When I first heard about No Shame Theatre at NC Stage, I was excited- 15 new plays that were rehearsed for just an hour, with only three rules (original works only, you can't break anything, and the lights will go out if you go over 5 minutes). But I've only come out for it a couple of times, because I have yet to see much that holds my attention, even for 5 minutes.
Of course you expect a mixed bag when folks have less than hour to rehearse play that itself may or may not be any good, but where I was expecting and hoping to find a forum for innovation --with a full range of bad plays and good plays, innovative and conventional plays, successful and failed attempts (all of which could be interesting)-- it seems to be pretty mediocre, smutty, and, frankly, boring across the board.
Not exclusively of course, but take this last week. It was ok. There were a few scattered kind-of-interesting pieces that I didn't really understand, but which at least seemed like a playwright working on something with actors and a director-- the first piece comes to mind (about McCain office staffers). There was a strange piece that sort of featured two typewriters (not sure it was successful, but at least it seemed like it was trying to do something). There was a monologue about taking over City Hall with monkeys, that seemed like it was building towards something, although it was too long, so we never saw the ending. There was a two-person political/poetical mumbo-jumbo piece that was of refreshingly different tone, even if it was fairly confusing. And there was... well, a lot of yelling "Vagina" and talking about sex after the prom, and sleeping with your sister, and eating babies. None of which was clever or sophisticated enough to qualify as satire or social commentary. I mean, "shock" only has "value" when used to break people out of their dreary, expected existence, right? I have no problem with smut, but when a potentially interesting and disturbing and conflicted piece about the secret urge to basically rape a friend is played for laughs because --guess what! there's a surprise ending "she's my sister!" ha ha ha!-- it just seems to me like wasting a thoughtful piece on a stupid punchline designed to undermine anything of real merit in the piece and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Were people laughing at this stuff? Yes. Did that make me want to come back? No. It made me wonder if maybe I needed to be drinking more.
I guess I'm disappointed that there is not more to it. Where is the theatricality? Where is the experimentation? I guess I'm tired of "No Shame" being so consistently interpreted to mean "No Taste." I thought it meant "dare to take risks, dare to fail." But guess what: if everybody's doing it, it's not a risk. In fact, it's not even "original."
Maybe I'm just a smart ass for suggesting that "original" should mean something other than "something you wrote yourself," and maybe I'm just not the target audience, but if No Shame ever actually becomes a forum for exploring new theatrical ideas, somebody let me know. I'd like to give it another try.
Lyman
17 November 2008
No Shame Theatre
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I would be surprised if this review of sorts does not spark some sort of extended discussion on the merits and/or pitfalls of No Shame, considering how long it has been going on now in Asheville and how many people have been involved over the years. So I'll make a comment first- yes, No Shame often veers into the territory of bawdy, to say the least. Some nights more than others, some pieces more tastefully than others. What does one expect for a late Saturday night show? But to make a generalized statement about the quality and innovative risks taken by the works from a couple of No Shames does the gathering a serious disservice. Julian Vorus, John Crutchfield, and Mondy Carter have all used No Shame to develop longer works, and have consistently pushed the envelope and played with theatricality in new ways. I myself, as a playwright, find No Shame to be a little too limiting in terms of the amount of time allotted to ever debut sections of my full length works there. However, I do enjoy playing with shorter sketches now and then and find the opportunity to be important, despite the tendency toward the bawdy. No Shame is an excellent community organizer, and while some nights are better than others in terms of risk-taking, scope, and diversity of work, No Shame has become, deservedly, an important part of the Asheville theatre scene. Relationships have been forged there, both personally and professionally, that have gone on to develop work far beyond the scope of five minutes. And to dismiss the structure of this monthly event so harshly is a disservice to anyone considering being involved. No Shame can become whatever it wants, or whatever we need, it to be. If we, as a community, would like to see No Shame explore different avenues of theatricality, it's up to us to be that change.
You're a little off base on part of your understanding of what can occur at No Shame. A group can show up totally polished and rehearsed and ready to present a dance number, a finished selection from an original play, or something as finely tuned as choreographed musical theatre. If you're looking to paint No Shame as this pure theatre in the raw experience, you've set the bar in the wrong place to begin with.
No Shame can be hit or miss. As a No Shame regular I have been in the room when the nights have absolutely sung with laughter and when pieces have left the ready to laugh audience suddenly embarrassed at wanting to laugh at something that ended up touching them in ways they never expected. Can we play to the pit? Uh, yeah--it's Saturday night and there is booze available for cheap and we are generally a crowd of theatre folk--so yes the penis jokes and the smut tends to flow like so much pretense at a black box theatre.If you've come for an evening of performance art or to marvel and the wild innovation and/or horseshit of the experimental theatre, you might find yourself drowning in stuff that resembles people taking their first steps in self expression rather than the finally tuned pathos of the tortured theatre major.But if you use this past month's show as some sort of measuring stick for the worth of the entire series, you are seriously, seriously missing the point. This is Asheville, no one is from here and no one stays for long so if you don't like the writing, then stick around for a month and you'll see someone new. I've contributed to No Shame as an actor, a director and a writer. I've seen pieces that have made me so proud to be part of this community that I could spit and pieces that have made me want to do bodily harm to the elderly. From the pieces the OP approved of or found interesting, their personal bias and preference is clear--and that's fine. We all have our own tastes, and we all have a right to voice our approval/disapproval, but when you paint with this wide a brush, you're not only going to miss the finer points, you might find yourself standing in a corner.
I agree with Lucia that No Shame gives the Asheville theatre community something that it often sorely lacks, and that is, well, community. With all the backbiting and sour grapes that go with any theatre scene, it is nice to have an event where the members of established companies and local theatre luminaries come to mix with people just taking their first babysteps into performance. It's an awesome animal that breeds awesome, if sometimes awkward and socially repugnant progeny. To come to one No shame or even two and say "This sucks!" and walk away is to miss the point entirely.
First of all, a big ditto to the comments by Lucia and Steve, both friends I have met through No Shame.
I really must say that I felt that last night's No Shame was a weaker one, and so I understand some of the mixed feelings about the show. However, I am curious as to how many times the writer has attended No Shame (and when), because that can really make a difference on one's opinion of the format.
I am also curious as to what is wanted by innovation. A majority of these writers are complete amateurs, who use the valuable resource of No Shame to grow their own work from humble beginnings. I have used No Shame several times as a writer to experiment. I would list examples, but I don't want to sound like I'm trying to brag. This I point out in addition to what Lucia has already said about other people who work at innovation. As a writer and actor myself, I value the opportunity to just get onstage and play, and I feel I have improved greatly because of it.
Since both of my pieces were mentioned in a somewhat negative light in this review, I find it difficult not to go into the mode of a writer in defense. I will say that this review does not strike me as a helpful discourse that I can engage in. Instead, it seems to drip with such venom that I feel as if I have no way of responding intelligently, so I don't think I am going to try.
I will also add, that yes, No Shame does have a certain bawdy flavor to it, but as Lucia said, it's a late Saturday night show. You have to know that and be aware of it. But I have seen several bawdy pieces that have also been well written.
I take No Shame very seriously. I use it as a tool to improve myself as a writer, and I am somewhat saddened to see it dismissed so heavily. Oh well, as I am learning, you can not please all of the people all of the time.
As the author of the "she's my sister" piece from Saturday's No Shame I would like to thank the reviewer for their feedback, though I wish it could have been stated more constructively. I would, however, like to address some of the comments made.
First, to clarify, the protagonist was expressing a taboo fantasy. No incest actually happened.
Secondly, I am curious where the reviewer got the impression that rape was involved at any point during this piece. I would be interested to know if anyone else took this away from the monologue as it was certainly never the intention for rape to be any part of the equation.
Thirdly, the piece was not played for laughs. As the writer I was very aware of the audience reactions and other than the few chuckles that are almost inevitable when a piece primarily about sexual fantasy is performed, people weren't laughing. Nor were they supposed to be.
The "surprise ending" was not supposed to be a joke and though I will concede it is a punchline to the piece, it was not intended to provoke laughter. Nor did it. In fact the audience reaction of disgust was exactly what I was aiming for. Not for smutty purposes but for genuine disgust at the notion. Nor was this designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And believe me I have written enough pieces for No Shame that were smutty and were aimed at the lowest common denominator to know the difference.
Would the piece have had more merit if, instead of "my sister", the line had been "my best friend" or something more benign? I am perfectly willing to accept that it was neither "clever or sophisticated enough" to follow through on being a "potentially interesting and disturbing and conflicting piece" or to accept that the writing was "mediocre" and "boring". If this is the case, how could it be improved?
No Shame is often guilty of some of the accusations leveled at it here, but to dismiss it a not being a forum for new theatrical ideas is going too far. Writer's are experimenting and learning here and there is as much value in learning to write for the lowest common denominator as there is in theatrical innovation.
In my eyes this was a weak No Shame, my own piece included. It's bound to happen with a format such as this. I also note that the reviewer and myself come at theatre from completely different angles. With all due respect to the artists involved, if the pieces the reviewer picks out as promising filled No Shame every month, I would rapidly lose interest. Not because those pieces lack merit, but simply because it is a type of theatre I have little interest in.
No Shame to me is about finding the diamonds in the rough. I don't think we managed to produce any this month, but that doesn't mean that the search is futile and I will be returning next month with another piece of original work (as in written by me) that may not meet the reviewers standard of originality but will help me learn to be a better writer. Even if it is as a writer for the lowest common denominator.
I don't think one can judge No Shame after only a few experiences. The sum of the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. As the others have pointed out a lot of it's attraction has to do with community. There were at least three competing productions happening around town last Saturday with completely different casts, crews, and audiences, but a large number of those people all came together at No Shame to fraternize and watch their colleague's work.
No Shame is not for everyone. I have friends that don't like going because the atmosphere is a bit raucous, or the quality of the pieces are not high enough, much like the OP, and I can see their point of view. However I always suggest to them, as I do to the OP, come back for the "Best Of" episode at the end of the season, and maybe you will be surprised at the quality, originality, and innovation of this sometimes mixed-bag.
I like the criticism, though. I mean even if we feel that this is coming from a person with a limited perspective of what no shame has accomplished in the past I think I can agree that we have lost a great deal of the originality that we used to have. I agree that last no shame was a weaker one for me although i don't think it was without merit (I particularly enjoyed Match.com for comedic structure and I truly think Zumwalt is maintaining a good sense of experimenting with different things to do with the noshame format). But I think it is ok to hear that we are getting a bit too comfortable as we had a lot of repeat performances of old premises that weren't up to the hearts of their originators. Also I think we can always get a sense from the level of precasting done at noshame, as that gives us a sense of how much of the proceedings have a sense of being more like a group of old friends getting together to rehash the same tones. I'm not saying every scene in no shame should be breathtaking and that none of them should give a sense of buddying up with each other and doing another scene in a series or another improv bit staple, but I think someone pointing out that we are definitely swinging to one side of the theatrical barometer is something we should consider.
Of course, I can't read, so this whole blog thing is a mystery to me in the first place. One love all.
I agree with Ryan, we all need to take this criticism on board and it is a valid outside perspective.
I plan to try something different from my norm next month and this review was definitely a contributing factor to that decision, though I'd been leaning towards that anyway.
Hey, Rob, just wanted to let you know that the reviewer's comment about "rape" really bothered me- at no point did I think there was anything rape-esque about your peice, and frankly, I get pretty offended when people toss around that word irresponsibly. It was inappropriately attached to your piece.
I also agree that this criticism of sorts can serve a positive purpose- which is to challenge all of us to make No Shame and our parts in it more dynamic and diverse. I personally had challenged myself to write a skit every month this year, a challenge I failed last month, and of sorts failed this month (as the lights flashed only halfway through my piece, I should know better, being a Veteran, how to write for an actual five minutes with laughs). I will continue to write each month, and now I feel like I have even more to prove post this review.
It is sad that the review wasn't written with a particularly critical eye or tone. One thing I enjoy about this site is that two completely different takes on one production can co-exist quite happily. For example, Nathan Adams and Jaimie Shell wrote absolutely contrasting reviews of "Two Rooms", a show I am currently in. I love that. However, it's also great that the structure of this blog allows us to respond to reviews, and call them out on their shortcomings. Lyman, of course, you are allowed your opinion, your tastes, and your ability to post on this site. But as you have challenged us to take a more focused approach to No Shame, I challenge you to take a more critical, intelligent, and focused approach to writing reviews of theatre. There are plenty of fine examples already posted on this site to use as a reference.
Thanks Lucia! I'd be interested to know if anyone else got that out of the piece or Lyman just misread the intent though.
I do think that this review will have a positive effect on No Shame if even just a few of us take it as a challenge to do something a little different from our normal pieces.
hey rob, no i don't think rape was a theme in your piece but I also think we're blowing up the guys dropping of the word (I also have an island called devil's advocate in the pacific that I've rented to be buried on). first off, it's a 'secret urge', so naturally there is no rape in your scene. Also, it's not exactly rape to touch a person intimately as they sleep (and in the comedic tone it even dulled the taboo of that down) but also yelling out "I was just trying to fondle her as she slept!" at your rape trial is probably not going to make the people from law & order SVU any happier with you. Basically, I think the guy exaggerated, but didn't entirely misspeak, but only to play up the (I guess lyman might say dirtiness) of the piece. But no, I don't think your piece was a subversive taboo of incest that made us all just wished we just watched deliverance instead :).
Hmmm. Interesting that a number of people have misunderstood in that the main character never actually touched the person as she slept. I guess I should have made it clearer in the direction that there was nothing illicit outside of the guys head! Thanks for the feedback!
I saw the tent piece, and I too do not throw the word rape around lightly. My problem with the piece is that, yes, the monologue, as written, may never have mentioned actual contact, but the staging very much showed explict contact (all of which drew laughter from the audience). With the level of unconcentual sex that exits within our culture, especially attached to drinking, I feel this piece is tricky. I know that drinking was not directly attached to the piece; however, consent and accountability very much was a part of it. Somehow to me the piece made me think of safety. The girl seemed to feel safe in this guy's tent. As she felt safe, she slept and he thought of sex. This is not rape. However, the piece then moved forward with specific sexual references, again played for laughs. The staging showed a man contemplating an accidental sexual incounter under the disguise of sleep . . . to me this would be rape. "I thought I was asleep. Am I accounting for my actions, or are they just happening?" That added to the "punchline" as you call it, again, very clearly played for laughs, and indeed recieving them, provoked me as an audience member to wonder about the writer and just where he was taking me. In the end the piece felt reckless. To me, this is tied precisely to the ending. Possibly it was a victim of the smuttiness that came before it in the evening, but I feel this is very dangerous territory to be finding humor.
Again, thank you for the feedback. Clearly there were problems with the staging here. If you were listening to the wording of the monologue there was nothing "accidental" about it. The man is hoping that the woman will take the lead in initiating a sexual encounter as he is not going to do anything. What we were seeing is the desire he has in his head. Obviously this was unclear or at least ambiguous in the staging.
From my perspective of the audience members I was observing around me, the laughter from the very specific sexual references was what I expected to see from an audience, and the No Shame audience in particular, though it wasn't supposed to be "played" for laughs.
I take issue with saying that the ending was "very clearly played for laughs". It wasn't written for laughs, I think its arguable that it was played for laughs (that certainly wasn't the intention) and the reaction I observed from the audience members around me was a brief silence to process followed by the disgust reaction I was aiming for which, yes, elicited some uncomfortable laughter. That to me is very different from finding humor in this area.
However, I am grateful to hear your interpretation of it. It seems to have made you uncomfortable, though not in the way I intended, and that is a measure of success in that discomfort was what I was aiming for. All of this is very helpful in developing this and other pieces.
I don't think that all of these respondents should be so offended by the review.
First:
The reviewer isn't very descriptive. (Why did the McCain staffer play spark their interests?)
[Also how do you grammatically end a sentence in parenthesis?]
i.e.-
"...but which at least seemed like a playwright working on something with actors and a director-- the first piece comes to mind (about McCain office staffers). There was a strange piece that sort of featured two typewriters (not sure it was successful, but at least it seemed like it was trying to do something)."
{When using a parenthesis your giving your reader information outside of your point.}
--So why, Lyman, did the two plays you mention spark your interest? Could you help the people that may not have been at No Shame this month understand why those ten minutes stood out enough to be mentioned. Was it because the McCain play acknowledged that it was a five minute No Shame performance and when the light bumped on them it would be their last fifteen seconds together.
Did the typewriter play get mentioned because of the short bit of non-sequitur dialogue offered by the two performers (who began by placing the suitcase typewriters towards the audience as a gift), were interrupted by fellow No-Shame audience members as they began to enter the stage without any sound, finally braking their silence when the two stricken with English tongue began to point at them, provoking onomatopoeia out of these zombie-esque beings, and after enough of this pointed slavery, the chorus began to point back at their masters, provoking even more sound, as is all seven performers cacophonated into a frenzy whilst they maintained negative space, INCONCEIVABLE!, up until the point that the bearded fellow told the technician to bump the lights early (quite frankly because he felt this mumbo-jumbo of people chanting sounds whenever they were pointed at had gone on long enough), at the five minute light bump queuing all seven men to hum as they slowly went for the typewriters, but shit that fucking bearded fellow told the technician to start fading, hullabaloo! these assholes are acknowledging that five minutes just is too much sometimes.
Was that it? If not please do expand upon your thoughts Lyman.
In short, the review lacks a solid thesis. The review didn't really say anything of substance, so why are all of your panties in such a bunch No-Shamers?
Second:
The reviewer is correct in the assessment that Asheville's No Shame engagements are quite frankly not that original. (I recall a skit last year where a woman read a instruction manual as she was accompanied by a banjo. This I would classify as plagiarism, but due to the addition of the instrument it is apparently "Original". Also improve games I played in high school aren't that original to me even though your moment may be just that. [plus improve games with two different "classic" scripts in which your improving the transitions, also plagiarism]) Often playwrights of No Shame are milking the cliche cow for all it is worth. Take the virgin/slut after prom piece mentioned in the review for example. It was obviously written by a man because not even teenage woman talk that way!
The grace of No Shame Theatre around the country, is that it gives artists a chance to experiment.
If somebody wants their play (or rap song) to be performed they have to be dedicated enough to get there in more than then the hour allotted to be one of the chosen.
[The rap song stands out to me as the most original five minutes, in comparison to the other fourteen acts each week in Asheville, if only because it is a separate medium than theater in a theatrically dominant night.]
Now if I sound like a devil's advocate and any No Shame die-hard patrons want to pick a fight,{because it seems that is all the respondents so far} I was one of the playwrights for the "typewriter piece" this month. My co-conspirator and I were also responsible for last year's "Dialogue of Cats" trilogy.
What the two of us attempt is to reconnect with Theater of the Absurd, we never want or expect our audience to understand our intentions. We can only hope the audience will have an original experience within their brain, taking said person somewhere else in comparison to the rest of the night.
During this No Shame's off season my co-writer developed the idea to conduct a Human Orchestra, this is what we performed this month. Yet we knew that five minutes of only people shouting would get old quickly, to compliment this we composed a short script to accompany the orchestration during the hour before we had to stand in line at No Shame so that we may be one of the CHOSEN. Until we were given actors our play was embryonic, we didn't know how many people we would conduct nor what sounds they'd choose. We asked for seven actors and were given four. The play "A Modest Herculean fit of Narcissism" grew from our performers engagement because we constructed their involvement into the script. Each person we were given had to choose their own sound; every question the actors asked about their intention, was answered by "what do you think you should be doing?".
WE needed THEM in order to develop ANYTHING of SIGNIFICANCE in such an INSIGNIFICANT amount of time.
-No-Shame's beauty is centered in the ephemeral moment of each month.- David Segretto
So maybe we all need to take this review from an uninspired audience member as a hint that we shouldn't live in fear of taking some real risks month to month.
You got five minutes what'cha got?
p.s.
[My favorite specific piece from our trilogy of dialoguing cats, was from early in '08, when our "An Ephemeral Dialogue of Cats" in which I shouted "I'll Fucking Jump" got sandwiched between a real and honest wedding proposal and the hip-hop artist's tribute to the 828, later in the night a play with no text but various 70's cheesy rock {i.e. Journey's "don't stop believing"} was being pumped out of a boom box on a windowsill keeping the actors from jumping to there deaths; we thought our play about our cats being afraid of the new dog was something...]
P.P.S. this took me and a fellow No-Shame member over two hours to compose, but my drinking had a large part to do with that.
I really wonder, sometimes, if I am reading the same discussion (or, in the No Shame context, watching the same piece) as other people!
"why are all of your panties in such a bunch No-Shamers?"
I didn't think they were! I thought the majority of what has been said has been a respectful and well-reasoned response to the review.
It's really fascinating to me how perceptions of the same stimulus from different people can be so radically difficult! But then again, that to me is one of the things that makes No Shame, and indeed theatre, so much fun!
OK guys, I'm clearly not talking to everyone here, but come on we can't take the first public review we've gotten of this event and rip it apart for grammar errors and lack of content. I know we're all theatre kids, but it doesn't make us immune if we can review their review.
I love you guys,
ryan
Hi. lots to respond to.
First off, I'm glad so many people have decided to comment on this. I feel like the responses have been pretty fair and thoughtful, and I am encouraged that I may have been a bit hasty in my general condemnation. There seems to be more thought going on than was apparent from the presentation. (Although I couldn't tell that from what I saw, and one thing I remember from high school drama is that if you feel something "real" onstage, but the audience can't tell, it doesn't matter.)
Also, apologies to anyone who felt personally offended. That was not my intention, although I do stand by my original post.
As for the use of the word "rape," that was maybe going a bit too far, and I never thought that any inappropriate physical contact actually occurred. But like someone else said, the idea, even if it is just in your head, of having sex with an partner who has not consented is creepy. And I think that is actually a strength of the piece: the disgust at what the guy is feeling is complicated, because he acknowledges that that his feelings are inappropriate. His body is telling him one thing, his conscience is telling him another. That is an awful and understandable predicament. I just felt that as presented, that central idea was played down for a more --dare I say "crowd-pleasing?"-- physicality, and undercut by the ending. Yes, the laughter at the end was largely nervous, but I thought about the last line after it was over, at the expense of the rest of the play.
Why did the McCain staffers and the Typewriter spark my interest? Yeah, I guess it was because there was something playful about them, that they knew the rules of NoShame well enough to fool around with them (and yeah I realize that if everyone did that, it would cease to be original, as well). But they also felt, like I said, like a writer working something out in front of an audience, rather than just putting something in front of an audience. It's hard to explain. I was fascinated by the description of the Typewriters piece. If the writer's goal was indeed something absurd and confusing, well done. But it was also somehow fascinating. I didn't know what was happening, but something clearly was, and maybe it didn't matter that I understood it.
Anyway, thanks for all your thoughts. It's pretty interesting.
Thanks again for further insight into how my piece was viewed. THe thing I am finding most interesting about all these comments is that, as written, the piece was never intended to have any non-consensual aspect to it. The speaker is fantasizing about consensual sex initiated by the girl. Which suggests to me that the problem was with the staging and also that I should probably revert to not directing my own writing if for no other reason than my poor directing skills undermine my own intent as a writer!
My question for the room is, does the format of No Shame truly allow a writer or artist to "work out something in front of an audience" (as Lyman puts it)?
It seems that some writers are using No Shame to experiment with style or content, with the goal of improving their craft as writers. But with 50 minutes or less to rehearse, and varying levels of acting talent in the room, I think it's inevitable that the most popular pieces are going to go for broad laughs or shock value.
So what is the true purpose of No Shame? Social networking? An open mic night for inexperienced actors? I'm not a frequent No Shame attender, so I am curious what others think.
No Shame Theatre...It is what it is. I personally believe that the event has lost some of the spontaneity it use to have, and I don't go as often as I used to, but when I do, I have fun regardless of the quality of the pieces. We all have our reasons for going, but I honestly don't believe anyone goes with the hope of seeing life changing theatre (although it's a beautiful thing when it does happen). I see it as a chance for writers and actors (experienced and inexperienced) to come together, bounce ideas around,throw the results to the audience and see if it sticks, or drips off. NST is a lab, of sorts; it gives the creators and participants something to take back to the drawing board to change or expand. What a great vehicle,this No Shame. Even though there have been times I've been personally offended, I would never want the spirit of the event to change.I would only hope that all participants would respect the diversity of the No Shame audience, and our community. The last thing I'll say is this: We generally love movies and regardless of whether we like them or not, we look for the artistry within them. The fact is, there was more than likely a test audience whose reactions perhaps prompted the leaving of certain scenes on the cutting room floor. Perhaps NCSC becomes the cutting room at 11:00 on the 2nd (3rd?) saturday of each month. It is what it is.
I have been attending No Shame performances pretty much since they began in Asheville. Unfortunately, I missed the most recent one that seems to be the source of much debate. The pieces I have seen at No Shame since its inception have entertained me, offended me, inspired me, provoked me, befuddled me, pissed me off, made me laugh, embarrassed me, enlightened me, intrigued me, disgusted me – well, the reactions have run the gamut of human emotions with one glaring exception. I have never been bored. To me, the beauty of No Shame is that you never know what to expect. I have never been to a No Shame where I liked every performance. I have never been to a No Shame where I disliked every performance. But even in pieces I have not particularly cared for, I have always been engaged. I do believe there are some writers that do try to push the limits of the obscene or the “weird,” not for the sake of art, but just to push the limits. Those are in the minority though. I have seen far more quality, albeit rough, performances than those that have seemed longer than their allotted five minutes. I have found myself more than once in awe of some pieces and performers. Many of the absolute finest actors in this area come together side by side with the less experienced performers to have a bit of fun and experiment this one time a month. That’s a great thing. No one can give a blanket review to No Shame after only attending a few times. In fact, no one can review No Shame as a whole period. Open your mind, come along for the ride. Take away what you like and leave the rest behind.
Hello Everyone,
This is so wonderful to see! When I brought No Shame to NC Stage several years ago and proposed it to Angie and Charlie, I hoped it would provide a home for anything and everything that's been mentioned here and so much more that's yet to be created. Most of all, I hoped that it would begin a real community of artists and those artists would help shape what No Shame is every month, from month-to-month, or as many have alluded to here, even from piece-to-piece with such variation. No Shame has continued to bring artists together to explore, expand, and take "risks"- whatever that means to you at the time. We've seen artists hump the floor in their underwear one month and the next month write a touching, heartfelt and humorous scene about trying to get a first date- and the list goes on and on.
Thanks to all of you for your passionate, astute comments, and of course thanks to all of the artists who make it happen each and every month!
I hope we keep the dialogue going and continue to push ourselves and each other, but most importantly I hope we continue to have a great time doing it!
Don't forget there are plenty of No Shames on Google video and several other No Shames across the U.S that keep great websites, Facebook, Myspace pages, etc. so if you're looking to join the larger No Shame community, it's out there waiting for you!
Take care, Happy Holidays, etc.
Jonathan.
why do I feel kind of like a cockroach after the light is turned on?
I mean aside from my natural 'buggy' demeanor?
because you are a bug who is afraid to take any chances rob
(1) I'm pretty sure Ryan's name is not Rob, as evidenced by his name being Ryan.
(2) I'm further pretty sure the cockroach comment was just a little joke regarding the fact that everyone stopped commenting as soon as Jonathan (the "light" in this metaphor) wrote something.
(3) Let's keep the discourse to the arts and not resort to personal attacks please.
I've never been to No Shame. Just imagine I'm talking about a play or movie about which I've read a bunch of reviews but haven't actually seen.
It's interesting to me that so often we confuse real experiences with the impulse for feedback, life for prescriptive standards, and the present moment for aspiration. What we are basically doing at such moments is making comparisons and calling it "being an artist". But we are really doing something else.
I don't think No Shame is really about art, based on what I've heard and read here. But it's also not not about art.
No Shame is not defined by a particular artistic mission or artistic product. To criticize it for bad "results" probably misses the multiplicity of reasons of why people participate, and the overarching effect of the ritual that the participants desire.
No Shame is clearly meeting a need that more thoroughly produced theater -- which is mostly oriented around product, results and institutional longevity (all of which can properly be criticized) -- is not.
It seems to me -- from what I've read here -- that No Shame is a kind of social activity in which people are utilizing theatrical activity to find themselves and their purpose -- artistic or otherwise -- within the larger group, through a social framework. By participating, No Shame creates its own community in which its members confront, deny or confirm their relationships to larger communities of which they are a part, and by analogy through performance in the present moment of the ritual. This process can be overt or "sub rosa", shared or private, as the case may be. It can be oriented around writing, performing, being entertained, socializing, drinking, or a combination, again, as the case may be for each participant.
Participants also invent and reinvent the No Shame community itself just by being there and participating -- or by staying away.
More specifically, No Shame is the name of an event in which people interested in communicating with one another through a medium of representation find a transgressive outlet to do so. I don't mean transgressive pejoratively, but rather to describe a place in which the participants are allowed to do or try things they wouldn't be able to in another environment, be it a more formal theater environment, or a more restrictive social one, in which you are only supposed to "act" in certain ways. Now that it's established, you can also transgress the No Shame code by not participating. A community is as much defined by who it includes and who it does not.
It never would have occurred to me that a "review" of No Shame as though it was a object d'art to be adjudicated, would even be written. But what I like about both this discussion (and the earlier one about The Tempest) is that it is revealing the politics of the members of the so-called Asheville "theater community."
The real issue here seems to be the trendy and fetishized -- and everywhere present -- notion of "community" itself. "Community" seems to be the emergent catch-all neo-spiritual goal du jour. We all have to deal with it one way or another, so it seems.
Certain old concepts of self and self-representation through both art and the social activity of art and culture more generally have broken down and are giving way, over the last 20 years or so. We are all now empowered to transgress all previous notions of taste, class, institutional authority and cultural standards to assert that empowerment through our representation of ourselves in association with a "community". Everywhere I look it seems, I see the new content-less deconstructed notion of self, where there is so MUCH validated content that equivalency of utterance has become the norm, and so the content itself becomes superfluous. As a more strict discernment of the quality of such content becomes increasingly irrelevant, the activity of constantly "becoming" through repeated relating to others is now an end in itself. We are increasingly defined by our relationship to the "community". You are your facebook, your blog comment, or your five-minute performance, and it's shifting all the time, but that's okay, because that's the point of who we all are, kind of like a continual work-in-progress with no fixed opening or closing night.
Like the illusion of multi-tasking, "community" is a concept with a buzz to which one can feel an attachment, and a sense of belonging or, at least fleetingly, purpose. Some may think that "multi-tasking" is just another way of saying continual distraction, and that "community" is similarly so generalized a concept that it refers to nothing meaningful or specific. Nevertheless, these concepts are potently shaping the substance of our day-to-day existence and what we do, at least in how we respond.
But this is part of a process of discovering what community really means. At the moment, the idea is in flux, and so, I think, are all of us.
As for No Shame being "good" or "bad" theater, let me note first that No Shame didn't come from nowhere; it doesn't just happen in Asheville. And it seems to me it is a current manifestation of a larger trend (now around forty years old) in which clearly defined traditional drama and dramatic representation has given way to a multiplicity of performance modes and applications, from stand-up to performance art to satire, reflexive narrative, reality TV, fantasy, anime and the graphic novel. And what was once the "avant-garde" is being absorbed and co-opted into newer, more popular activities that are more appealing and social. The role of audience and actor, script and reality, professional and neophyte, work and socializing, deliberate action and distraction are all blurred together -- compared to the traditional model -- and not just formally, but in the nature of each event, which most piquantly must include the audience, stressing its identity as being part of the same community as that of the performers. That the audience in the new context feels more like part of the same "community" as the performers is the ultimate point. It's a collective "Society of Spectacle." So what if everyone's an amateur? Or if a few who are not "prove the rule"? That kind of distinction needn't apply in the No Shame paradigm.
When scripted plays have become didactic and strange to us (and believe me they have even when we pretend they haven't), or when modes of access to a professional artistic elite (i.e., a different community) feel elusive, irrelevant or just plain dumb, the ancient need to create a mirror of ourselves gets expressed in new ways, however rough or unaesthetic.
While I'm sure alot of No Shame material is cliched and unstructured, just as I'm sure that sometimes some of it is fresh and arresting, it's the overall format that is enervating to those who embrace it and believe in it. This fact is clear from the comments here.
The old, usual theater is not enough of a connecting medium for the No-Shamers, with its "us and them", story and audience, professional and amateur -- and closed-off, didactic fictions, not to mention predictable blackouts, moody music, tired designs and pretense of other-worldliness. As conventional art, the traditional theater serves the same function for a different community as No Shame does for its: the promise of participation, however distant or present, depending on what's actually happening in the room at the time.
For Lyman, No Shame may represent a failure of ethics in art, but I think No Shame is most likely a reaction to the failure of most of today's art to respond to today's ethics. The emergent ethic is that self-representation and community building require no qualifications, special skills, or pretense of standards. "We do it because we can, and with others who do, too, and what we get out of it is what we get out of it..." seems to be the underlying credo. The "talkback" has become the main event. Hearing the feedback, I know I exist as part of the community.
Sometimes the theatrical "product" is important or moves something else to happen in the room. But isn't that the same with most theatre? That there's alot of only "sometimes"? And when that rareness is not acknowledged, and the real boredom behind the socialized attentiveness is denied, isn't that just a convention trying desperately to serve the same purpose? No one, especially not Lyman, should be surprised by this.
But I'm not defending or defaming No Shame as art or not art. I can't -- because I've never been. And I probably won't. And that's my business, because my business is art and not, I suppose, community -- except as it pertains to art. But therein lies the rub.
So I ask this, of both Lyman and JF (and everyone else):
Can the Lymans of Asheville and the No-Shamers be part of the same "real community of artists"? Is it the point of No Shame that such people form a community or that they are a community of artists? And if not everyone can be part of both, is that okay? Do we all have to play in the same sandbox with the same rules? Or do we just do this for the feedback/talkback?
Wow. Thanks for making me feel like I was back in graduate school, Ron. And actually, that can help me launch into a response, or an attempt at a response, because that was one dense and serious comment post. I applaud you.
I think, for me, the open definition of "community", especially as it pertains to artists, is basically that everyone knows everyone and what everyone does, is at least mildly familiar with the talents and work of all, and is largely supportive of everyone and their efforts. That does not mean that taste is relegated to the sidelines. It just means that collectively, the Asheville community, or Asheville theatre community, supports all theatrical endeavors in theory and often in practice. More theatre is better for everybody, and there's a nine out of ten chance that I know someone in that show, so hats off and I'll come if I can and if it seems like something I might dig, and especially if you come see my work.
I don't think the point of No Shame is to form a community; I think that's a side effect, perhaps only of the Asheville No Shame, though I could write my old friend in Roanoke and ask what it's like at their No Shame. Every month at No Shame I see people I don't know there. This past weekend, I was standing outside with two women I didn't know at all, and I made the conscious choice to chat with them. Not because I'm a particularly friendly person (believe me), but because I was curious about them and if they were performing and new to the scene. So while there has definitely started to be a "regulars" scene at No Shame (Mondy, Julian, the ever-present Darren, Jamie and Steve Shell, etc.), there are always new people there and I'm always excited to see new people perform or bring work. And really, if you get there in time to sign up, the rules are pretty simple and the same for everybody. Take Eez-Dogg, for example. This guy has been coming to No Shame for close to a year now, and his performance style, if you will, has just about nothing to do with anything anyone else does at No Shame. We could have a debate as to the artistic merits and qualities of Eez-Dogg's work, but the fact remains that he comes every month, and every month the audience, which is often NOT comprised of the same people, clap and rap right along with him. I'm not sure if community has anything to do with that, but I'm not sure it doesn't. But simply by the fact that he has been around so long at this point, Eez-Dogg is now part of the Asheville theatre community, because we know who he is, we know what he does, and we clap along with his raps as he throws them down in his trademark mumble-HEY style.
Back to my mention of graduate school- I bring this up because during my three years at UT Austin getting my MFA, I felt a distinct lack of community. I couldn't really put my finger on it- I spent a ridiculous amount of time in that theatre building, interacted with designers, directors, actors, writers, undergrads, grads, and Phd students, and we all taught and took class and did productions and went out for drinks together. But for whatever reason, there was rarely a sense of a collective ownership over our experience as a definitive group of artists, all in the same place, for years on end. Toward the end of my last year I started to feel a sense of community a tiny bit, but by then it was too late, unless I wanted to get my Phd and stick around for another three years. So what's the difference between the lack of community in a theatre department of over 550, and the sense of a community in a theatre town that - hell, I don't know, how many of "us" are there? Let's say 150, all told, of people who at least once a year do a show in some capacity. Is it because we're smaller? I don't think so. There were plenty of microcosms in the UT Theatre Dept. that could have brought the focus. Is it because in graduate school, people are constantly leaving and constantly arriving? That may be a large part of it. Or is it more that here in Asheville, we do and are involved with theatre as a determined part of our regular lives, interspersed with home, family, grocery shopping, getting oil changes, losing a job, getting a raise, etc. We find time, we make it happen, we see a lot of people on a regular basis and we get to know them.
I don't know if I'm remotely responding to your thesis, Ron, but what I'm trying to get at is this: Asheville's theatre community, to me, is comprised of everyone who does theatre in any capacity in town. I know who most of you are, even if I can't actually recognize you on the street. You, Ron, for example, I have heard about for years, seen many of your shows, and yet somehow haven't ever been introduced to you and am not sure what you look like, though everybody else seems to be totally clear on that. But you are part of the community. I know what you do, I've seen what you do, I support what you do. And per a community, it has happened that I've been around people I don't necessarily like, who do work I don't necessarily like, far more often than I would otherwise. This does not negate both of our roles in the community. Just as the fact that I have made some really close friends from doing theatre in town, and plan to develop projects with them specifically both because I like their work AND I like them as people, does not elevate our role in the theatre community. It just is what it is. We have a common ground in that we really care about the same thing (in a larger sense) and it makes us a community. Period.
As for the No Shame piece of all of this, it's sort of funny that this is all about one night a month that is so simply structured, it could change drastically at the drop of a hat. What if one month no regulars came at all? What if all the people who normally write skits did something completely out of their element, ie Mondy does a dance piece, Eez-Dogg reads sonnets, and Adler Applebaum returns to Asheville to do a serious dramatic piece about grief, fully clothed all the while? What if? Anything live goes through stages of thriving, evolution, and staleness. None of these are permanent. The point is, it's great to have a place, once a month, that anyone, new or wow we're sick of seeing your face, can show up with five minutes of material and perform, uninterrupted, and see what happens. And as far as Lyman and anyone else who does not consider themselves part of what is perceived as the No Shame community (which I personally consider simply part or subset of the theatre community), that's your choice. But if you are interested in live theatre and its artistic merits and, more specifically, in developing, writing, or performing theatre, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to come to No Shame. And if you did and you weren't into what was going on there, why you wouldn't bring your own work and try it out? Pushing the limits of what is the current No Shame vibe is really dependent on one thing, as I see it. The five minute ha-ha skit that tends to be the norm sets a tone which all performers and artists are lulled by; that potential reward of laughter and the already greased paths to more ha-ha. However, to step onto the stage, with a piece of a different tone, with performers who are not necessarily recognizable, and abruptly switch the tone of No Shame from ha-ha to uh-wah, is a bold move. It has happened, and even when the piece ended up having humor, it was electric to watch and feel the audience cock their heads and lean in closer, even if it was out of sheer bewilderment. However, taking a risk to change the tone or debut work that is of a much different aesthetic runs the risk of alienating or boring audience members that may have come with difference expectations, and you will feel that in the theatre when that happens. But if you, or we, care about theatre and consider ourselves part of the theatre community, aren't we interested in taking those risks? And wouldn't it then follow that we'd be interested in No Shame, even if what currently goes on there is "not our scene?"
I have talked myself into a weird tangential circle that isn't really honoring all the areas that Ron went with his response, so I'll let someone else weigh in.
Lucia, thanks for leaving such a thoughtful response to my very long post! I have a couple of quick thoughts (and I do mean quick... this thread is probably maxing out! :) )
It's worth me saying that the "community" issue goes far beyond No Shame or Asheville theater. It is one of those "important words" all over the western world these days. Somehow logic tells me that if everyone defines it differently (as I think you and I do), then it is undergoing a process of definition... of course it can mean whatever tag you put in front of it, so I guess the "Asheville Theater Community" includes all of us, but if I don't feel related to everyone who falls into that category, I don't really see the meaningfulness of the term... kind of like how you felt in grad school. I think it has to be built out of real relationships or such a definition risks assuming common interests which may not all apply. Such is the relative meaninglessness of such terms as "the online community" or "the gay community" etc. To me, such usages are more of a reference than a specific reality. My specific theater community includes a number of people in Asheville and alot of folks in other places far far away. Some of them don't know each other. So it's "Ron's Theater Community" but I don't suppose everyone would think of it that way... I'm not sure that just because we live in the same city we share a common destiny, so to speak.
As for me bringing stuff to No Shame, currently my own theatre interests are not related to testing audience response to new written material in a short-form format. Besides my assigned obligations, I have a growing interest in more intimate creative experiments pursued over a long period with an intimate and ongoing group of people, and much more in private... haven't done much about it yet, except a couple of mini-experiments over the past couple of years and testing some ideas in acting classes, but it's not right for No Shame.
Perhaps we'll actually meet at some point!
Post a Comment