Dramaturgy with Love: Suzanne Lofthus @ Cutting Edge Theatre

Special star takes centre stage on Scottish tour

“I’ve just got Down’s. It doesn’t make me stupid.”

A young woman who has Down’s Syndrome is the star of a hard-hitting new play which begins a Scotland-wide tour later on May 24th at MacRobert Art Centre, Stirling.

Abigail Brydon, 24, will take the leading role in Downs With Love, a new play by Scottish company Cutting Edge Theatre, which sensitively explores question of love and disability, and invites audiences to think about their own preconceptions.

Abi plays Beth, a young woman who lives a happy, independent life. Beth has her eye on Mark (Stephen Arthur) who sings in the local pub on Friday nights, but when Mark starts to fall for Beth’s support worker Tracy (Katie Milne), everything is set to get a lot more complicated.

 What was the inspiration for this performance?

I had the idea about 30 years ago when I met a group of young people who had Down's Syndrome but wasn't really in a position to do anything with the concept until I met Abi Brydon who has Down's and who was attending our INSPIRE group. 

INSPIRE uses drama to help people of different abilities to improve their confidence, self-esteem and vocal abilities where possible. We also aim to encourage participants to realise their dreams where possible. Abi's dream is to become an actor, so we began to build the play around her and some of her real life experiences. 

Is performance still a good space for the public discussion of ideas? 

Absolutely! Theatre enables an audience to see, hear and experience issues from other people's perspectives. The play doesn't give answers but raises questions. That's what I love about theatre and performance - being challenged and inspired. Cutting Edge Theatre is all about making a difference and we hope that this play makes a difference not just in Abi's life, but in the lives of the audience too. 

How did you become interested in making performance?

I've always been interested in storytelling from childhood. I was that child who cajoled [or forced!] my siblings and cousins to make up plays which we performed to long suffering parents! Sadly then I became a painfully shy teenager who only found my place when I  was dragged along to a youth theatre. I will never forget feeling "here is where I fit". That has stayed with me all through my life and is why I remain committed to community theatre - knowing the difference that theatre can make. 

From there, there were several journeys before I set up Cutting Edge Theatre in 1995 in Edinburgh with the express aim "to make a difference". We work a lot with people who are disadvantaged in some way both here and abroad. Often the process is as important as the end product. 

Is there any particular approach to the making of the show?

For this one, Katie Milne who is the lead tutor of INSPIRE and I worked with Abi to hear of her experiences and then we built the story through improvisation around those experiences, folding them into the play. We premiered the play in 2016 at the Fringe and have reworked it this time around, working with a movement director Tony Mills from Room 2 Manoeuvre to bring in a sense of isolation and of control. We have also brought in some original songs by composer James Siggens. 

Does the show fit with your usual productions?

No, surprisingly enough, even though we have been working in Scotland since 1995, this is our first theatre tour! We are used to working in community theatre and also site specific work. The last time we did a tour was taking Shakespeare productions round Scottish Castles. We are used to working with groups of people and over the past few years that has been working with prisoners, mentoring them to stage Passion Plays within the prisons. 

We have worked in Louisiana, Brazil and last year in Opera Prison, Milan. We are currently looking to develop a large scale community production in Edinburgh for 2020 as well as a number of other smaller projects in communities in Scotland. We are also working on developing our INSPIRE project to other cities and ultimately, to see a Performing Arts Academy set up in Scotland. 

What do you hope that the audience will experience?

I hope they will question themselves about what do they actually think about disability, perhaps have their preconceptions changed a bit. I hope that they will feel for Beth and be challenged as well as inspired. 

Suzanne Lofthus, writer and director, said: “Downs With Love challenges us all to think about what we consider acceptable. Can we accept a couple, one of whom has Down’s and one does not, or would that make us feel uncomfortable?”

Suzanne worked with Abi, exploring her own feelings and her experiences of growing up with Down’s, to create the character of Beth. Abi has written a powerful monologue about her experiences which is used in the play.

Suzanne said: “Abi is in a very strong position throughout the play. She doesn’t leave the stage. We’re not aiding her in any way - we’re all equals on stage. She’s an actress is her own right doing what she does, and that makes the story even more powerful.”

Abi Brydon said: “Beth is a bit different from me. When I change my hairstyle, I know I’m playing Beth, not being myself. I like acting a lot - my dream is to be on Coronation Street!”

Abi is studying Acting and Performance at Fife College, and has appeared on stage in several local productions. She has been a member of the INSPIRE programme, created by Cutting Edge Theatre, offering drama to young adults with additional support needs.

Suzanne Lofthus said: “At the heart of Cutting Edge is helping people to realise their potential, whatever that is, enabling them to do things they never thought they could do. When I heard Abi say that her dream was to be an actress, I thought: ‘I can make that happen’. We’re delighted to be helping her to realise that dream.”

Downs With Love is on a ten-venue Scotland-wide tour, funded by a grant from the National Lottery People’s Project, after votes from the public made it one of this year’s top three projects.

The play is written and directed by Suzanne Lofthus; the movement director is Tony Mills, artistic director of dance company Room 2 Manoeuvre; lighting designer is Andrew Wilson. The play uses original music by James Siggens.

DOWNS WITH LOVE ON TOUR:

Macrobert Arts Centre, Stirling

Thursday 24 May, 7.30pm

www.macrobertartscentre.org, 01786 466666

East Kilbride Arts Centre

Friday 25 May, 7.30pm

www.sllcboxoffice.co.uk, 01355 261000

Gerrard Street Church, Aberdeen

Saturday 26 May, 7.30pm

www.eventbrite.co.uk, 01224 624339

The Phoenix Centre, Newton Dee, Bieldside, Aberdeen

Sunday 27 May, 7.30pm

www.neatshows.org.uk, 01224 868701

Easdale Island Community Hall, Easdale

Saturday 2 June, 8pm

www.easdaleislandhall.org

Beacon Arts Centre, Greenock

Tuesday 5 June, 7.30pm

www.beaconartscentre.co.uk, 01475 723723

Assembly Roxy, Edinburgh

Wednesday 6 June, 7.30pm

www.assemblyroxy.com, 0131 623 3001

Theatre Royal Dumfries

Thursday 7 June, 7.30pm

www.theatreroyaldumfries.co.uk, 01387 254209

Platform, Easterhouse

Sunday 10 June, 3pm

www.platform-online.co.uk, 0141 276 9696 (option1)

Eden Court Theatre, Inverness

Tuesday 12th June, 7.30pm

www.eden-court.co.uk, 01463 234234

Suzanne Lofthus is Artistic Director for Cutting Edge Theatre in Edinburgh. The company works mainly with disadvantaged people, giving a voice to the voiceless and specialises in Community Theatre. Suzanne has worked in Scotland and overseas, mentoring and directing productions in prisons such as Opera Prison, Milan and Angola Prison in Louisiana. Suzanne directs the annual open air promenade Easter Play in Princes Street Gardens, Edinburgh and is working towards a large scale, multi-art form production over Easter weekend 2020.

The company's main focus, currently, is working with people of different abilities through our INSPIRE project which began in Fife five years ago. We are working towards establishing a Performing Arts Academy for this group in Scotland with satellite classes around the major cities. 

The People’s Project offers the public the chance to vote for projects in their area to receive National Lottery funding, with up to £3million available across the UK. It is a partnership of the Big Lottery Fund, ITV, STV and The National Lottery. For more information, see www.thepeoplesproject.org.uk

Gillian Campbell speaks out on popular culture

MARIAH CAREY TO HEADLINE BLACKPOOL’S LIVEWIRE FESTIVAL 2018

Tower Festival Headland Arena, Blackpool – Friday August 24^th 2018

Tickets priced from £65 on sale Friday May 11^th at 10am from: livewirefestival.co.uk

Mariah Carey, the best-selling female artist of all time, has chosen Blackpool’s LIVEWIRE Festival for her only UK 2018 festival appearance. 

The pop superstar, who has sold more than 200 million albums to date, will headline the Friday night slot of the festival.

After a massive inaugural year, which saw unforgettable performances by a host of UK and international acts including Will Smith & DJ Jazzy Jeff and The Jacksons, LIVEWIRE Festival will return to the famous seaside resort for the August bank holiday. Blackpool’s Tower Headlands Arena will once again welcome some of the world’s biggest music stars.

Councillor Gillian Campbell, Deputy Leader of Blackpool Council said: “This is absolutely fantastic news and we are thrilled at the prospect of Mariah Carey performing live in Blackpool. .

“She is a world-class artist and this promises to be another sensational Livewire event over the August Bank Holiday weekend.”

It's Critic and Dramaturge Time!

I am writing down all this blather because I care about criticism. Criticism is my art-form. I believe that it serves a function within theatre – it can contribute in the movement towards more exciting, vital performance and the purging of vicious emotions – and that it operates as a medium of art. It’s a bit like poetry, only where poetry comments on life, criticism comments on theatre.

I also study dramaturgy. You know I am a student, right? I love dramaturgy. It’s a contested word – it doesn’t have a single definition – but it roughly means the study of theatre as a performance and not as a mere script. For a log time, theatre studies were a sub-set of literary studies. Dramaturgy demands that theatre is appreciated in its manifestations on the stage (whatever the stage might be).

Dramaturgy is done by everyone involved in a production. It’s the process of staging a play. But today’s banter is all about the difference between a dramaturge and the critic. I used to live with a dramaturge, an immensely talented man who put up with me for two years. Frankly, for that alone he deserves a medal. He also inspired me hugely, so I’d like to take a moment to thank Elliot and say that if anyone needs a dramaturge, he’s worth a shout.

Much as I love dramaturges, the critic is not a dramaturge. They do share skills and knowledge, but they approach theatre from different angles. I think it is a problem when critics forget this, and act like dramaturges. Let me explain.

The dramaturge works within a production, with the makers, and notices problems before offering solutions. The critic works outside a production, and notices problems and does not offer a solution. They both notice good things too and support them. It’s not all doom and gloom.

An example from life (or art, I suppose)

Imagine a play: a dramaturge is invited in and concludes that the production is half an hour longer than it needs to be. They chat to the director, and suggest ways to cut out that half hour – negotiating carefully so that the central conceit doesn’t end up getting lost. It’s a delicate process, and by working with the production, they help to prepare the work for public appreciation. They are in the rehearsal studio, they have the privilege of talking to the makers (they are part of the production team), but they have a responsibility to the performance. They are supposed to be making active suggestions. They get to say stuff like ‘it needs to be shorter’.

A critic sees the production when it is judged to be at a point where the public can see it. The critic concludes that it is half an hour longer than it needs to be. They write a review, and state that it was too long, and give a reason why they felt that. But they don’t get involved in suggestion solutions. They are reporting on what they have seen and their own subjective experience. They have a responsibility to the audience and the privilege of a public platform for their opinions. They are supposed to be either developing the ideas for broader discussion or giving a consumer report. They get to say stuff like ‘it is half an hour too long’.

Pop Quiz: which of these are dramaturge’s statement and which are critic’s statements?

a)   The show does not have enough content to justify its length.

b)  It needs to cut out half an hour.

c)   It feels half an hour too long.

d)  The whole scene with Ophelia is irrelevant.

e)   Cut out the scene with Ophelia.

f)    The main performer is really sexy.

Answers: a and d are both the dramaturge and the critic, although they lead to different conversations. Then b and e belong to the dramaturge; c is the critic and f is just really dodgy (unless it is a review of erotica or pornography).

Actually, statements with the ‘is of identity’ are generally a bit dangerous. I mean, we are talking about acting, which is more about ‘seeming’ or ‘appearing’. I mention that realising I have failed in this frequently.

Anyway, I might try to deal with that later. The point is, there are certain types of statement that critics might want to avoid, and they usually involve taking on the role of a dramaturge – a desire to ‘fix’ a production. On a brute level, critics are not paid enough to do that job, and don’t have, in their reviews, the space to develop a dialogue that can effect change in a production. They don’t have that responsibility. In the words of the legendary teacher Roy off Catchphrase, ‘say what you see’.

I do believe that the critic has a responsibility to be compassionate, though. Again, I have failed in this but, being one of those bloody Christians who yap on about God’s love all the time, I do believe it.

To end: a request for forgiveness. If that doesn’t make sense, it is a hard difference to elaborate and I am trying to make a start on defining the critic. This is a blog, I am not getting paid for this and I do have a big essay to finish for university. I am sorry.

And I am making some big claims for criticism, and I have no doubt failed in living up to my own standards. That happens. However, going through my blog and cataloging my mistakes is just going to start a flame war. And please don’t use this commentary as a chance to castigate other critics. I mean, it totally is, but I am trying to advance a conversation of mutual respect.

If you agree with my position, then check out Lorna Irvine’s writing and retweet it. If you disagree with me – I have written a thousand words. That’s a fair length to answer me. I’m cool with criticism (obviously), but I am a wee delicate snowflake. Don’t get personal, please.

Actually, I am Sorry

Further to my previous comments on the function of the review...

Having accepted that the function of the critic is to assess the extent to which a production achieves its intentions, I'd like to suggest a further possible purpose: the development of the discussion proposed by the production. This moves beyond the rather raw 'consumer report' into territory that takes theatre seriously as the starting point for debates about issues - whether aesthetic or political.

In this case, there is plenty of space for the critics to express their own subjectivity. The critique becomes an articulation of the critic's engagement with the ideas contained in a production. But let me cut out the fancy words and give an example.

Creditors (currently at the Lyceum) is a script that is generally accepted as important. A representative of late nineteenth century naturalism, it contains some nasty misogyny: at times, it reads like a handbook on how to control a woman. Stuart Laing's production isn't afraid to present this without apology: far from making him a misogynist, it asks some serious questions about what it means to accept a work's importance when it, frankly, expresses opinions that sound like the product of a Pick Up Artist's reflections on gender identity. Knowing his previous work, I am inclined to consider this an anti-misogynist production that asks the audience to question their own assumptions about gender relations.

It is possible that this was Strindberg's intention too, but I don't critique scripts, do I? I critique dramaturgy and productions. If I wanted to go into this, though, I might point to the biography of Strindberg and examine how he treated women in his life. Yeah, he was a misogynist shit. That'll do for the moment, and no amount of 'complicating' his philosophy is going to excuse that. 

Anyway, a critique of the production might want to ignore the detail of the dramaturgy and examine the meaning of the show. Instead of mentioning the performances - one of which does happen to be amazing - I'd talk about the attitudes of the production. Then I would say that I identify as a feminist, and that I find the behaviour of the men highly offensive. I might even conclude that in laying bare the misogyny of the text, Laing has challenged the status of Strindberg.

I don't really know this, though. It is my best guess, based on my personal experience as a theatre-goer.

It is based on how skill I think I am, basically.

My subjective opinion on the quality of Creditors is a bit irrelevant here: what matters is the continued conversation about the relationship between men and women. 

(Incidentally, this is why Lorna Irvine is the most important critic in Scotland. She can give a brilliant feminist analysis of anything and I'd suggest going to her blog Tempo House after you read this.)

I am nearly done, anyway. 

I believe that Creditors regards gender politics as an important topic. To pay respect to its intention, I am talking about gender politics. My review on The List is going to further that conversation. 

This doesn't mean that I am ignoring the production's terms of engagement. I am taking them seriously. I can probably do my 'conversation extension' routine while performing a classic bit of consumer reporting. 

By the way, I am writing this so that people can take me to task when I fail. I'd like to be taken seriously too, even if I am a shambles of a human being and regularly mess up. 

In Defence of Criticism

In a recent twitter conversation, which examined the problems with a specific paragraph in a specific theatre review, the idea came up that the purpose of theatre criticism is to identify the intention of a work and comment on how effectively that had been realised in the production. While I agree that this is the purpose of theatre criticism, I'd like to develop the definition and suggest a few reasons why this might not always be the case. 

As a starter, I have to admit that this article will allude to other critics, but I only speak for myself. I am not naming names because it is just my opinion (unpick that, irony fans) and I don't want a flame war with other critics who might feel that any criticism of them is an attempt to make myself look good, which it would be.

Above all, I totally agree that the job of the critic is to review work on its own terms. A production of Long Day's Journey into Night does not depend on how hot the main actors are, or whether it is a feminist laugh-fest. A revival of a nineteenth century comedy of manners however, which announces itself as a feminist production, might justifiably be called out if the script has been rewritten by a man. That doesn't necessarily mean it fails as feminist work, but that is problematic.

However - the question of whether the artist has clearly expressed their intention is probably the biggest problem. Short of believing every word written in the press release, the intention of a production is mysterious until the final moments of the show. And if the artist messes up, it might be a week later when it becomes evident that the two second appearance of the ghost in the second art actually shifted the entire meaning. 

By extension, meaning itself is not simply an iteration of the artist's will. The medium has its own logic that dictate form and content and meaning. The easiest example of this is the political play that condemns the use of alcohol, but has a bar directly outside the auditorium and relies on the audience having a tipple in the interval. But certain genres have a language that will dictate the meaning - tragedy has a hard time with feminism (and I might develop that in a later article, but just trust me for the moment) and may undermine an intended meaning for another. 

And intention expressed may not be the only parameter of success: having a character walking about the stage shouting 'this play condemns the Conservative policy on immigration' makes the meaning explicit but fails on the whole 'subtle aesthetic' card. If the artist meant to blunt and obvious, and achieved it, does it matter that the experience of watching the production feels like a trip to the ninth circle? 

Then there is the question of the making of meaning: one thing I always feel is that the meaning itself comes from the moment of connection between art object and observer: the audience are co-creators of the experience. This is why I don't believe in objectivity: the critic always brings their personality into a review, because they are part of the creative team - as is every single audience member. It is worth remembering that judging a play is also an act of self-judgement. This might be why the previously mentioned agit-prop drama isn't likely to be much good. The lack of space for interpretation is also a lack of space for engagement with an audience. 

There are a few other spanners to throw in the works. What if the work intended to be obnoxious? What if it celebrates values that the reviewer finds objectionable? The Spectator frequently covers works that doesn't fit its conservative ideology. It generally has a crack at it on the grounds of political correctness - and the reviewers enjoy the hatchet-job a bit too much. But what if a play is deliberately racist? Can I say that its expression of the inferiority of Africans is eloquently expounded? And if I don't understand a play - is that the fault of the director or me? 

None of these are objections to the fundamental thesis that the purpose of the review is to critique on the terms of the work itself. They just allow a more nuanced appreciation of the process of meaning-making in theatre-criticism.

But now to the tough stuff. 

The 'opposite' of criticism is a consumer report. This is the reduction of a review to a simple 'is it any good?' without any other nuance. To be fair on the critics, in this case (which is the dominant mode for the review that can get the writer a bit of cash), the intended reader is the reader of the publication in which the review is published. A critic will likely play to the (assumed) prejudices of that demographic. In this context, a writer for The Telegraph won't be recommending the latest issue play about gender inequality (although, imho, the average Telegraph reader could do with seeing it). 

The reason for the preponderance of the consumer report is economic: plays and reviews are commodities, caught up in capitalism and attracting money. It cares not for the artistic aspirations of the playwright or choreographer but only for the money. It treats theatre like a washing machine: is this one going to do the job?

And so, the review is debased: but why does this happen? Space considerations, the financial value of printing a review: sometimes it might be that the printing of a review is only there to convince the theatre to take out advertising with the magazine, that they give a shit about theatre. But we all know the problems of the printed press: what about the complicity of the theatre community.

And. of course: star ratings. Who wants these? It's not the critics - they don't care, as long as they get paid. But once a star rating system is in use, the review will be a justification of the rating. Those reviews that have a three star but read like a four? Bad reviewing. 

But who wants star ratings? 

Who puts star ratings on their posters?

Who uses them as badges of approval?

Who takes the fancy quote from an otherwise moribund and ill-considered review and slaps it on the front of the theatre? 

Who retweets only the four stars reviews and up, and doesn't mention the well-crafted and thoughtful review that conforms to the principles of good criticism, but doesn't end with hearty approval?

But the same time: who is making an active effort to support those critics, like Lorna Irvine, who go out of their way to print their reviews on a blog, and do an amazing job, without pay, without thanks?

Who has ever said - I got two stars from Vile, but he is pretty fair about it?

Actually, a few people have done this, and they know how they are, and I thank them. I even thank those people who have called me out when I have been a dick about something - especially those who have done it quietly.

It's 2017: when was the last time that you chatted to a critic and had a good time?