In about 2002 I wrote an essay about this very issue - it's
still here, buried in the archives.
Nine years later we're visiting it again, and after a re-read I think my views of the craft itself remain largely the same. But, for the rest of this post I'm taking off my admin hat. I'm not laying down an official SMNet position on this but wanted to respond anyhow.
I can understand loebtmc's concerns about the categorization of stage management, but I would urge caution. Stage managers are inherently given to appreciation of labels, names and categories. It's that love of order and propriety that makes us good at what we do. However, outside of production managers there are few others in the chaotic realm of theatre who would understand how vital something like this is to us.
When a weaver creates a tapestry, they say of that tapestry, "I made this." The threads and the color choices - yes, that is part of the end product. They do not include the shuttle or the loom in that grouping and I think when it comes to theatre we must consider ourselves more in the latter part of the creation.
A designer or playwright or actor can point to various parts of a show and say "I made that." The build crew & hang crew & drapers can say the same. For SMs and PMs, what can we point to? The entire show? I'd posit that would be the director and producer's claim more than ours. The production script, while a complex creation, is the closest thing we can get, and even that is in some ways a collation of the cumulative decisions made by others. We have visited this issue many times when discussing SM portfolios. Our resumes don't need video or photography - they are simply a list of the shows we've worked on. Our interviews focus on how we interact with others more than our paperwork, provided that the interviewer knows their stuff. We've also recently discussed how stage management skills can be transferred to mundane occupations. Can you see a forum of designers having that kind of conversation? Our skills are infinitely transferable and that sets off alarm bells in my head when placed side by side with the "are we part of the creative team" question. We've talked about how even the paperwork that we love so much is best kept at the minimal level possible.
There are three intermediary positions that I can think of in modern theatre - the stage manager, the production manager and the dramaturg. All three roles require strict organization and manipulation of the other personalities. Unfortunately, all three are viewed at certain levels of production as luxuries, with the "necessity" of having one, two or all three decreasing at an almost exponential rate. All three require a certain intangible blend of creativity and administration. We've recently discussed companies that run without an SM, or bring them in at the last minute. I was speaking with a literary manager friend today who dabbles in playwriting and she said "when I switch from dramaturgy to writing I can feel the crazy creeping in really quickly."
We aren't arts administrators, we aren't designers, we aren't builders, we aren't actors. We are facilitators. I'm wondering if focusing on defining stage managers as creatives misses the forest for the benefit of a single tree. Perhaps the goal should be instead to define a new name for this group of intermediaries and work together to make sure all three roles are seen as vital and the skill sets are seen as unique. This ties in to companies that recruit wannabe actors as ASMs, and companies that blow through their budgets in the first two shows of the year due to inadequate PM training. It is related to the optional presence of SMs at design meetings and the bad rep associated with new works.
Working as I currently do in real estate I'm wondering (as I do love synthesis) if we can take some cues from how the real estate industry has made agency crucial in the process of acquiring shelter. After all, the process could easily be handled with a DIY approach. By emphasizing the complexity of the transactions though, real estate agents have cultivated a mystique and reverence for their work to the point where very few people would consider going it alone. I have heard it said time and again that stage managers know they've done a good job when nobody ever acknowledges their work. We try so hard for our work to seem effortless and invisible. And while there were innumerable people who said "I would never want your job" while I was still stage managing, I think that was more due to the long hours and the "uncreative" connotation of the job than a true understanding of what we actually need to know & do. Perhaps a little well-coordinated agitprop to demonstrate to others the true complexity of the job would be more productive than petitions.
Show Posts
