NoDef's drama scribes discuss the state of New Orleans theatre, the rapidly evolving scene's prospects for further national recognition and consider the purpose of the form in this town.

Believe it or not, NOLA Defender Theatre Writers Helen Jaksch and Jim Fitzmorris actually have full time jobs. It is why neither of us could do the Nola Defender theatre criticism by ourselves. Needless to say, we rely on each other to get a lot of the work completed, and this involves a lot of conversations and email exchanges over both the quality of our work and trends in the New Orleans theatrical scene.

We have currently been working on two separate ideas. The first has been our long-standing conversation about the three methodologies of acting that dominate our local performances: organic, expressionistic, and manneristic. We would both argue that there is way too much of the third masquerading as the first, and even worse, a preponderance of the second is happening with a limited understanding of what the ideological agenda of that style is.

Wow? Huh? A lot of big words. We will get to that another day.

The other topic we have been wrestling with is that perpetual two-front question: what is the current identity of the local theatrical energy, and does it have any potential to become something unique in the national scene? In other words, do we have a quality that would secure us another feature story in American Theatre not involving our recovery from a hurricane? We think it does, but there is a promiscuity of artistic drive that prevents anything solid from developing. In other words, making theatre in this town is a willy-nilly, blunderbuss of a process: think something up, do it, and live in its aftermath. Voila!

How many shows have you seen in town that would have benefited from at least one more week of rehearsal?

And that is a shame, because on the occasion where a show gets more than one bite at the apple or takes longer than 45 hours of rehearsal over three weeks to put together (see: Our Man, Renew Revue, King Lear, Midsummer and Loup Garou) the results are almost uniformly astounding.

The problem, as we perceive it, is that we, as a theatre community, think tactically rather than strategically. Each show is our last, each project is designed only to keep us one step ahead of the sheriff, and each season is planned for immediate gratification rather than long-term achievement. We know of what we speak; we have been guilty of it from time to time.

This community does not seem to be actively looking to make its mark. We do not see enough asking of the following question: to what end? Specifically, what does your current production do to advance your company, improve your skill, or build your audience? Where does this show fit into the fabric of your career or company’s trajectory? We would love to hear some of those answers. This is not to say that the shows companies pick do not do this indirectly, but we have a gnawing suspicion it is not often enough a cognitive act. If we asked the query of purpose directly, only a few theatre artists in town could articulate a professional destination for their choices beyond the next two shows on which they are working.

Essentially, what is the point of doing theatre in this town? Forget for a moment the tired truism of we just want our audiences to have a good time, and instead, look towards your own professional development. Shows should be done, because you want to learn more about the artists that created them; new plays should be produced because you want to experiment on the steps necessary to bring them to the stage; roles should be chosen, because they challenge your skill level and require more rigorous training. No, we are not saying to hell with entertaining people, but if you do not get better, your audiences will catch on to you. They will recognize your tricks and your message, and this, in turn, will tire them of you. We have no issue with comfort food, but shouldn't theatre be a bit more? Whatever the failings of The Future is a Fancyland Place were, it had a teleological agenda. Its creators were out to learn something. They started with conversations and readings, opened their work up for a surgical strike from a rather snippy audience, and then braved forward into a fully realized production. It was not perfect process, but it was more akin to actual process than we are used to seeing outside of Southern Rep's or All Kinds of Theatre's finest hours.

For all the talk of new paradigms, the new New Orleans theatre scene still struggles to be defined. For every green shoot on St. Claude Avenue or in the heart of Mid City, events have gut punched us on St. Peters, broken our hearts on St. Charles, or left us scrambling for answers at Canal Place. As Canal Street comes into slow focus and the film industry continues to ascend, there is an unease in the air that the moment for legitimate theatre in this town might be passing. There are trends, but there still is not an axis from which this world grows outward.

Still, there are two obvious solutions for the taking directly in front of us, and while they have not been implemented fully, they can be seen in pockets all across the city. Both involve new work: sui generis company creation and more traditional new play production. They both offer an identity. It is a matter of which way the blood flows: the former is the pumping of the heart, while the latter is an infusion of fresh blood. Both speak to New Orleans: the first cashes in on her spectacle-driven nature and the second sees her in the role of the muse. Let me rephrase, the quality does not speak to New Orleans, it is New Orleans. The city is, always has been, and will remain a spectacle and event driven town whose very landscape is an inspirational canvas for all who would journey here.

Once we embrace that reality, we can get busy. You see, it is more than just doing those things. You have to figure out a way to promote them, nationally, as well.

We will offer suggestions next week.