Mission: Imperceptible
Posted on | June 25, 2007 | 6 Comments
A couple of days ago, a friend of mine and I were discussing a couple of theatres as I was planning for upcoming auditions. My friend – a semi-regular theatre-goer and a canny observer – asked at one point, “So what types of shows do they do?” And I replied, “Well, you know, they do plays.” She thought I was being facetious, but I was, in fact, describing the extent I knew of the company’s mission – and not for want of investigation.
It got me thinking: of the “over 200 theatres” in Chicago (to use the oft-quoted number), how many have a clear mission or vision and are consistent in the pursuit of that vision?
I know this is an inherently sensitive question. For the over-worked and underpaid-if-at-all artistic leadership of most theatre companies, the dogged pursuit of a theatrical vision is all that keeps them going through the petty squabbles, the indifference of the throng, the endless licking of stamps. To say there’s something wrong with their mission statement or their execution of it is a kick in the groin. When I think about the theatre company I would start, the mission-as-central-organizing-aesthetic is the main stumbling block – I would want it to reflect my rock-solid belief in the power of theatre as an agent of exploration and change. If someone were to come along and say, “Your mission is watery at best and the plays you pick serve none but your ego or your ill-advised sense of the marketable,” I would probably be hard pressed not to beat them to death with an ERS.
As an idealist with a penchant for the pedantic, I tend to think of a mission as the raison d’etre, and I know many artistic directors struggle with the wording and intent of these statements of purpose, and whether or not their seasons are fulfilling that mandate. But despite that, as a relatively avid theatre-goer, I can count on two hands the theatres I think have a strong public identity. Beyond the Big Two (The Major Regional Theatre and The Slightly More Adventurous Major Regional Theatre), you have a half dozen or so companies whose mission statement directly determines the work they do (eg. Court, Stage Left, LifeLine, TimeLine), a few have positioned themselves to be the voice of a particular group (About Face, Congo Square, Teatro Vista) and a few others that have managed the ever-so-tricky feat of having a recognizable aesthetic to their productions (eg. Lookingglass, House, Profiles, Neofuturists). On the other hand, their name is legion whose mission is to “produce plays which challenge/excite/affect” – in other words, to do good theatre.
So does a theatre’s mission matter? A strong mission can be limiting, to be sure, but it can also force an organization to dig deeper into the theatrical canon than, say, the plays from which their senior year scene-study courses were drawn. One could also make the argument that a company with a strong sense of purpose lodges itself in the minds of audiences and can better withstand issues of turnover and dissension in the ranks. Even a cursory glance at the roles of theatre companies that lasted a year or two – regardless, possibly, of relatively massive upfront monetary resources or stores of talent – will find many a wispy thesis on the “power of theatre to move mountains.”
However, you could also make the argument that the endless productions of Glass Menagerie and True West are the crucial base note to the Chicago Theatre score. Or, not to put to fine a point on it, the mandatory primary education in theatre-going that allows us to constantly develop a well-equipped audience for the more avant-garde productions. The strange thing about theatre is, if it’s not happening now, it might as well never have happened – so last month’s Our Town isn’t going to help the guy who still hasn’t seen it this month. And maybe I’m being too harsh when I criticize companies’ “do only good theatre” statements as shallow. I brought my “empty missions” theory up to Damon Kiely, outgoing Artistic Director of ATC, a couple of years ago, as a possible symptom of What’s Wrong with Chicago Theatre. Having just returned from a long stint NYC, he responded, “That’s what makes Chicago different. In New York, people say ‘We just want to do a show that people like.’”
What does the Theatre Utopia look like, from a standpoint of organization mission and the attendant viewpoints expressed? Is it a city of strong and clearly defined areas of exploration – like the grid of an archaeological site each doing very different work and rarely re-tilling old ground? Or is there a place for the theatres working the Harcourt-Brace Anthology of Drama, perhaps in a world where the 19th Century stock company concept gets reinvented on the neighborhood level, and the local yeomanry do O’Neil and Odets for the benefit of Rogers Park and Roscoe Village.
Or is all this talk of missions just a philosophical exercise? Is a mission really even important? Where does “supporting a mission” fall in order of importance for a potential patron as opposed to, say, production quality or the appeal of a particular work? How much does it determine where actors, designers and directors seek to ply their trade?
Buy me a beer?Comments
6 Responses to “Mission: Imperceptible”
Leave a Reply
June 26th, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I tend to lean towards the New York point of view (shock and awe!). Not in that a mission statement can’t be an integral part of a company’s output, but that a company shouldn’t feel obliged to create a mission statement in order to have integrity.
Were I to found a company (and in times of frustration, like most everybody, it’s been a thought), the whole point (and the source of the frustration) would be that what I want to see done on stage in Chicago is simply not being done on stage in Chicago. That goes for apparently unloved shows and movements (I could kill for some Arrabal), approaches to staging/creation in general (I’ve got a Romeo and Juliet approach (note: not concept, approach) that I’m patiently waiting to find an interested party for), and, to an extent, works of my own that rather fall into the second category (although I’m still working on making that not feel like a big ego trip).
But a mission statement? Meh. My only goal would be to never allow for audience expectations. And while I’m sure that one could derive some sort of “expect the unexpected” mission from that, why bother? It’s not for me — I know what I want to do and why. And holding the audience’s hand is not a part of that, so it’s certainly not for them.
But then again, going back and reading what I just wrote, I’m probably not the best party to ask…
June 26th, 2007 @ 10:37 am
I firmly believe a mission is the reason for a company existing, and should be what drives the development of a company.
Many (if not most) think that missions are blah blah-funders want to hear something–as opposed to being the reason the company exists. So if you think your mission is bullshit, you tend to turn out vague bs nonsense. I guess the thought is no funder can smell bs?
The real reason many companies are in existence is for the members to work, do the plays they want to do, and sometimes to grow as artists.
I don’t know of many companies that are honest enough to say that about themselves.
But then again, you don’t have to start a company, become a non-profit, and ask people for money to do your work.
That’s when it gets tricky. If a company can’t tell someone what their reason for being is, why should someone give them money?
June 26th, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Paul -
“… the whole point (and the source of the frustration) would be that what I want to see done on stage in Chicago is simply not being done on stage in Chicago.”
I completely agree – frankly, I think that’s the motivation for any endeavor of expression: what you’re hearing from others by way of explaining the way the world works is not satisfactory, so you gotta get up and say your piece.
Incidentally, I just remembered a conversation circa 1997 when I had a short-lived band. The guy who played guitar for us told me, “I don’t write because there are songs out there that say exactly how I feel already.”
As I get older, this statement just seems sadder.
June 26th, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Tony -
Yeah, I was wondering how much of the composition of a mission statement had to do with jumping through funding hoops.
“The real reason many companies are in existence is for the members to work, do the plays they want to do, and sometimes to grow as artists.
I don’t know of many companies that are honest enough to say that about themselves.”
And is that a valid reason d’etre? I go back and forth on that. I mean, arguably, Steppenwolf formed the same way umpteen new theatre companies are formed in this city every summer – recent college grads who don’t go to NYC or LA band together to do shows together. That they started a “gritty realism,” storefront theatre movement seems to me to have been a function of their personality and their lack of resources rather than a concerted effort. And, again arguably, that group developed some really fine artists that may not have developed otherwise.
So is there a place for that sort of theatre? Lord knows they’re out there now, but would we (as audience members and as professionals) accept them if they just came out and said, “Hey, man, we’re just here to rock!” and continued to bang on their perhaps poorly tuned instruments into the wee hours? Here, again, it’s almost the stock company idea – back before there was such a thing as “actor training” – which wasn’t too terribly long ago – people just crawled up on stage wherever they could get in and played a bunch of parts until they found talent, or a niche, or were driven to law school.
And would they be better off without delusions of grandeur – encouraged for two or three seasons of working together en masse before calling it a day and moving on? This is the other pernicious problem with the “Next Steppenwolf” syndrome: nobody is willing to think small – everyone wants 15 year anniversaries and custom built theatres, and anything less is a dismal failure and a crying shame.
June 27th, 2007 @ 11:35 am
“Hey, man, we’re just here to rock!” and continued to bang on their perhaps poorly tuned instruments into the wee hours?”
Dan – You have no idea how many times I’ve just wanted to delete our mission statement and start from those very words.
=)
Thanks, everyone, for talking about “the mission”. It’s really helpful … are there any amateur or professional “mission writers” out there that would want to collaborate on our current mission? I’ve been wanting to give it a facelift for a while. We wrote it from the heart, but I think it could “rock and roll” a little bit harder. Heh heh.
Great post, Dan. Nice to meet you electronically.
RebeccaZ
June 27th, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Thanks, Rebecca!