Structure Short-cuts

Last week (driven by curiosity and more than a little 'What if?') I sat in on a class on stand-up comedy. For a MASTER'S course.

Pretty cool, eh? You didn't know you could take university courses on stand-up, did you? (I didn't, anyway.)

The lecturer has a doctorate, and looks just like the guy you'd think would be doing stand-up; laid back, lanky, walking the line between 'geeky' and 'cool'. (He has the greatest Doctor Who t-shirt ever.) He's got seven in the MA program(me); during their seminars they try bits out on each other and give feedback, and then they run a comedy show on campus Thursday nights. It was a pretty riveting seminar, actually - some of the pieces were funnier than others, naturally... but the fascinating part was the feedback. It was all dramaturgical! Ollie (the lecturer) would suggest that a particular joke be moved earlier (or later) in the set to strengthen the overall story; he'd focus on a certain word or phrase and ask the student to mine that idea for more material; he'd get them all brainstorming additional jokes or ways to tell stories or other options for what was presented. It was like a shorthand seminar on how to act as dramaturg (and/or editor) for a theatre production!

The class demonstrated an exercise called 'Find the Link' - one person offers a topic, the next counters with a totally unrelated topic, and the third person comes up with a link between the two. (Fantastic for playwrights, improv actors, comedians, and theatre students in general. Try it.) Another exercise was to ask the comic to go back over their routine and cut out every unnecessary sentence or word - only that which is STRICTLY needed to be funny/tell the joke is kept. Things become concise, you get to the joke much quicker, and the pace really picks up. (Think monologues, scripts... right?) Along with that, though, you also need to consider 'atmosphere' - as differentiated from 'filler'. If it helps to paint a clearer picture and so makes the punchline more effective/interesting it can stay, even if it's not totally vital to the joke.

And so on... All I'm saying is, playwrights and dramaturgs should definitely look into classes on stand-up comedy. Structure, flow, storytelling, hitting punchlines and buttons, layering, character development - in a condensed form, everything you need to write a play is right there.

And you might just feel inspired to go for that open mic, as well...

Friends With Blogefits

This (from what I can tell so far) is a stellar dramaturgy blog.

Poor Lessing's Theatre Almanac

The title alone makes my geeky little heart very happy, so it's a plus to find they've got interesting things to say, as well. Start with the 'About' tab (titled 'Dear Courteous Reader') to get some base context, and then check out what's happening in the world of intellectual discourse about plays!

(Fine. I know that doesn't sound all that exciting. It is, however, still very very interesting!)

((And remember, as we come into this holiday season of charity and giving, to donate to a dramaturg if you get a chance. They can use a good meal more than most.))

Dimension

Tonight I attended a lecture on "Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Pictorial Organization" (which sounded a lot more interesting when I first considered it, and I really thought it would have more to do with graphic design) and I came away with an interesting quote I thought would work well here.

Basically, 2D Pictorial Organization (PO for short) was how artists functioned up until the 16th century or so - the concern was mainly with strong geometric lines and with non-occlusion (making sure no figure was masking or blocking another figure). Art moved into 3D PO by blurring the overall compositional shape lines and stacking figures in front of each other (gracefully and elegantly, of course). The Sixties have a real aesthetic feel for the 2D, with the clean, strong lines and un-blocked perspectives. Essentially, the point of the lecture was that you can function in 3D design and be aware of 2D principles (particularly in regards to photography and film). I was trying to figure out how to ask the speaker to relate his topic to theatre presentation, when I happened to read the quote on the handout he'd given us:

Henrich Wolfflin: "It is characteristic of 'painterly disorder' that individual objects should not be fully and clearly represented, but partially hidden. The overlapping of one object by another is one of the most important devices for the achievement of painterliness, for it is recognized that the eye quickly tires of anything in a painting that can be fully grasped at first glance. But if some part of the composition remains hidden and one object overlaps another, the beholder is stimulated to imagine what he cannot see. The objects that are partly hidden seem as if they might at any moment emerge; the picture becomes alive, and the hidden parts then actually do seem to reveal themselves. Even the severe [linear] style could not always avoid overlapping objects, but all the essential features stood out clearly and any restlessness was softened." (1888/1964, p. 33)

Also: "Since the spectator cannot possibly absorb every single thing in the picture, he is left with the impression that it has unlimited potentialities, and his imagination is kept constantly in action, a reaction, of course, intended by the painter." (1888/1964, p. 34)

Cool, huh? Take note, dramaturgs, directors, designers, and playwrights - if an audience's imagination is stimulated, if the picture comes alive because of what cannot be completely seen, if a little restlessness is not only a good thing but a goal, then you've got an exciting, intriguing, (slightly dangerous in the good way) production on your hands. Think in lines and shapes and images and layering as you put together your show, and see if art philosophers can help you find a more interesting theatre!

It's flat, strong geometrics, and no figure is actually blocking any other. 2D PO!

In this picture, the figures have much more of a sense of inhabiting the space - there is some occlusion, or overlapping figures, and the lines and shapes are softer. There is still 2D at work, here, but it's a good transistional illustration to 3D PO.

Wow, those captions are super-nerdy. Next time I will definitely find something snarky to say, just to get the taste of pompous out of your mouth...

New Page - 'How To Do What You Do'

Wonder what to do next? Check out the (ever-growing) list of possible dramaturgical tasks, pick one (or several) that seems interesting, and carry on.

And when you discover a new job detail to add to the list, please let me know!

http://dramaturgytalk.blogspot.com/p/tasks-how-to.html
(also, see sidebar at right)

The Demon Dramaturg

It's very strange to me just how nervous the word 'dramaturg' seems to make people - specifically, directors. I haven't figured out yet why this is the case. Practitioners who write about dramaturgy have also mentioned this peculiarity; for some, the word is just plain ugly, for others it's fiercely intimidating. It's so odd - dramaturgs are really more like the Care Bears (or, for the younger generation, Barney) of the theatre world... we just want everyone and everything - actors, designers, audience, the ideas going into the performance - to get along! (Well, OK, there's also the fact that if we're doing our job correctly we're poking and prodding and challenging and potentially annoying the performance into 'getting along'... imagine Barney with devil horns.) ((Not much of a stretch, really - but I digress.))

I find it unfathomable, in this day and age, that any serious theatre practitioner could be unfamiliar with the concept of 'dramaturgy', i.e., the fact that any piece of performance has a particular structure made up of whatever types of performative elements (text, visuals, storytelling, movement, etc...). The relationship of those elements (the underlying structure) is the 'dramaturgy', the make-up, of the piece.' So, if you have dramaturgy, wouldn't it stand to reason that you might have someone who deals with it as a specialization? If you have clothes on your actors, you've got a costumer somewhere. A playwright writes the play. A composer develops your music. Actors act (hopefully). And, a dramaturg dramaturgs (deals with the essential structure of the performative experience)! ('Dramaturgs', as a action word, is a term under discussion.) The specifics of a dramaturg's job are, of course, up to the dramaturg, the director, and the producing body of the theatre or company, but it really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that dramaturgs exist and can be useful.

Tomorrow morning myself and a few other Drama MA students are meeting with a group of 4th-years who are interested in dramaturgy. Perhaps they were sucked in by the apparent danger and mystery of the word - as a collective whole, they don't have any idea what a dramaturg does.

I'm so impressed they're not letting that stop them.

Steampunk-ish Novel Mashup

You've heard about Steampunk, right? No? OK, well, it's a movement that allows authors, artists, and performers to create an alternate world based on the Victorian era and 'rude' mechanicals. It's kind of a funky Goth aesthetic - you've got corsets, hats, cravats and pocketwatches, and you've got all kinds of wacky inventions based on the mechanics of the 1850's (think of airships and dirigibles instead of jet planes). I enjoy the look myself, though I haven't started building a costume or persona or anything (yet). I mention this because it's a fun example of the way dramaturgy can function in a day-to-day format: taking a historical, documented and well-referenced era and slotting elements together with developing sensibilities and concepts. It's a whole lotta 'what if' that can still be researched and given a basis in recognizable rules. It's a dramaturgical gold mine - facts and questions building each other up to a new, exciting world!

It looks Victorian, but it's not. Trust me.

Anyway, it's fun.

With that as a background, I want to talk about a book I read recently: Anno Dracula by Kim Newman. The story takes off from Bram Stoker's Dracula (the book, not the -ugh- movie), and while not overtly 'steampunk' in its portrayal or sensibilities, it definitely plays on the related concept of 'mash-up'. Newman works on the alternate-world premise that Dracula is not killed (oops, spoiler?) but instead defeats Van Helsing and Co. and goes on to marry the widowed Queen Victoria, turn her into a vampire, and rule the British empire. What if your neighbors were not only vampires, but it was a socially acceptable (and advantageous) thing to be? How would society function? What problems would stay the same, but how would the solutions change? Newman goes on to bring in cribbed storylines and characters from almost every other major Victorian-era novel you can think of, and a big part of the fun is picking out which characters originated under some other author's pen. (All of which sounds a little pretentious - it's actually much better written than you might expect if you've tried crossover fanfiction or period mashups before.)

All of which is to ask: Dramaturgs, how do you take what has been done before, mix it all together, and turn out something new? Is it about period? How about writing style? Can the writing and the period contrast rather than mesh, and make something completely different? Try writing out a grid of theatrical, period, and writing styles you're interested in, and see if mixing-and-matching the squares sparks something fun.

* * *
Picture found here -check out the others in the gallery!

The Project, the Paper, the... Beginning?

Strategies of Dramaturgy

Charisse Baxter

Central School of Speech & Drama

September 2011

On 8 June, 2011, I sat down with Lisa Turner (director) and Clare Lizzimore (project mentor). Lisa and I were cautiously optimistic about progress on a piece that was being devised, but were at something of a loss as to what to do with me next. We had met regularly to discuss roles and contributions, I was attending rehearsals and documenting the process, and regularly served to provide Lisa with feedback or as an on-the-spot sounding board. This was all well and good – but we both felt that, as a dramaturg, I could be doing more.

* * * * *

This past year has been one of exploration; personal, institutional, educational, and fueled by the need to discover Dramaturgy. When asked ‘So what does a dramaturg DO?’, my response has been that the dramaturg is concerned with research and context (suitably vague concepts that allow for at least some comprehensible parameters). The collective modern answer to this question is being examined in books, articles, conferences, and back-alley exchanges, as the field morphs through a series of job titles[1] and away from (as well as back towards) the original German model of the position[2]. From a North American[3] background of the dramaturg’s role in traditional script-driven productions, my aim became to learn how the dramaturg can function in the UK specifically within the genre of ‘devised’ theatre, then compare the different approaches and see how well my ‘buzzwords’ of ‘research’ and ‘context’ held up in fresh settings.

The project was set with an eye to developing practical research by working as a dramaturg in two ‘devising’ situations: 1) with the company The Space Between (Lisa Turner) for a piece that used Antigone by Sophocles as the source material, and 2) with Conte de Fée (Dallas De Fée) to examine storytelling, extrapolation, and adaptation by creating a performance from an original source of the tale of Otello. The devising work was to be contrasted by serving as dramaturg or assistant dramaturg with productions that operated in the more traditional ‘scripted’ model: namely, CSSD’s production of Edward Bond’s Lear, and two short operas collectively titled The Sound of a Voice by David Henry Hwang and Philip Glass. In approaching these individual projects I intended to examine whether or not there were existent principles of dramaturgy that could (or ought to be) applied to a given situation, and if the role of the dramaturg could function consistently across theatrical genres. My initial expectation was that there would be a few particular ideas or connections that could be generally made between the traditional and the devising dramaturg, but that there would be others that would distinctly separate the approaches and potentially validate the importance of specialized genre dramaturgs.

* * * * *

It has been said that working with a dramaturg is like “[going] on a journey without a map with a person who is trying to make one.”[4] Negotiating the devising process felt very much for me like learning cartography in a place people weren’t aware that their maps might be outdated or under-detailed, or even interested in how to create a new one. That meeting with Lisa’s mentor, Clare Lizzimore, was a master class in basic drafting and spatial organization – after 25 minutes of frantic note-taking I remember telling her (rather wistfully) that I’d learned more about the practicalities of dramaturging a devised work in half an hour’s conversation than I had in nearly in year of trying to work it out on my own. She responded (somewhat ruefully) that it had taken her ten years of experience to lay out the tips and exercises she’d described for us.[5]

A week later I was speaking with a course mate, and as we discussed our projects we realized that “we need to keep talking about our work in order to discover just how to describe it to ourselves, as well as the rest of the world!”[6] The key to dramaturgy for me has been to talk it out with the people with whom I’m collaborating, as the clearest paths are found during or after those conversations. Dr. Joel Anderson refers to the dramaturg as the person ‘at the top of the tree’ pointing the way, as the individual most invested in working relationships, and as the functionary best able to ‘choose the right opposing force to apply’, all in order that progress might be made.[7] I fully expect that it will take me another ten years to craft my own set of dramaturgical maps, but am energized and relieved to have solid outlines from which to conduct further exploration.[8]

* * * * *

After meeting with the respective directors my work as a devising dramaturg began for both productions with research – a task I had expected would belong primarily to the realm of the scripted play. In both cases, however, the groups were interested in devising and developing an original piece from some kind of established source material. Antigone required a packet of information and presentation on Greek theatre, the origins of classical tragedy, background and summary of the play as well as introductions to each of the characters[9]. For O Capitano (the working title for the Otello piece) I presented a historical overview and resources for the commedia dell’ arte form and prototypical character traits.

For the scripted shows, Lear and Sound of a Voice, the process was very similar in that I met with the directors and discussed what they were most interested in and focusing on in the production, and then compiled research for an actor’s packet.  Lear – with its themes of violence, tyranny, and political cycles - was the first production I had worked on that was as concerned with modern parallels as period settings or historical contexts, and I spent a good deal of time looking through current news reports from the Middle East and maps of countries and boundary changes. Sound of a Voice was a little different, as the first meeting (for me) was also the first read-through with the actors. There, I took notes on questions that were raised and themes that were discussed by the actors and production team in order to incorporate the most relevant information for the research packet.

* * * * *

Working as the dramaturg on Lear involved a great deal of discussion and negotiation as to the role I would play (a common dramaturgical scenario), particularly in regard to my expectations and possible contributions. It is  delightful for a prospective dramaturg to meet with rather disinterested directors (though willing to chat and possibly work with the applicant in ‘some small way’ for educational purposes) and see their expressions sharpen as their interest is caught by what a dramaturg can offer a production[10]. The co-directors, Martin Wylde (CSSD) and Sarah Davey-Hull, originally assumed that I would merely observe the production, possibly make the occasional suggestion – by the end of the conversation I had been given a wide-ranging list of subjects to research and an agreement to act as a directorial sounding board, attend production meetings, and document the rehearsal process.[11]

Communication – polite, listening, enthusiastic communication, and clear objectives – is key!

* * * * *

For previous productions I had attended rehearsals only infrequently; first to ‘present’ the actors’ research packet and address a few of the major plot and thematic elements of the show, and then later on two or three occasions (at the most) to address any questions that may have arisen[12] .  As a devising dramaturg, however, I was hoping to document as much of the process as possible (with notes and video) and keep a set of rehearsal diaries, and so attended rehearsals as often as frequently as show schedules allowed. I tried to keep quiet, act as a neutral observer, and see if the notes and observations would be useful to the performers later. Immediately, however, the directors for both Antigone and O Capitano capitalized on the opportunity of having a trusted non-performing participant present and solicited me for feedback and suggestions. Later, Lisa would report:

The different atmosphere was really noticeable when the dramaturg was in the room.  I noticed that both in the role of director and as a performer in Dallas’s project.  The simple act of having two pairs of eyes watching the performance was a great way of diffusing the tension that can arise between performer and director.  I think the performers generally felt that they were being observed more neutrally by having two people watching who could then discuss the result.  The discussion between dramaturg and director about performance felt healthy also – the performer I think felt less judged and more appreciated during it.[13] 

The first real ‘breakthrough’ for me came after that meeting with Clare Lizzimore and her explanation of the importance of the dramaturg’s attention to and maintenance of structure. From visualizing two-dimensionally the proposed ‘flow’ of the work and beginning to recognize the ways individual elements produced in rehearsal might fit into that flow, the focus on ‘structure’ and the shape of a piece along with ‘research’ and ‘context’ established a framework by which a dramaturg might observe, contribute, and collaborate without necessarily ‘pushing the play in any direction’[14]. This gave my work on Antigone (later renamed The Burials at Thebes) a renewed purpose and sense of worth.[15]

For O Capitano I found myself functioning in what I would have considered ‘traditional’ kinds of ways – I edited, re-wrote, and eventually adapted the original source material into a script. Additionally, while a major goal as dramaturg remained to be one who could “[inject] positive objectivity in such a way that works in harmony with … current process…”[16]  occasionally the process also required an additional body and I was drafted to stand in for a missing performer. Fortuitously, this allowed me to begin to examine the ways in which the work was functioning from the actor’s perspective, while also providing the means by which the director could block and stage particular scenes. This shift opened up further dialogue as to the flow and structure of the piece – and a ‘continuing dialogue’[17] became characteristic of our work on that show. 

In comparison, working on the scripted production of Lear for the MA Acting programme at the Central School of Speech & Drama fit my preconceived expectations for ‘traditional’ dramaturgy fairly closely. The research packet was prepared and sent to the actors, with brief presentations delivered on specific topics such as military protocol. I made it a point to again attend as many rehearsals as possible, and during the initial cast read-through created a list of topics and specific terms for further research.[18] In theory, this additional information could have necessitated the production of a secondary actors’ packet, but practicality led instead to the development of a rehearsal blog to which could be regularly uploaded images, videos, explanations, information, and resources for further study. In the rehearsal room I was occasionally called upon to clarify a historical or logistical question, to contribute imagery and text to expand meaning and understanding. I was fairly detached from the performers and production team, and able to closely observe the complex world the production was creating.

The Sound of a Voice, also tightly scripted and intended for the Opera Festival at the Arcola Theatre, ran into fairly severe production snags early on, and has been rescheduled for performance in January 2012. I served as assistant dramaturg to Deirdre McLaughlin (CSSD), and worked through her to communicate with the director and begin preparing the research packet before the first rehearsal. The production was halted before we got much further than that rehearsal and construction of the actors’ packet, but I did set up a research blog for the production as well and it was enthusiastically hailed by the director and production team. It remains in place and will be referenced further once the production is rebooted.

* * * * *

‘Dramaturgy is not something you can import. It is part of the creative process of making theatre. It necessitates a marriage of analytical and creative skills; in dramaturgical work, theory and practice become mutual partners as they do in the scientist’s laboratory.’[19]  As such, it is not particularly useful to delineate a dramaturg’s role into the specialisms of ‘devising’ and ‘traditional’ work; the operating principles remain the same. The divisions of process and style might more accurately be noted as a matter of preference for one theatre-making method over another, rather than a defined need. In this project research was a major function of both dramaturgical styles, and directly contributed to context and the need to assist in creating a consistent performative world and audience experience.[20] These terms have held up well as shorthand references to dramaturgy – this project’s work, though, has added a third term to my list. The idea of and need for structure was a guiding principle in my work on devised pieces, giving not only a concrete sense of practical application and focus but also opening up a new perspective on performance options. Additionally, an awareness of the principle of structure has begun to deepen my understanding of the playwright’s perspective and helped me to see (consciously) further connections between performance, text, and the director’s job.[21]

Any close look at dramaturgy as a practice cannot help but make the practitioner aware of the many options available to explore, including new writing (particularly for the ‘Literary Manager’ and as a focus in Canada and the United States[22]), dance dramaturgy, and working dramaturgically as a theatre critic – all of which are topics worthy of separate research. In the varied and ever-changing world of theatre, the importance of cross-training and wide-ranging experience becomes clearer, as does the necessity for guiding principles to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. ‘It seems therefore that the best “tactic” for a dramaturg in dealing with the “strategies” of …theatre and performance context …is simply to continue practicing his or her craft, wherever he or she happens to be, and under whatever name seems suitable.’[23]

---

[1] Including (but not limited to) literary manager, lterary agent, play editor, script consultant, theatre troubleshooter, researcher, production dramaturg, resident critic, and theatre historian.

‘Something I believe very, very deeply, is that it is the role of the script editor or literary manager or dramaturg, or whatever you want to call yourself, to subdue themselves to the spirit of the writer they are dealing with and not to impose some kind of prescriptive notion of how plays ought to be. So your endeavor is to try to find out what the writer hopes for; what he or she is trying to explore; what he or she wants to say … and help them to make it what they want it to be.’   Penny Gold, quoted in Dramaturgy and Performance (Turner/Behrndt, Palgrave MacMillan, 2008:134)

[2] Mary Luckhurst, Dramaturgy: A Revolution in Theatre, Cambridge University Press, 2006, chapter 2

[3] ‘[When working with a new play and playwright,] the primary and crucial difference between the ‘German’ dramaturg and the British literary manager is that the literary manager usually steps out of the picture once the show goes into rehearsal, whereas the dramaturg frequently does not. Though not an infallible rule (not all dramaturgs have the time for involvement in production), this is the most consistent and straightforward distinction to be made between the two. This means that the dramaturg is more likely to be oriented towards the practical work of production, than to be a primarily literary critic and advisor. The dramaturg’s involvement in rehearsal may be indicative of his or her commitment to assisting the director, to facilitating the production as a whole and to further exploring the verbal text through performance.’  Turner/Behrndt, Dramaturgy and Performance, Palgrave MacMillan, 2008:124

[4] Katie Branigan, Dramaturgy: A User’s Guide, CSSD, 1999:26

[5] Journal, 8/6/11

[6] Journal, 17/6/11; see also Rehearsal Diaries, 8/6/11

[7] Interview with Dr. Joel Anderson, 25/8/11, London

[8] ‘Being on the margins, both literally and metaphorically, my practice as a dramaturg has

by and large consisted of bridge-building, on the one hand and on the other, a negotiation of frontiers between theory and practice, between writers and directors, between the show and the audience, between theatre and academia and sometimes between different cultures, too.’  Duška Radosavljevic, ‘The Need to Keep Moving’, Performance Research, 14:3, 2009:48

[9] ‘This was a unique exercise for me, as in my experience with script-based theatre the directors generally keep the dramaturg as far away from character work as possible.’ Journal, 4/6/11

[10] In this case, at least some of that interest was possibly triggered by a shared connection with Katie Mitchell’s directorial techniques; one of the co-directors had trained with her and used her exercises extensively and I had recently completed a research project on those techniques. Shared enthusiasm is a remarkable bonding agent.

[11] ‘It is … always important to discover as much as possible about the role and approach of any particular dramaturg before making assumptions.’ (Turner/Behrndt, Dramaturgy and Performance, Palgrave MacMillan, 2008:123)

[12] Deidre McLaughlin (CSSD) described this to me as her working process format, used in ‘traditional’ theatre settings in order to maintain neutrality and best serve as ‘outside eye’ for the director’s vision of the work. Journal, 21/7/11

[13] Email response to feedback request, Lisa Turner, 7/6/11

[14] Anne Cattaneo, Dramaturgy in American Theater: A Source Book, Harcourt Brace Publishers, 1997:13

[15] ‘It is true that, as the status of the pre-written text as the primary source of theatre has given way to improvisation and other means of theatrical composition and creation, the job of the dramaturg has changed. But this does not necessarily mean that the privileged status of the eye – partner in crime of cognitive

thinking – has diminished.’ Christel Stalpaert, ‘A Dramaturgy of the Body’, Performance Research, 14:3, 2009:122

[16]  Toby Wilsher, Dramaturgy: A User’s Guide, CSSD, 1999:31

[17] Jan Joris Lamers, Theaterschrift ‘On Dramaturgy’, Vol. 5/6, 1994:286

[18] The rehearsal was punctuated by the technique of calling out facts and questions about the immediate circumstances before and in the course of the play as described in Chapters One and Two of The Director’s Craft: A Handbook for the Theatre by Katie Mitchell (Routledge, 2008) and led to something of an explosion of my list of research topics.

[19] Dymphna Callery, Dramaturgy: A User’s Guide, CSSD, 1999:29

[20] The actual results and methods for applying context varied widely between the traditional and devising situations – with greater study and experience needed on the devising side in my case – but the principle remains consistent.

[21] …as well as possibilities to stretch, tweak, and twist those connections between what is spoken and what is seen – to question the potentials.

[22] Judith Rudakoff and Lynn M. Thompson, Between the Lines: The Process of Dramaturgy, Playwrights Canada Press, 2002

[23] Duška Radosavljevic, ‘The Need to Keep Moving’, Performance Research, 14:3, 2009:51

Bibliography

Baxter, Charisse. Journal, June-September 2011

Baxter, Charisse. Interview with Dr. Joel Anderson. London, 2011

     http://dramaturgytalk.blogspot.com/p/interview-with-joel-anderson.html

Baxter, Charisse. Interview with Rachel Barnett. London, 2011

     http://dramaturgytalk.blogspot.com/p/interview-with-rachel-barnett.html

Baxter, Charisse. Rehearsal Diaries.

     http://dramaturgytalk.blogspot.com/p/rehearsal-diaries.html

Cattaneo, Anne. Dramaturgy in American Theater: A Source Book. Harcourt Brace Publishers, 1997:13

Luckhurst, Mary. Dramaturgy: A Revolution in Theatre. Cambridge University Press, 2008

Mitchell, Katie. The Director’s Craft: A Handbook for the Theatre. Routledge, 2008

Radosavljevic, Duška. ‘The Need to Keep Moving’. Performance Research, 14:3, 2009:51

Rudakoff, Judith and Lynn M. Thompson, Between the Lines: The Process of Dramaturgy, Playwrights Canada Press, 2002

Stalpaert, Christel. ‘A Dramaturgy of the Body’. Performance Research, 14:3, 2009:122

Turner, Cathy and Synne K. Berhrndt. Dramaturgy and Performance, Palgrave MacMillan, 2008:123-4, 134

Contemporary Theatre Review, Vol. 20(2), 2010

Dramaturgy: A User’s Guide, Central School of Speech & Drama, 1999 (various)

Performance Research, ‘On Dramaturgy’, Vol. 14(3), September 2009

Theaterschrift, ‘On Dramaturgy’, Vols. 5/6, 1994