was asked to offer feedback on how useful the reading was for them and if/how the CRP worked for their process. Overall, the readings were generally ranked as highly useful – an average of 4.25 on a Likert scale of 1-5, (1 being not useful at all, and 5 being extremely useful). Playwrights found it useful to hear the play out loud; according to one playwright, “[I]t is nice to hear how the lines are landing and how actors are interpreting them.” They liked hearing concepts from their play discussed by the other participants and found it useful to understand the different perspectives from which different cohort members came at the work. Another writer responded that, “Thoughts were brought to the table that I would have never had myself.” The two critical comments about the readings was lack of enough time to conduct discussions and too much time spent reviewing the CRP process at each reading.
The CRP process itself was described as a useful structure for feedback by some playwrights and less useful by others who had a more specific idea about the feedback they were seeking. One writer liked the structure in that “it allowed us to be specific in our feedback and were able to give feedback with intent.” Another playwright specified, “I know what I want to know about my piece, so I just wanted to get specific questions answered,” rather than going through the whole four step CRP. A third playwright said, “I think we are having trouble distinguishing the different tiers of the [CRP].” Overall, the criticism of the process seemed to reflect more on how we as a cohort are understanding and using the Critical Response Process, rather than on CRP itself.
The other element in all this is having had to move online to conduct our readings. Since so many of the cohort members have been laid off or furloughed, or have had their schooling moved online, and all of us have had other projects cancelled/postponed, everyone has more time for the readings. Consequently, each playwright had a separate reading of as much of their script as they wanted to read, and we were able to devote 2-2 ½ hours to each piece, including the reading itself and the discussion afterward. By taking advantage of the time on our hands and of having to use technology, we have probably accomplished way more than we would have been able to, under pre-pandemic conditions of busy-ness: work and school and rehearsal.
As a theatre artist who identifies as an actor and performer, rather than as a director or a playwright, I was grateful to find a clearly articulated format for providing structured critique of new performance works. The Incubator/Mentor cohort is intended to be supportive and nurturing for the theatre artists involved, and Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process seemed to me to offer a framework for giving feedback that is uplifting and helps develop trusting relationships between the cohort members. I have enjoyed exploring the process in this first round of five play readings, and look forward to the next round of work.
As the artistic director of The Shattered Glass Project, I have been thrilled at the engagement of the cohort members in trying to make something out of my idea that women and non-binary theatre artists can create a safe space to work together. Directors and playwrights are probably the most silenced of theatre artists, since, classically, there is usually no more than one of each per any traditional theatrical production. This group is diligently working to create something that works for them as individual artists and as a cohort, and while I facilitate their work by providing space (on Zoom, for now) and coordinating times, they are finding their own way to make theatre in a time of plague.
![OAC_logo[blue-rgb].jpg](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5d2a7696d13fd90001edd567/1649346908196-42X3LHTEQA0YDFCNEUXA/OAC_logo%5Bblue-rgb%5D.jpg)