About the porn thang, I’m really interested in some porn, or stories about porn or sex workers or what it must be like to work in porn or in questions that I can’t even imagine because I’m so far removed from it (I mean, I ended my porn career like a year and a half ago). That doesn’t mean that I’m going to write a play about it, but I’m open to the possibility that there are people out there who have interesting and valid questions to ask about it. I don’t know what there are. But why not here? Is there no porn industry here? Do people not interact with it here?

I agree with your thoughts about relevance, but I don’t think that I need to eliminate an entire subject matter just become someone wrote a shitty play.

I absolutely disagree that success if very often based on rigorous thought and hard work. I think that is only one piece of it, based on what I can see. My coworker said something interesting - that a big part of ’success’ is how much one is willing to sacrifice. I think that sacrifice can come in many forms, and I think she’s really right about that. But there are so many variables here.

But more importantly, I think there’s also this misconception that everyone has the same definition of success. I understand that, and it’s a struggle to remember what my goals are compared to what I think they should be, or what I’m told they should be.

I agree that so so many artists are poorly trained at the art of business. I’ve been working and learning development and sponsorship for years now, but I still think that there is some work that just lives outside of the system (for lack of a better word), and that from what I understand about art history, there’s often this sort of trickle-down effect where some people make work that is hard and maybe alienating and maybe boring, but that eventually the work filters down and sometimes enters common practice and vernacular. And those people making that work have different goals, and are tremendously important to the ecology of theatre and art even if their contributions are more obscure. I’m thinking about Robert Irwin (in the visual arts world), and maybe in this city, someone like Ker Wells, whose work is different and beautiful and important but who has not cracked the bigger theatres, partly because I don’t think he wants to and partly because he’s trying to accomplish something else, whatever that is…

And also, I think people partly go and see Evil Dead because it sounds like fun.

And, while there may be some interesting stories about Porn, my question is whether or not they need to be produced on a Toronto stage, and why?

Work can barely get audiences, because people are trained, myself included, to believe that most theatre is going to be boring. Audiences aren’t coming because Toronto audiences, en masse, have no relationship to independent theatre. By running shows for longer periods with strong funding, we can work to try to re-habitualize audiences into looking forward to independent theatre, versus it being a thing people go to because their friend or friend-of-a-friend is in it.

People don’t find theatre relevent, because, often, I don’t think it is. I often walk out of plays totally confused … not that the play was confusing, but with no clue why the hell I needed to see it. Why should I go see a play about porno, when I can just watch a porno–or one of the billion documentaries that are likely far more interesting.

Theatre will only become relevent if theatre artists work harder to make theatre relevent. You can pick out some of our most successful theatre artists, and I can guarantee that the amount of thought put into the “why” is very strong.

Theatre comes from an impulse. All theatre does. But an impulse doesn’t mean its good or relevent … unless we are making theatre just for ourselves, or for the artist creating the work.

Theatre needs better work and better business. I agree, there is a ton of good work, but not a lot of great business.

From what I can tell, the theatre that is well attended is so because people KNOW about it. Evil Dead is getting houses because they have a good marketing budget. Tarragon gets audiences because they have subscribers and a good infrastructure. Mirvish gets houses because they have thousands of subscribers and a marketing budget.

I also wonder if just having well-funded extended runs is The Answer. Is this what you’re suggesting? Probably not. There’s a lot of really great work out there that can barely get an audience out to 15 shows.

I just don’t think that a lot of people find theatre relevant. It’s just not that important. It’s so easy to live without. I feel that myself sometimes (which is sad). The ’scene’ can feel so insulated, as well. That’s what keeps me away sometimes. I think your offering could be an important piece of the answer to fixing what’s broken with theatre in this city, but holy moly, there are, like, hundreds of pieces to this puzzle. What do you think?

And lastly, I think that people make work for all sorts of different reasons. I got the impression from this interview that there is A Correct Way, or maybe a few variations of The Way. Sometimes that impulse for me comes from wanting to explore a particular aesthetic, or from a way of telling a particular story that may be familiar, rather than exploring a difficult question. Maybe it’s the same thing, and maybe that’s what you meant, I don’t know.

THANK YOU.

True isn’t it, and a solid indicator of a green theatre town, audiences with no tradition of theatre exposure to develope comparative standards and a common language. Sounds just like Van. The ubiquitous standing O. And not enough competition amongst companies pushing each other to a higher standard.

Also an indicator of a town that wants, and is ready for, more theatre. Challenging theatre, like My Fellow Creatures sounds to be.

Great interview, candid and inspirational, thank you.

i’m betting this page gets read 100 times next january when folks are applying to the 2009 Summerworks. it’s really great to have an expanded idea of what the jury is looking for and why…especially to have more ammunition to send Michael insulting emails when we don’t get in.

what? people really did that? are they nuts? what the f?

i also totally agree with your answer to #10 Michael- the whole indie system with short runs and an inability to make a lasting impact really needs to be reformed.

richard rose seems to have arrived at this conclusion already as the first two shows you listed are in fact being remounted at the tarragon next year, which is great because i didn’t see either of the 1st time around. it would be great to have a way for kickass shows that aren’t connected to a major institution to have that opportunity too though.

I do have one small quibble regarding semantics:

“off-broadway”

we have a serious identity problem in the t dot as the much maligned little brother (or sister) that hopes to grow up to be just as great as our uber-successful NYC brother. we’re only going to come in to our own when we realize that we’re presenting our own things in our own way. and that’s awesome because the stories we’re telling are awesome.