SMs

[Bernard Lavoie]

May be to start, we should look at the current stage managers.   I think
they are a living memory of the stage.  We must remember that most of
the SM work on many more shows than most designers and directors.  Plus,
they see all the performances of a given show.  So they could help study
the evolution and changes happening to a play during a run.

    In the same token, I feel that the stage hands and crews could be a
ligitimate group to investigate.  Some of the technicians on the
Montreal scene have been working since Expo 67, which gives them a wide
experience on theatrical representation.  We can condescend and assume
that these members of the theatrical community are in it just for the
money and have no creative point of vue, but I think that ignoring them
is a waste for theatre history and its analysis.


Bernard Lavoie


Gaetan Charlebois a écrit :

> Dorothy Hadfield wrote:
>
> "As to Denis Johnston's earlier argument about whether anyone is
> likely to
> look up a famous stage manager, I think an equally compelling argument
> can
> be made the other way around. Since the format of history dictates its
>
> function, no one is likely to look up a "famous" stage manager as long
> as
> all our theatre histories implicitly communicate that stage managers
> are not even significant, much less famous."
>
> Now this argument (as it also could be said of women, Gays and
> Lesbians,
> and people of colour) is a good one. Still, it comes back to the
> question
> of recorded acheivement...How do I track these people? How do I decide
> who
> did a good job or not? That is, to a certain extent (and especially
> with
> the internet and online newspapers) easy to track for the other
> groups.
>
> Gaetan Charlebois