Dramaturgs &: In conversation with Playwrights

Juliet Chia [JC]: We are delighted to bring you this evening our panel about dramaturgs and playwrights. This panel is a part of a series at Centre 42 in Singapore called Dramaturgs &. This is a capsule series of roundtable conversations covering the work and relationship between dramaturgs and their artistic collaborators. Dramaturgical thinking and application is integral to the work of all artists, yet a dramaturg’s role affords a dedicated lens that can expand and challenge artistic decisions. In this series, we aim to unpack the relational, intricate, and often invisible work of dramaturgs in creative processes and within artistic teams. Previous editions of the series have featured conversations between dramaturgs and producers, choreographers, and directors. These conversations are archived on Centre 42’s website, if anyone would like to find out more. 

Tonight, we will begin with a brief introduction of our speakers, and then move into a conversation for about 45 - 50 minutes, and then we will open this up to questions. Firstly, we have a couple of playwrights joining us who have worked with our dramaturgs here before - Laura Hayes in Singapore and Billie Collins in the UK - and we’ll invite them to respond to anything they've heard. And then we'll open this up to anything that you have either put in the chat, or please feel free to unmute your mics and ask your questions. We’ll conclude with a few notes after that. 

A few housekeeping notes - please keep your mic off at the top of this session. If you have any questions, comments, or responses, please feel free to put those in the chat. During the Q&A, as I said, you are welcome to continue putting those in the chat, or to unmute yourselves. Closed captioning is available if you require it - you can click on more, captions, and show captions to turn it on and off. If you have any questions, I believe you can put that in the chat, and our team at Centre 42 will help you with that. Please note that Centre 42 will be recording and taking screenshots of this event for documentation purposes. If you are not comfortable with that, you are welcome to keep your camera off if you prefer. An edited recording and some notes will be available at a later point on Centre 42's website. 

Now that I've completed all the housekeeping, I'd like to introduce quickly our panel for this evening. We have with us Annie Jin Wang from the US. Annie is a dramaturg for new plays, musicals, and operas. She's based in New York. She works across the United States and internationally with artists at all stages of the generative practice to articulate their fullest vision, and encourages inquiry-based artistic processes that are healthy, fearless, and joyful. Annie currently serves as the Associate Director for Artistic Programming at PlayCo, the Artistic Associate at Theater Mu, and was a seasoned programming consultant for East West Players' 60th anniversary season. Next we have Hannah Tyrrell-Pinder, who is Co-Founder and Joint Artistic Director of Box of Tricks, a new writing theatre company based in Manchester, UK. Over the past five years, Hannah has run an extensive programme of professional development for playwrights through Box of Tricks’ Playmakers Network. And then we have Joel Tan, a playwright and dramaturg based in Singapore and London. He is a creative associate with Centre 42, an artist in residence with Wild Rice in Singapore, and Joel's play, Scenes from a Repatriation, will start previews at the Royal Court this Friday. 

So perhaps we'll start with a little context; I wonder if we could just provide a little context for everyone here. If I could ask Annie to start us off, perhaps - what surrounds you? What’s your landscape that you're working in? What's your role in this landscape, and what have you seen in terms of your relationship with playwrights, playwrights’ relationships with dramaturgs, in the landscape that you work in?

Annie Jin Wang [AJW]: Thank you so much, Juliet, and thank you so much to Centre 42 for bringing together this amazing panel of artists and dramaturgical minds, and for this incredible international audience; it’s really great to be in conversation. From a more global context, obviously I come from the New York, US-based new works development context, which I think in many ways is very well-known and well-documented, but it's also very distinct from new works processes in other parts of the country, and also in other parts of the world. I really come to dramaturgy and my relationship with playwrights through two branches, the first being my institutional work with PlayCo, which is a very globally focused theatre company in New York. We are 25 years old this year, and in the past 25 years, we have produced plays from over 18 countries. That has informed both the way that I think about new work development as an institutional leader, and also in my personal dramaturgy. 

In terms of new works development, I work, as was mentioned in my bio, with primarily playwrights, book writers, librettists, and composers to create new works of theatre, musicals, opera - and it’s very interesting. I'm always curious to hear about what it's like in other parts of the world, and to learn more, because I feel like the two types of dramaturgy that I observe when it comes to new works in the US is - when it comes to production dramaturgy, which is working with an artistic team when a work is getting ready to be produced, and also the new works development process, which is everything that comes before that. In my own practice, I've been very lucky to have been a part of processes that can start from the very beginning; from the ideation phase of being paired with a writer, or having a a previous relationship with a writer and collaborating with them through the generative phase, and then going into production - and my role in that changes as the needs of the development process change. I felt very fortunate to be able to see a new work of theatre all the way through, in several cases. 

I think that, in many ways, what dramaturgy means in an American context feels very nascent in a lot of ways, and is still developing, and is articulated differently depending on what sort of theatre context you're making it in. I'm really glad to be part of this conversation for that reason, so that we can see all the different contexts in which dramaturgs and playwrights can be working together. Not just in terms of where they are in the development process, but what lived experiences and cultural contexts are also being brought into the development process.

JC: Hannah, I wondered if you wanted to give us a little picture of your landscape and where there may be similarities or differences or curiosities that have come up based on what Annie said.

Hannah Tyrrell-Pinder [HTP]: Yes, thank you. It's interesting, actually, hearing Annie say that the craft of dramaturgy is still nascent in the US. That is very much the case in the UK; I think a lot of people, even those who work in theatre, don’t necessarily know, really, what a dramaturg does. I think it's still a role that is not properly rooted into the development process of new work. I think it's still quite an uneven landscape, with some buildings and companies really prioritising the dramaturgical relationship in that conversation and understanding that that is an art form in itself and a dramaturg is an essential collaborator, and then other people just not even thinking about it at all. 

I think the context in which I’m thinking about dramaturgy at the moment is very much coloured by the really challenging landscape in the UK at the moment. There's been quite a lot of coverage in the news over here about theatre being in a bit of an existential crisis. We're so horrendously underfunded that we haven't really been able to recover from COVID yet, even now, and that's really impacting the creation of new work and the commissioning of new work, which necessarily has a serious consequence for the art of dramaturgy and the ability of dramaturgs to develop within the industry.

I came to dramaturgy as a director; it just developed as part of my process, because I worked predominantly with new plays and creating work for the first time. So it became part of my directorial process, and now it is a role that I will play when I'm not the director in different processes as well. But the opportunities to do that from start to finish and to take a show all the way to production are much fewer now, because no theatres want to pay to create a new show, unfortunately, at the moment. So a lot of the dramaturgy that's happening is in that development phase, which is really lovely because it takes a lot of the pressure out of it, and you can have a lot of imaginative and intellectual and emotional space around those dramaturgical conversations because you're not worrying about actual ticket sales and reviews yet; your audience is still potential and possible and infinite. But it does mean that you keep coming up against these walls of going, “well, can't do anymore on that yet”. Which is frustrating, but I'm seeing a lot more writers come to me to ask for dramaturgy as part of the development process - right from the off, they want a dramaturg, they want those conversations. The generation of of theatre-makers who are in their early twenties and just starting out professionally are really rooting that as part of their process, which is I think is really heartening. We just need the cash money now. It’s fascinating to hear how it's the same but different in different countries, and the different approaches and the language that we're using to talk about it. I'm looking forward to hearing more, and giving me lots of food for thought.

JC: Joel, would you want to set us a bit of context and respond to these? 

Joel Tan [JT]: I loved, Annie, in your bio, that line about creating processes that are healthy, fearless, and joyful. I feel that so strongly in the context of my work as a playwright, and the kind of dramaturgical conversations I've been through or endured, where often it feels like - well, in Singapore, my observation has been that plays tend, often, to be quite rushed into production, and that this period of development is a relatively new space that we are beginning to pay a lot more attention to, and thinking about giving a play a longer runway before it even meets the question of production and all the stresses and pressures that come with that. In the past, I felt like processes have felt really unhealthy and quite fearful and un-joyous, and I sometimes feel that having a dramaturg in the mix as a playwright gives that space that you were talking about, Hannah, that space to engage with the work as art, and to engage with in quite a safe space outside institutional business concerns for a little bit, as it just states, before it goes into the world of production. Just chiming off some of the things you said - I feel really inspired by that. 

My way into dramaturgy has been mostly from the playwright mentorship space - it really began when I first started running playwriting workshops for younger writers, and through that process, I was receiving a lot of first drafts, and helping writers work through their first drafts of plays that they were writing in my workshops. That was my first encounter with it - and of course, my encounters with dramaturgs in my work as a playwright as well. In recent years, I’ve been hired to be a production dramaturg, in the context of a play that's already been slated for production; I'm attached to the production to work on the script as it's being prepared for production. Nowadays, in my capacity as literary manager at a company in Singapore called Wild Rice, I’m doing that, but with this institutional hat on; navigating this slightly dodgy space of representing both the institution, but also trying to serve the writer, which can often feel like a bit of a tense space - and maybe we can talk a little bit about that. 

One of the most joyous spaces in which I'm offering dramaturgy as a service is at Centre 42, where I am part of running a whole bunch of writers’ residencies. My work there is in working with writers in a workshop space to develop their plays, or structuring development processes for our writers and residents over a long period of time, following a script often from the generative phase up to a point where we present it in a work-in-progress showing at the end of a residency. But I've also done dramaturgy outside of the theatre, with visual artists and dancers, which is a really interesting space to operate in. 

I think our experiences are all pretty similar, and I'm sure there's lots of overlaps. Maybe just to add a little bit about the Singapore context - I feel that dramaturgy is a pretty nascent field as well, and I suppose Juliet might be able to chime in on that. I guess that's why we're pulling panels like this together, right? To create conversations around a field that is little understood. But what feels heartening is that there is a lot more desire from both writers, producers, and theatre companies to bring dramaturgs into the fold, because I think there is a sense that the role is really important in creating that safe, joyous space, where a play can get to the best it can be before we even bring questions or production to bear on it. I think that feels like a good place, and I feel really positive about where things are in Singapore at the moment.

JC: Thanks, Joel. I feel like we've heard everybody say that dramaturgy is nascent; it's a nascent practice in each of our contexts, no matter how far away we are. I'm curious about how you see that impacting the different relationships you've had with - you know, I’m also hearing that there's interest in working with dramaturgs; people are curious to work with dramaturgs, but it's new, and people don't really know very much about it. How does that impact the way the relationships you have with playwrights start? How do you talk about it? How do you handle it as it goes along? Anyone?

AJW: I can start. That’s such a great and complex question, Juliet. I feel for me, and from my point of view, at least, that there's something about dramaturgy that - for me, new works dramaturgy is quite antithetical to the American wheel of capitalism, maybe the Western wheel of capitalism, where in order for me to feel like I'm developing a true shared vocabulary and ability to progress with a playwright and be able to support them fully in their work, that takes things like time and developing trust, that I don't have the expectation that playwrights will immediately - that I am justified in being listened to, essentially. I think this is why dramaturgy feels very nascent to me in the US - I see this often in a development process, that there's an often an unspoken expectation of how far a project is meant to develop with the support of a dramaturg. But there's many reasons that a dramaturg and a playwright may not be able to make that bridge the length that it needs to, in the time that a new works development process happens. For example, for me, I often need more than a 29-hour process workshop that's often given for new works development here in the US - I find that I have a lot to catch up on if I’m being dropped in a process with just one conversation with the playwright beforehand. Oftentimes, my most successful processes, I'm having conversations with playwrights for months in advance, hours in advance, just so I can take the time that I need to get caught up on the process, so that I can help a playwright, and I can understand a play, where a playwright is at the point that we're going into a workshop together. The workshop is really the last part of a development process for me. 

I think that, oftentimes, dramaturgs are seen in a very mercenary way - that you get dropped into a process and have your role written out for you. But because every playwright is different, because every play is different, every room is different, and every dramaturg is different, I feel like oftentimes the capacity that is needed for dramaturgy to happen in a room is not necessarily understood by the artists or the institutions. Particularly a lot of the new playwrights that I think Hannah and Joel, you both mentioned - early career playwrights are excited to work with a dramaturg, but have maybe never worked with one before. So when I enter into a relationship with the playwright, regardless of where they are in their practice, we still have to take the time to develop that shared vocabulary and figure out how we're going to move forward together, so that they can also understand how I work and what my process is.

I think that sometimes that very much not one-size-fits-all process is not understood in the way that we often make theatre here in the US, and because of that, that’s where I see the most friction happening - it’s when the playwright and the director, or playwright, dramaturg, and other members of the artistic team are not on the same page, are not aligned on where the play is in process, and I don't have, yet, the time or experience with this particular playwright to help them navigate that. So that's one of the biggest friction points that I see. But then, in times when I am able to enter a process with a playwright with whom I have a very longstanding relationship, or we have been given the time and capacity to establish where our starting point is going to be when we go into development or go into production, then it's like rocket fuel. That’s what I’ve observed in my own practice as a dramaturg going through various new works processes. It's very different from process to process, but the one thing that I really feel is always needed is time, and I think this is maybe going into the funding resources that Hannah was talking about before as well - when we don't have those resources at our disposal, that development time can become very truncated.

JC: Do either of you want to respond? I'm also curious, actually, about the frictions that Annie mentioned - the friction that comes out, the misunderstanding, and what you've noticed in the types of friction, and how you address those frictions, and when that doesn't work.

HTP: I can definitely speak to that. I think it’s really interesting listening to Annie talk, because it feels very much like the landscape for dramaturgs and the skill of it existing as a role is several steps behind where the New York theatre scene is. It’s interesting, the way you talk about freelance dramaturgs being parachuted into a process - actually, that is what happens with movement directors and fight directors, a slightly more established role within the process, and a profession that people understand a bit more. They’re now in that position of going, “you don't respect my craft and the time that I need”, whereas dramaturgs aren't even at that stage yet, and particularly not those of us who are doing it freelance. 

I think there's a really big divide between building-based dramaturgs and individual artists who are skilled dramaturgs who will attach themselves to projects. And that tends to be - the freelance, independent, slightly more organic dramaturg-playwright relationship, from my experience, anyway, tends to experience less friction, because it's a bit more of a genuine collaborative endeavour, because it tends to be two artists finding each other because of shared experience or shared values or a shared community, and you're going on a journey together, and you are really moulding your process around each other and supporting it. 

I think we have a real reverence for the written words in the UK theatre, in that sense that the playwrights are very well represented by their unions here, so directors can't change stuff if a writer hasn't agreed to it - it has to be done as written. Actually, the developing relationship between dramaturgs and playwrights feels, at its best, very much about playwright empowerment, whereas I think building-based dramaturgs have got a slightly different agenda. I've definitely seen instances of friction where playwrights have felt like they've had to make changes or keep quiet about stuff, because the building’s pushing a certain way. And there's a slight sense, particularly if you're early-career, that you should just be really grateful that a building is putting your work on, even though they're not actually paying you that much, and they're not giving you enough rehearsal time, and they're making you slightly compromise some of the things that are really important about your play. But so many people want to get a play on, and actually, at least my play's getting on, so maybe I can let it slide this time. 

I think buildings, particularly in the UK at the moment, aren't very good at empowering artists, so you do see that friction that really ends up just reinforcing quite an unhelpful hierarchy that we've got here, where the buildings have the power and the artists are going cap in hand to them, and I think that's interesting. I don't think there's a huge amount of respect in that process for the skill of dramaturgy, and actually how important that role is. I think that some of the people doing that dramaturgy, who are often literary managers or new writing managers or new work associates or one of those titles, don’t feel as empowered as they could, and I think that affects the process as well.

JT: I definitely relate to that. It's something I'm learning, because I'm quite new in this literary management job, and I'm having conversations with writers that I wouldn't normally have if I were a freelance dramaturg working with them on a long process, right? It's all about writer empowerment - what is your play, what do you want to do, what is the impulse of your play, what are the strategies that we could work on together to help get you closer to where you want to be? But then, once you put on this literary management hat, you are also balancing all these questions about audience, length, does the artistic director like it, is it to their taste? And then I find myself in this space of having to create a bubble of love around the writer to protect them as long as possible from those concerns, and to really drill into what makes the text special and powerful, and perform this sort of intermediary role of advocate for the play, between the building and the playwright. 

Maybe this is something I'll throw into the mix - this idea of the dramaturg as an advocate for the playwright. I find myself playing that role a lot more now that I have this sort of institutional role as well, and I don't know how I feel about that, but as a playwright myself, I've also felt that tension with buildings, where I feel like the dramaturgy that I'm getting from a building is very much business-oriented, and it's not often very interested in what makes my play idiosyncratic or peculiar to myself, or the radical, formal gestures that I’m experimenting with in plays - it’s really often about getting it to fit into a certain kind of style or palate. And I’m hyper-conscious of that as someone who works in the space of literary management, but I also wonder if it's a thing that comes up in regular dramaturgy, whether our own taste filters down into how we - the kind of feedback we might offer a writer. I'm not always sure what my blind spots are with that, so that’s just something that I’m constantly having this conversation with writers about.

One thing I have noticed is that, because I'm a more experienced playwright, and if I'm working with much earlier-career writers, or because they're talking to me in the context of the building, I get the sense that my opinion has a lot more weight than it should, so that’s something I've become really hyper-conscious about, and how to manage that relationship, bearing in mind that there might be certain perceptions of power differentials between me and a playwright, or a certain kind of differential in expertise, which can distort that relationship. Just offering a couple of thoughts into the room.

JC: Joel, responding to this question about the literary manager - I think you're the only one who's probably using that term in Singapore. We don't really have - it’s a rather foreign term to us in Singapore, I would say, but I think that role, that function, gets performed. In the issue of building dramaturgs versus freelance dramaturgs - sometimes that role does get performed by members of the staff in a theatre who may or may not carry the title of dramaturg or literary manager very often. It can be the in-house director, the producer, the artistic director. And then going to the things you brought up, Joel, about power, even in senior playwrights - maybe I'll open that question up. What are your thoughts about the power dynamics between dramaturgs and playwrights? How do you negotiate that? What is tricky? What do you see happen? 

HTP: I can say something about that. Often I find a power dynamic at play, and I think that’s also because most of the people who are coming to me for dramaturgy also know that I run a theatre company, so they're attaching that status and power there, which I think can often be a bit unhelpful for a playwright. I think it can put them on the back foot, and again, create a slight atmosphere of them being grateful, like I'm doing them a favour. I think sometimes playwrights can, as we all can, forget that there's an individual behind the role, and that obviously my opinions are just my own opinions, and they're based on my lived experience and how I've moved through the world and my personal taste and things. I would hope that my my professionalism would give me a degree of objectivity; I like to think that my dramaturgy isn't going to be be affected by taste. I think I can dramaturg a play that I wouldn't necessarily want to direct or wouldn't be a thing that I would be running to the theatre to see. But then I'd also question whether I'd be the best dramaturg for that play in that case. I think that you do need to fall in love with the art in order to do the best possible job. 

But playwrights don't have to take a dramaturg’s notes. Obviously, if you are a good dramaturg, you are giving good notes that you do know are gonna bring out the best version of the play. But it can be a funny little dance that you do, where you are going, “actually, you do really need to take these notes; if you take these notes, this play is going to get better.” We were having a conversation about this on a WhatsApp group with collaborators, other playwrights and dramaturgs, because the Bruntwood Playwriting Prize longlist was announced early this week, and because those are submitted anonymously, you only know who it is if a playwright told you their pseudonym, because they're particularly pleased with it, or the title of the play. And actually, amongst the group, I think we knew six of the scripts between us, and a couple of us were saying, “we are going to take credit for them getting on the longlist, because we had a really good note session with them, and they've clearly taken those notes, because it's gone onto the longlist.” And obviously we’re having a joke about that, but genuinely, there's a sense of, you know, we've played a part in helping this script get to a point where it is the top 7% of 2000-odd plays that have been submitted for an award. So actually, that is important, for those notes to be taken. 

But I think back to the point about power dynamics - that can be really hard for a playwright to do, because I think they can feel like they have to take all your notes, but then, that can be quite a confronting situation, where if they're feeling vulnerable in the process, they'll then flip that power dynamic the other way around and dig their heels in a little bit and go, “well, why are you telling me what to do? You don't understand my play.” I think that's a really interesting dance to do with a playwright, where you're constantly working out what particular aspect of your dramaturgy persona you need to put forward for that particular conversation and that notes session. It’d be interesting to hear other people's experience of that dance. 

JT: The way I work around it is I try and establish very early in the process with a writer I'm working with that I'm just one opinion, and I am really here to help the writer drill into the play that they set out to write. As a playwright myself, I recognise that, often, that first spark of a play and the impetus that brings you to write it can get a bit muddied along the way, because as you're writing - I receive a lot of plays in first draft stage, and those first drafts tend, often, to be plays where so much is being discovered on the page, that it becomes this kind of luxury; there’s just so much on the page, right? So I proceed with a lot of questions rather than giving notes, so to speak. I ask a lot of questions about the writer's intent, the writer's impressions, the writer's inspiration, the kind of conversation they're wanting to have with the audience, the kind of thing that they want the play to do in the world. And then I read the play, and I always lead with what excites me about the play, what I find idiosyncratic and peculiar in a gorgeous way about the play, what the play mustn’t lose in subsequent passes. I always try and lead with getting a writer to write a play that only they can write. 

I feel like that's me trying to even out the power dynamic. Yeah, sure, maybe I'm more experienced, maybe I represent this building, but we're talking here because you've written this play that only you can write, and there's something really valuable about that. I guess the questions and the feedback I tend to give are always rooted and pinned to the things that the writer’s setting out to do, right? You’re trying to do this thing, but maybe there's not a lot of clarity around that, or maybe you buried the lede here, or this element needs a lot more development to get where you're going to go. 

So it's always in service of what the writer is trying to do, and I really try and reiterate that, but very often, especially in this new context with working for a company, I’ve literally had people ask me, “will people like it? Are people going to like it? Do you think this has a chance of going on? Do you think this fits into the house style?” So I have to very consciously work against it and go, “let's really keep those questions out of our mind for now, and focus on what's in front of us and what it is you want to do, because the most powerful version of this play is the one that is so distinctly in your voice and so distinctly drawn from the spark that got you to write it in the first place.” I tend to be a bit nervous about being super didactic with notes, although I have also had to square with writers literally asking me, “just tell me what to do, Joel.” Literally, just “tell me what to do”, and I have to be very careful about that. It's a tricky dynamic to work through. What do you think, Annie?

AJW: I relate to so much of that. I actually find that, in terms of this power dynamic, sometimes playwrights are almost too eager to relinquish control over a draft, because they will ask exactly that - “I’m open to whatever feedback, just tell me what to do to make the play better” - and that is, for me, a non-starter. When I have the privilege of being able to do a little bit of prep work with a writer before we meet to really talk about their work, I will often ask them to prepare for our meeting by bringing in at least two to three specific questions about their play that they really want to talk about. Part of that is because if we were to talk about everything, we could talk for four or five hours, but in most meetings, we try to set 60 to 90 minutes - and that’s not because I don’t want to make more time for the writer, but it’s because I really want to make the best use of the time that we have, right? So I found that, when I really ask a playwright to think about what are the most important things that they want to address during our time together, I get a better sense during our conversation of - especially if the play is in very early development - if what they need, if what they’re ready for, is to really drill down into the text, or if what they’re looking for is encouragement that the play is worth writing. Which, of course, in 99.99% of cases, yes, the play is worth writing, because there was something in the playwright that they felt so strongly about that they wrote an entire play about it, right? Not everybody in the world has the capacity to do that. Working from the baseline of, yes, this play is worthwhile, now let’s actually let the playwright lead the conversation, so that they are always in control of their process. That’s the thing that I always try to establish with them - how do I help the writer feel like they are in control of where they are in their process? How we get to the point of them feeling empowered is the constant massaging. But that, for me, is the key to dismantling the perception of there being a power dynamic. 

I think, similar to both Joel and Hannah, because I also work at an institution in New York, we also do get playwrights who will send their works to us, with the guess of, is this a play that we would produce? PlayCo is a very small company; we produce anywhere between one and three plays a year, if that - so our capacity for development is actually really small. But we try to meet with as many playwrights as we can, whose work is viable, and who comes to us - not so that we can be like, “yes, we will definitely produce this play” necessarily, but to get to know them as writers, to get to know their works, and to try to establish a longer-term relationship, because I think one thing that is very common in the way that plays are programmed in the US is that people submit plays to literary departments, or plays come to literary departments, and they are processed in that way. Because we're a very small capacity producing company, we are very proactive in the way that we go out to see works. 

Part of how my dramaturgical practice intersects with my work at the institutional level is trying to help playwrights separate their generative practice from their producerial brain. By that, I think it's very similar to Joel, what you described, which is, how do you write the truest, bravest version of the play that you want to write, and then find a home for it, rather than looking at the institution from the outside and saying, “okay, aesthetically, I think that this, this, this, and this are what they're looking for, so I'm going write to that.” Similarly to, I think, what’s happening in the UK, US theatres are really in crisis, so it's really hard for any theatres that I am associated with to be able to say that “we will definitely be looking for this kind of play two years from now”, because so much of it depends on funding. If the institution can’t promise you a formula, then why not actually write the play that you want to write? And then whoever recognises the brilliance of it is the right home for it. Helping them separate the expectation of production from the expectation of generation and development and communication and storytelling. I think that all goes into the conversation, and that's a lot to try to break down in an hour to 90 minutes - but I think it’s amazing how much you can get through once you've earned the playwright’s trust. In many cases, when I work in freelance, we are only promised this one session, so what I’m also thinking about is, how can I set them up to continue to use the tools that they gain in conversation with me, or other dramaturgs that are part of their process in the future, so that they don't always feel like they have to look for somebody to give them feedback, but they can start to ascertain and hear their own voice more clearly as they're working.

JC: I just want to jump off a point - I’ve now heard all of you speak about helping the playwright write the best play - really, the play they want to write, and I also heard Hannah say something about, “am I the right dramaturg for this”, and related, perhaps, to building up trust. I'm curious, actually, about how do you answer this question - am I the right dramaturg for this? How much do you and the playwright have to share in common? Is it something that you've built over a long time? What are your thoughts on that?

HTP: I can have a go at answering that. It's a good question, because, as with so many things you do, it's at least part on instinct, and I think lived experience has got to play a part - some of the time, but not all of the time. I think that's definitely a question that I would ask of a playwright - what have they thought about the rest of the collaborators? Particularly if they're from a marginalised community, and they're trying to tackle a story that is not usually seen on our stages - then, actually, is there a benefit to being surrounded by other members of that community, and that becoming a shared story, in a shared space, during the creative process? 

There've definitely been times when I've gone, “I think this play’s great, and I've got thoughts on it and notes for you, and I'll have a chat about it, but actually, in terms of the whole process, I think you should have someone other than me being in the room with you the whole time; I’m happy to be at a distance, but I think it would be better for you if I'm not an official member of the team.” I do think that some of it is down to personal dynamics, and I can definitely think of one actor and playwright who I work with really well as a director-actor, but, actually as a playwright, I’m not the best dramaturg for them, because of the plays that they're trying to - the work that they want to create, that really reflects their neurodivergent experience, and really wants to push at the established hierarchies and structures of patriarchal Western theatre. And there are times when I go, do you know what? My brain is still a little bit too hardwired into those structures. So it's really challenging for me to think outside of it - you need someone who's going to go on that journey with you, and get really excited about pushing those barriers too. I will read those plays and give you notes, but actually, in terms of that dramaturgical relationship, you need someone else who's going to get excited about smashing everything up and creating a new version. 

I think it's quite a nice, liberating thing, as a dramaturg, to go, “this is great, and I'm excited by it, but it's not right for me, and I'm excited for the artist who it is right for.” I think the thing that is a little bit tricky, currently, in the UK, is pushing people in the direction of another dramaturg, because there aren't actually enough of us, you know? Sometimes you’re like, “I think there's probably someone who's a better fit for this, but I don’t know who they are.” Whereas as a director, it's much easier for me to push people that way. So, instinct, I guess - comes back to my first point; I think it's instinct and acknowledging the relationship and thinking about what that relationship's going to be.

AJW: One of the best feelings in the world, for me, is being able to look at someone and say, “I don't think I'm right for this project, but I know exactly the right person who is.” I think that's just the best feeling, really. But I also feel like my answer to this question is ever-evolving. At the beginning of my practice, and even in the last five to seven years, I would say there's been an increase in - I'll just say non-white dramaturgs in the US that are all coming up and having opportunities; folks that I consider to be my peers, and people that I think are really, really brilliant, and are finally getting opportunities to work at the institutional level, and to be given their flowers, their time in the light. At the beginning of my practice, when we didn't have as many diverse voices in the dramaturgical landscape here, I felt very strongly that lived experience was important, and partially because I felt that - and I’ll just speak for myself and my experience as an Asian-American theatre artist - I just saw patterns upon patterns of Asian-American writers being picked up by institutions, and then their work was being dramaturged by white dramaturgs - highly qualified, very smart, but clearly lacking in some of the cultural competencies that I think would've really supported not just the final production of the play, but also the continued development of the writer. Now that I feel more confident that there are - and I’ve seen that in our field there are - Asian-American dramaturgs, myself or others who can help the play in the direction that the play wants to go in, and the playwright wants to go in, I’m in a place in my practice now where I’m also capable of doing things other than Asian-American plays, you know? The pendulum really swings back and forth, and I think it also depends so much on what's hot and trendy in the field right now. There are just certain seasons where certain lived experiences are just platformed more, and so some seasons I work more, some seasons I work less, and that, I think, is just also the nature of the beast. 

But I think, for me, it's ultimately really context-specific, because it's looking at the play, and it's looking at the playwright, and thinking, is what the playwright needs somebody who they can have a shorthand with, in terms of understanding the cultural background of the play or the important identity aspects of the play? Or is it actually important for them to have somebody who has an identity that's distinctly different from that, so that they can provide a perspective that is not within the work, if that makes sense? I think finding out what the play needs, in terms of what the experience and skillset and identity that the dramaturg brings, is a collaboration between the individual artists, and if it's being housed within an institution, the producers and the administrators also being canny and self-aware enough to be able to help make that match. I think it's all organic, and every process is different, so - looking first at the play and the playwright, and understanding what their needs are. 

I think for a lot of young playwrights of colour in the US, a lot of them haven't had an opportunity to be mentored by artists of colour, of their lived experience. So often I’m called in to support young Asian-American playwrights, which I'm always thrilled to be able to do - and also recognising that I may not be the only kind of dramaturg that could support their work in the future, so I try to have conversations with them about that too. I think especially in a place like the US, those needs are also going to be so different from region to region, and depending on what the demographics of the local theatre, or regional, national theatre community is, and what the resources of the producing organisation or producers are. 

JC: Joel, do you want to just respond to that? I'm just aware of our context as well - there’s the additional layer of theatre in different languages, and the whole inheritance of English-language theatre from our colonial history.

JT: I don't have much to add to what Annie and Hannah said - I think it's absolutely about identifying what the play and the playwright need at any given time. I guess I will say that the wonderful thing I've observed in Singapore is that there are a lot of writers’ groups built around language-specific theatre, where a lot of writers are finding support in community, and there's a lot of peer learning, and there's a lot of mentorship happening in those spaces, and some really good group dramaturgy I've observed happening in these spaces as well. So in the few instances where a writer has come to me with a play that is quite outside of my lived experience, they're coming to me with very specific needs about form and structure, about the logic of storytelling, about craft. So I think I’ve felt quite comfortable offering dramaturgy in that space, because in a few instances where that's happened, they've also been getting really good support from writers from their community in other spaces - it feels like they’re getting support from two ends. 

There’s one play I worked on called You Are Here, which was by my friend, Pooja Nansi, which was very much about the lived experience of being an Indian person in Singapore facing racist microaggressions on a daily basis. In that instance, I think what she came to me with was a real interest in how this play would be having a conversation with a wider audience that wasn't necessarily just going to be people from that community. I think I was able to think about that sort of wider conversation the play was having, as a dramaturg. I worked on that piece for several iterations, and I think that was quite a successful collaboration. But me and Pooja, we are friends, and we have a long collaborative relationship, so I think there was a lot of trust-building that needed to happen; there was a lot of empathetic listening, a lot of asking questions, and being very measured about feedback, and letting Pooja really lead that process, like Annie was saying. I felt like the most successful collaborations have always been where I'm just there to support a writer in the steering of their own process, regardless of the themes or context that they're bringing to bear.

JC: So I know that we could have this conversation for quite a bit longer yet, but I wanted to pull in other people who are here. I will start this question and answer section of tonight with an invitation - I know we have at least two playwrights in our audience here who have worked with our panellists before, Laura and Billie. I wonder if either of you have anything that you might want to respond to, in what you heard this evening, and then we'll take questions from the rest of the group after that.

Billie: Hi, I’m Billie. I wanted to thank everyone for such insightful reflections on this subject; it’s been really fascinating to hear, especially how it operates outside the UK where Hannah and I are. There are things that I loved when I heard them, and would love to reiterate, especially what Annie was saying about time and trust and the building of a relationship with somebody. I think about how often that exists outside of individual projects as well, the idea of seeing a playwright as a human being who's made up of many complex experiences. What Joel was just saying as well, about how you shape a process and the trust that’s needed in order for somebody to be able to find the direction, was something I was thinking about.

There’s a poet, Hera Lindsay Bird, who talks about how writing a book is to not have a right-sized reaction to the world, and I think, often, as playwrights, it’s like, “I don’t have a right-sized reaction to this; I’m really excited about it, I’ve got 700 things I want to say about it!” And the dramaturg is somebody who really grounds you, and helps you channel that energy, and find a shape for it. I find this question of finding the right dramaturg a really interesting one as well, particularly because, as a playwright, and as someone who's quite early into my career, a lot of it has been, in the nicest possible way, given to me. I’ve never been really in a position where I've chosen my dramaturg, which is - it’s, luckily, turned out really well, because all of the dramaturgs I’ve worked with, I’ve really enjoyed working with, and I think have really understood me. But it has also meant, especially if I’m writing about things like queerness or non-binary experiences and stuff like that - actually, I can’t remember who was saying it, but having somebody outside of that experience and someone who can check in with the assumptions that I’m making about what an audience might know or not know, all that kind of stuff, whilst not trying to dilute those things in the play, and understanding what's important, and what needs explaining and what doesn't need explaining, I find really valuable. So I just want to say thank you to everyone, and I've really enjoyed this conversation, so, cheers. 

JC: Thank you so much, Billie. Laura, anything to say? 

Laura: I add my thanks for such a great conversation; it’s wonderful to hear those views. To reiterate something that has already been said, but about how important I think it is that the dramaturg likes your play. It’s, maybe, quite an obvious thing to say, but not everyone is going to like every play, and it's really important to feel that whoever is giving you feedback is on your side and gets it. 

It’s interesting, Annie, you put in the notes, that some of your favourite dramaturgs were choreographers and movement directors, because there's been a lot of conversation about script dramaturgy, which is, of course, so important, but it’s so interesting, that other side, the visual, the physical, and the emotional space, even managing the audiences who are coming in. The play that Joel worked with me on is about coercive control, so it’s something that we had to talk about, how we helped the audience know, before they came in, what they were going to see, but also not say too much, so that was something interesting there.

JC: Thanks, Laura. We have a couple questions in the chat, and I also invite anyone else on this call, if you’d like to turn on your cameras, turn on your mics. I’m just going to start reading from the chat first, but please, if you want to put up your hand, that’s great. 

From Nataya, what skills do you think are most important for an aspiring dramaturg?

HTP: That's a really good question. I mean, to be honest, actually, the aspiration to be a dramaturg is really important, because it’s still not a role that is as widely understood and appreciated and celebrated, so actually wanting to do it in the first place, and having that curiosity, I guess, curiosity about the world, obviously. I think that’s an essential skill for any theatre-maker, anyway. And a love of process - Annie’s talked so eloquently about process, and actually, I think that’s a really important skill, actually, just knowing that the process, in and of itself, is beautiful and valuable and joyous and a thing to really celebrate. That, and an ability to be really present, just sitting where you are and enjoying that journey. 

I do think that a knowledge and appreciation of theatre, generally, and having read and seen and experienced a lot of it is useful, because one thing that I definitely find playwrights respond really well to is when you say, “oh, have you read this book, watched this film, listened to this album, read this essay,” or whatever? Having a fairly wide frame of cultural reference - sometimes in a creative process, you need to bounce off stuff that isn't your own play. I think that links back to curiosity, I would say. 

AJW: I second all of that; I think those are all really, really important qualities that all of the best dramaturgs that I know possess, and that I will hopefully one day possess. I would say the one practical skill I would add onto that is listening. Even though I am quite the talker, as you might have been able to tell, I also think I spend maybe 95% of my time with playwrights listening. And that can look many different ways - that can be actually me just being quiet and listening and allowing them, giving them, the space to verbally process, or however they want to process their thoughts, to do so. But I would say that can also look like, as I'm listening to them talk, trying to guide the conversation in a way that is helpful for them, or will lead them towards being able to articulate something that they were struggling with, or maybe weren't able to articulate before. I think that people often think about dramaturgs as being arbiters, or people who give their opinions, but I actually think a really good dramaturg is one who knows how to listen.

JT: I’ll just add on to all of that - I think it's about cultivating yourself as a really good audience member as well, to have a real exposure to a lot of different kinds of art, different kinds of performance, and to understand how dramaturgical logic works in spaces that aren't theatre. Is there dramaturgy to an art exhibition? What is the storytelling logic of dance? To see how there’s so much overlap between the way things elapse in time, and to expose yourself as widely as possible to different kinds of art, to read really widely, to have lots, like Hannah was saying, of cultural touchpoints. 

One thing I will add is, I work a lot with very early beginner playwrights, and I do find, often, in that space - because I’m also a playwright, it often is quite helpful to have, at the back of your hand, a sense of playwriting, if you're working with playwrights, as a craft - and some people might debate me on this, but to step up to that encounter with a little bit of playwriting wisdom, and some aspect of playwriting mentorship; to be able to  point them in the direction of plays to read, or books to read - to elucidate some of the finer points of craft, and to be able to hold space for really fresh playwrights. 

JC: Thank you. Nataya, I hope you got a couple of ideas from that. Adriana is asking: is there a role for a dramaturg in a play that's not new? For example, a play that's being restaged - would it be plausible to have a dramaturg be part of the team the second time around? And if yes, what role would they play?

HTP: I know that is definitely something that happens in the UK. The recently departed dramaturg from the Royal Exchange here in Manchester, Suzanne Bell, who is an absolute legend in all UK theatre circles, and an incredibly knowledgeable, talented, and kind woman, with dramaturging not only new work, but also existing plays. Borrowing from a talk that she gave to a group of playwrights I was working with - saying that actually, her role in those processes was still representing the playwright and asking those questions of the play. Why now? Who's your audience? What are you trying to say? Obviously it’s a different conversation, because the play is not responding, but you're creating that conversation in the room for the other collaborators.

So we cannot stop doing Shakespeare in this country - it'd be nice if we could maybe have a year off - but I think that it’s really important to have a dramaturg in the room for that, to go, well, why are you doing it? What's the conversation we're trying to have, and what’s the point? How can we illuminate this text and consider its value? I'm interested for more stuff that isn't the classics, actually, and what role a dramaturg could play. I think that's a really interesting question, and certainly not something that I think happens very often here, but then, in the UK, we're very bad at remounting shows, you know; we’ve got a lot of 20-year-old plays that just don’t get [unclear] again. I’d be interested to hear about that from other perspectives.

JC: I’m curious about this question - I think, Joel, speaking from the Singapore context, we don't actually have that much of a use for dramaturgs on plays that have already been produced, in either second or third stagings, or even existing plays; if you’re staging a play from somewhere else - and we don't do that that much in Singapore. What's your response to the question?

JT: Yeah. Dramaturgs tend to be brought in mostly on new play processes, as a way to make sure the play is as good as it can be on the first pass, but the minute it gets on, it’s just, you know - and even if we were to bring in a classic, or a play from elsewhere, you don't actually see dramaturgs on those productions in the way you might in the UK or US doing that very intense research-based dramaturgy to support that production. So I have no answer to that, really - it just feels like it's not very rich in our context. 

I will say, though, that I have worked - so that play I was talking about earlier, You Are Here, it’s an iterative play that has gone on several times, and each time, it's been slightly different. I've been dramaturg on that over several parts of that process, and it's actually been really interesting to start each iteration asking the question - well, what's the play saying now? How has the landscape shifted? How have you changed as a writer and artist, and how do you bring that to bear on this process? But, of course, that's a very specific kind of play, and not everything wants to develop with each iteration. But it’s a bit of a tricky one for me to answer. 

AJW: This is so interesting, because I feel like, in the context that I exist in and that I was trained in, I think that production dramaturgy is actually more understood as the form of dramaturgy that a lot of people who are going through theatre in undergraduate, or even graduate school, or high school, would understand - which is, as Joel said, very research-oriented, looking at researching the historical context of a play, or the production history, looking at how a piece was done and understood in the past, and then trying to reconcile that with how the piece will be done, in the present production. 

I would say that I have done a fair amount of production dramaturgy for plays that have already received premieres and are now getting regional productions or local productions, and it’s often thinking about a play as the production, all the different aspects of it. You can look at it in terms of casting - for example, it’s quite popular to do, like, a Broadway staple, that maybe in its original iteration had an all-white cast, and now a theatre company wants to do it with either a diverse cast, or a cast of a different lived experience. So the dramaturgical work can be working with the director and other artistic team members to look through the play, to look through the text, and think about, how will the role change if this kind of body is on stage instead? That’s just one example of how a dramaturg might be utilised. Or else, sometimes something is, like, everything about this play is great, except for this one thing that’s very racist or very sexist, and we're not sure that it has a place in this production. Then the question becomes, what do we do about it? Is the playwright still alive; are we going to talk to them about it? If not, is this something we can talk to the estate about? Or do we try to justify it within the context of the production? 

There’s a large intersection between production dramaturgy and producerial work, and just also trying to maintain the integrity of - I don't really know how to end that sentence, but just thinking through what is going to help the play maintain its integrity, but also help the production maintain their integrity. And if those two things come in conflict, the dramaturg can be one person who can help other members of the artistic team go through the process of making those kinds of decisions. So yes, I think that there is definitely a role for a dramaturg in a play that's already been staged, whether or not that's a classic play or if it’s an - to your Shakespeare point, Hannah, so many productions of Shakespeare are modern; so many are taking place in different periods; so many want to do gender-swapping. I think there's lots of opportunities for dramaturgs to support things like world-building or cutting text in a certain way, etcetera.

JC: I’ll ask the next two questions in a row just because I'm keeping an eye on the time, and I'll invite you to reply to either one of these, and if anybody has any other questions to get in, if you would just want to put that in the chat, I can read them out; we may not answer them, but it might be helpful to just put them out there. 

From Mary - what do you think is the difference between plays that make it onto the stage and plays that don't? And question number two from Hemalatha - I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly, I apologise if I'm not - what do you think is the most misunderstood aspect of the dramaturg-playwright relationship?

HTP: I mean, that first question, I think, depressingly enough, is just luck; luck of the draw, and what’s going on in the world, and who’s in charge of a building, and where relationships are. Box of Tricks have commissioned and developed more plays than we have put on - we’re currently sitting on a few scripts that - well, not sitting on; that sounds like we are keeping them away from the world. We are desperately trying to find people who love those plays as much as we do, and have the money to put them on. Sometimes it’s just timing and the landscape and the context - there are certainly plays that get put on where you go, “really? Don’t think this has had quite enough development”, or it feels, maybe, very similar to a lot of stuff that's come before. So I think, yeah, luck - that’s not a very helpful answer. Sorry.

AJW: I will just give one very concrete example - the whole reason that Joel and I know each other is because we, PlayCo, read several of Joel's plays during the pandemic, and we love them, and we really wanted to start a conversation about producing them. But because of the pandemic and funding shrinking and lots of other priorities shifting, that just hasn't happened for us, yet - which doesn't mean it won't happen for us in the future, but, you know. So - thank you, Joel, for writing these plays that made it into our hands, even though we haven't been able to find the right opportunity to produce one yet. Totally agree with Hannah; it’s luck and money.

JT: Yeah, same - time, and money; who really claims to understand the vagaries of theatre programming? I mean, one question I do hear get bandied around a lot by people in positions of producing power is, “why now? Why this play, why now? What’s it saying to this moment?” I guess these feel like pretty elemental questions, right? People want to be putting on plays that feel alive and fizzy and that are tackling something fleshy and bloody in the world, but at the same time, you have people putting on work that does none of those things. Now in the programming landscape, especially in the UK, what I’m observing is it’s gotten very conservative, because we are trying to get people back into theatres, so the programming priorities seem to have shifted towards stuff that's a bit more commercial, and there's not a lot of new work that's being made. Theatre is an art form that’s rooted in business, I guess, and it's very hard to get away from those commercial questions as well.

JC: All right - I’m afraid we are just running out of time. Thank you to our speakers, and I just want to say to our guests as well - if you want to hear anything more about our speakers, their bios are all up on the Centre 42 website, and you can check that out. If I could ask my Centre 42 colleagues to put up the closing slides, please.