Does everything that’s developed have to be produced? Is there such a thing as too much…
- Convenor:
- Alison Gagen
- Attendees:
- -
- Description:
Does everything that’s developed have to be produced? Is there such a thing as too much development?
Session prompted by complaints of too much development which doesn’t end in production – the idea of ‘development hell’ – also interest in the Theatre Bristol development approach of trying to develop as much as possible whilst recognizing the difficulty and expense of trying to make everything. So: very wide entrance for ideas, narrowing down to small exit point of productions.
PW talked about the Dark Room model – which develops companies not work. Work does get made but that’s an incidental by product.
Some artists felt development for development’s sake is a good thing. Helps with artistic risk if not the weight of expectation of production at the end. Some questioning of ‘what we mean by production’? A feeling that audiences are developing a taste for seeing unfinished work. They might like to feel that they are part of something from the beginning.
Writers need to see their work in front of an audience. Some feedback on the Transmission project at the Rep in terms of working with young writers – and the difficulty of trying to mould them in a particular way to suit a venue’s expectations. Is this wrong?
Suggestion that people might like to look at National Theatre of Wales new writing strategy.
Some discussion about the development hell reality – writers who have been through 6 or 7 drafts – because theatres over commission and spread themselves too thinly when they know they cannot produce all the work.
Writers feel they just want to write the play which will get produced.
The future: there will probably be less money so creative solutions to development and production will be needed.
In a scratch process – are artists who show work still hoping someone will spot them and offer them a production opportunity? Artists in the group said they were more interested in testing ideas not auditioning. Pride and celebration of the Pilot model – good because it’s artist lead, not venue lead, because it takes a shared curatorial approach so different voices and tastes are represented.
Is there such a thing as too much development: too much as it too many opportunities for too many artists or too long a process leading nowhere. Who do we get feedback from? It tends to be our peers and friends, but now we have the wider network which is the midpoint group…
Could venues with upstairs rooms work as a central and rough and ready place to show bits and pieces of work? But what does the region really need, looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the Pilot model? We talked about the Mixing Bowl theatre (new at the custard factory), which has a vast programme of new work and work in progress.We kept going back to AE Harris with the question of use of space to develop or show work. James mentioned how tricky and time consuming it is to get a space like AE Harris up and running in terms of licences etc and yes it is a rough and ready space but it is a proactive space. Kindle’s Sam mentioned how much of a breath of fresh air it was to be able to develop a piece there as opposed to theatre spaces, as they were allowed to take more risk and they were encouraged and trusted to do this.
Paul Warwick said that AE Harris is swiftly becoming a ‘theatre factory’, with a sense of artistic community, and James followed this with the point that theatre companies never used to spend so long making work, that some companies would produced up to 8 shows a year, rather than work for 3 years on a show without realizing it further than scratch after scratch and then back into development and then into another pilot showing or something. Jake Oldershaw then said that there are definite logistical problems in getting into the ‘scratch’ frame of mind, and we agreed that it lacks momentum, that if you can’t make something interesting in two weeks, and have something to show, (no matter how rough around the edges) then it’s probably not worth making at all. However then Thea from Stoke said that she would appreciate more development time sometimes, and this should be negiotiated according to the artist and project.
Sam from Kindle then explained that when choosing from the PILOT applications it was clear which artists were applying for the opportunity to test the work and which ones were applying with work that was already produced and polished, and therefore it is more a bid for programming opportunities.
James from Stan’s suggested that in other cities what these scratch nights are effectively doing is holding the dam back to hide the fact that venues are putting any (new) work on, and says “let’s release the flood!” haha.
We concluded that there is room in the new model for “future theatre of the midlands” that goes beyond the function that pilot currently serves, but still not sure how and what. Yes, there is such a thing as too much development, but it is agreed that development, both of project and of artist, is very important, that not all projects in development must go into production, but what do we do when it doesn’t go into production quickly enough or not at all? Space and community is important.