Category Archives: Producing

The FPI Files: Finding Empathy in Echo’s “For Want of a Horse”

by Casey Fleming

“PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T TELL ANYONE HOW THIS PLAY ENDS!” reads the page two playbill note of For Want of a Horse, staged by Atwater Village’s Echo Theater Company. 

Here is where I would put a brisk, snappy summary of the play for you – an implied promise that I won’t be perfectly keeping, because I’m not quite sure how I would explain this world premiere. This, I believe, is a compliment to the audaciousness of playwright Olivia Dufault who, in her “darkly comic, deeply human exploration of love, desire and unconventional relationships,” brings to the stage something challenging and deeply, unusually original.

From the Echo’s website, continued: “Calvin is devoted to his wife, Bonnie. But if Calvin is going to move forward, he needs to open up their relationship to include his new romantic partner. One complication: that partner would be Q-Tip – and Q-Tip is a horse.”

Jenny Soo, Joey Stromberg and Griffin Kelly – Photo by Cooper Bates

Put simply and likely predictably, it’s a shocking play. It is a testament to the writing, direction, and performance of the play that its innumerable shocking moments never felt played for the sake of shock alone, and even a note as direct as the plea in the playbill felt entirely warranted. Leaving the show, I heard two audience members say to one another that they’d have so much to talk about on the car ride home. What other marker of success should we determine theatre by? I don’t know exactly how to explain this play to you, nor to myself, nor what it made me walk away thinking, exactly. But I did walk away asking myself a multitude of questions and for that, I am grateful.

Prominently among these questions – on my way out and still now, as I sit writing – was why does it matter that a trans woman wrote this? As evident later on in this piece, I was able to send questions to playwright Olivia Dufault following the performance. I’m not sure I could tell you why, but I didn’t choose to ask a single one about gender. Sitting in the audience watching, my own trans-ness surfaced and stayed top of mind, and I felt my own interpretation of the play deeply and monumentally ground itself in what I heard the show say about gender, from its first line and every moment forward. What did it change, to me, knowing that this show was written by someone who shares an aspect of this identity? Everything. Nothing. Or in truth, something, somewhere in the murky space in between quiet relation and direct confrontation and a long, long road adorned with familiar waypoints, headed into the unknown.

Joey Stromberg and Jenny Soo – Photo by Cooper Bates

In addition to being trans, I’m aromantic- & asexual-spectrum – a set of identities that, upon their declaration, outline an even greater gulf between me and what/who this play works to portray. The profoundly distinct and distant experience I have with all types of romantic attraction thoroughly colored the type of attention I paid to this show, most explicably manifesting as what I think I’d term ‘heightened awareness’ of the questions it was asking in the moments and motions they were asked. An early line from Bonnie (played by Jenny Soo) about her reckoning with a difficult schoolchild echoed over and over again in my head: ‘as long as you’re not hurting anybody.’ As long as you’re not hurting anybody, as long as you’re not hurting anybody. You could take any word of that sentence and challenge it with this play. What is hurt, exactly? Who decides? How am I, the person sitting beneath the house lights, currently making that decision? “Anybody” accounts for who? What are the limits to empathy?

To dive further into the answers this play offers, and really, what challenges it strives to leave unanswered and openly on the table, I was able to send some questions to playwright Olivia Dufault who shared insight into the evolution, intention and staging of this world premiere.


Casey Fleming: Olivia, I read that your inspiration for this play came from your own reaction to an atypical interview (a New York magazine article entitled “What It’s Like to Date a Horse,” published in 2014). What, within your own experience reading and engaging with the article, made you feel that you HAD to write this play? 

Olivia Dufault

Olivia Dufault: When I first read the interview that inspired this play, my immediate response was shock, horror, and perverse amusement. But as I continued, I began to feel terrible pangs of empathy for everyone involved in the tragic situation – the husband, the wife, the horse. I found myself conflicted by these emotions; to what degree was empathy an appropriate response in this context? From this internal wrestling, this strange play emerged.

Casey: Walking out of the show, I heard a pair of audience members discussing how lively their conversation in the car on the way home would be. What two questions do you hope audience members walk away from this show asking themselves?

Olivia: What are the benefits and perils of empathy? And what exactly goes on in the head of a horse? 

Casey: What did you learn about yourself over the course of working on this play?

Olivia:
I have a high tolerance for discomforting topics. Audacious subject matter invites audacious collaborators. And that it’s shockingly easy to write from the point of view of a barnyard animal.

Casey: How does your idea of what a playwright should do or be responsible for doing – universally, at scale – inform your approach to writing For Want of a Horse?

Olivia:
Honestly, I wrote this play ten years ago, and did so very much for myself. That’s always been my relationship with my work. This play was made to challenge and amuse me; I hope it does the same for others.


I was lucky enough to get to speak with another artist who was challenged and amused by For Want of a Horse – director Elana Luo. She spoke directly to her experience working on the play and the practical, emotional, and logistical learnings that accompanied. 

Casey: In interpreting “challenge” to mean both content and technical ask, where were the areas of greatest challenge while directing this play? How did you approach and guide the cast/crew through them?

Elana Luo


Elana Luo:
The play moves quickly between scenes in different locations, so we had to figure out how to utilize and transform the space accordingly, or perhaps not. It was a feat of coordination between all departments Alex Mollo’s set, Leah Morrison’s costumes, Matt Richter’s lights, Alysha Bermudez’s sounds, and the actors who had to wrangle it all. I’m very grateful to my cast and crew for their collaboration and ingenuity.

Casey: Over the course of working on For Want of a Horse, what part of your understanding of the show shifted the most between table read and opening night?

Elana:
I got to understand each of the characters much more intimately. Steve [Steven Culp], Griffin [Kelly], Jenny [Soo] and Joey [Stromberg] all brought their own perspectives and truly embody their roles, which has added more layers and realism to Olivia’s already well-drawn characters.

Casey: How has For Want of a Horse changed your approach to directing or helped you grow?

Elana:
I’ve never directed a horse before. Lots of poop and subsequent mucking thereof. It’s a very humbling experience for a big and important director such as myself.

Casey: If you were to break down your vision for the technical design of the show into a few key words, what would they be?

Elana:
Beautiful. Beastly. Hopefully Disney doesn’t come after us.

For Want of a Horse,” written by Olivia Dufault and directed by Echo associate artistic director Elana Luo, runs at the Atwater Village Theatre through May 25th. For more information and to purchase tickets, call (747) 350-8066 or go to EchoTheaterCompany.com.

Know a female or FPI-friendly theater, company or artist? Contact us at lafpi.updates@gmail.com & check out The FPI Files for more stories.

Want to hear from more women artists? Make a Tax-Deductible Donation to LAFPI!

The Empty Triangle (or, Why American Theatre is Falling Apart)

By Tiffany Antone

I’m wrapping up my week here with an excerpt from my article on why American Theatre is falling apart. It’s a long read (grab your beverage of choice and find a comfy spot to sit for a little while) but I think it’s a useful perspective and it contains actionable steps, so like, it’s not just an “idea” paper, you dig? And then, after you’ve had time to digest, let me know what you think! I’m all about the conversation because nothing survives in a vacuum.

EXCERPT FROM “THEATRE’S EMPTY TRIANGLE”

THE TWEET

Listen, theatre is not inherently a public good. Yes, we say we welcome everyone, but we don’t. There are gatekeepers all over the fucking place, companies get tribal, artists get catty and resentful, ticket prices go up and up and up (not to mention the cost of parking!)… none of this is actually welcoming. What theatre is, (not due to a philosophy, but rather due to its very operation) is collaborative. It takes oodles of people to make a play. And that does mean it has the potential to bring people together. But we have to stop assuming that community is a given. Community is an action.

And that’s why your theatre space, should you own one, needs to be MORE than just a theatre space. It needs to be a third space. It needs to have a coffee shop or wine bar, or sandwich shop… it needs to have reading nooks and community art space, and live music and OPEN FUCKING DOORS. It needs to be integrated into the community — not just plopped down somewhere and offered as a culture stop “because culture is good for you!” Like we’re some kind of soul vitamin.

Theatre can be a soul vitamin, if it wants to, and if it is looked at as an act of service. And I don’t mean it has to be volunteer — service organizations can still pay their personnel. But the inherent philosophy and its actions/engagement need to shore up. If you just want to make plays for people, you ain’t a vitamin; you’re popcorn.

And I like popcorn! I really do! But I don’t need popcorn, you know what I’m saying?

Anyway, what follows is basically a manifesto of sorts, with diagrams, asides, and a lot of research (as much as I could get done, anyway… no one is paying me to write this) And I’m going to be honest: I started working on this before the pandemic, but then the world went sideways and the whole goddamn theatre system screeched to a halt. I almost had a (much more academic version) of what you’re about to read published during year one of the pandemic, but the book fell through, so now I’m publishing here (with a fair bit of swearing) because fuck it. Maybe it will be useful.

FOREWORD

I’m going to start things off with an anecdote. The story is not my own, rather it was told to me years ago and stuck. I’ve employed it in various lesson plans and teaching moments over the years, but it feels especially apropos here.

The story goes like this: A mother is making ham dinner for Easter. She gets out the ham, cuts it in half, places each half into a different baking pan, and puts both in the oven. Her daughter watches all this and asks “Mom, why do you always cut the ham in half?” The mother brushes the question off with “Because that’s how you bake a ham.” Her daughter presses her “I’ve never seen anyone else bake ham that way.” Her mother laughs, “Well, that’s how I’ve always done it.” Her daughter isn’t satisfied though: “Are you trying to cut down the cook time or something?” The mother pauses, annoyed, but realizes in her irritation, that she doesn’t know why she cuts the ham in half. It’s how her mother had taught her to bake ham, and that’s that. She tells her daughter that the reduced cook time is probably the answer, now can they get back to preparing Easter dinner, please?

But the question sticks with the mother, because she doesn’t like not knowing the answer. So that night she calls her mother long distance and after the usual “How do you do’s” and “Happy Easter” chit chat, she asks her why you need to cut a ham in half in order to bake it. Her mother laughs, and says “You don’t.” The woman insists: “But, that’s how you always made ham. And how you taught me to make it!” Her mother thinks a moment… then answers “Are you talking about when you were growing up? In our old house? I had to cut things in half because the oven was so short. Are you still cutting things in half? Lord, that’s funny!” The woman, red cheeked, thanks her mother and never cuts the Easter ham in half again.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

The prevailing theatre model in the US is one that’s been handed down to us. Its design, and the circumstances under which this system was codified, belong to generations past. And yet, we continue to recreate this model again, and again, because “that’s how we’ve always done it.”

And oh lord, are we paying for it now, or what?

Theatres across the country are shuttering their doors, hitting “pause”, and laying off staff in a desperate bid to diagnose the problem so that it can try drafting a cure. But the very system pausing itself, excising its extremities and furloughing its life-blood in the hopes of rebranding, rebooting, and resurrecting itself, IS the problem.

Maybe we should just let it burn?

Because then, like the phoenix rising from its ashes, theatremakers will be able to repurpose the “Theatre That Was” (beautiful, yes, but also transactional, classist, patriarchal, and racist) into the thing that theatre might become: ubiquitous, transformational, inclusive, and sustainable.

And it begins by admitting we’re not all working with the same oven.

THE EMPTY TRIANGLE

So, non-profit Theatre in America — which is a big goddamn country, huge even! — looks pretty homogeneous. Whether it’s a LORT theatre, a community theatre, or something in-between, if it’s a non-profit theatre, chances are good that the organization follows a predictably hierarchal order of operations. Which means it’s probably got a number of administrators working an insane number of hours to keep the theatre operational via ticket sales, grants, and donations. At every level these administrators make choices with the best of intentions: To stay open! So that we can make more theatre! But this top-down model comes with a host of problems — chief among them being that it grants administrators power over the artists they employ while also rewarding themselves with greater financial security.

Which, in brev-speak, boils down to this:

  • Theatre’s administrators, the granting organizations/big donors they must suck-up to, and the critics/tastemakers who whisper-shout about it all, are Theatre’s Gatekeepers. They have the Power.
  • The artists and audience are the only truly necessary part of the Theatre puzzle, but they only get to play if/when the Gatekeepers say so. They make the Magic.

It’s easy to get stuck inside a system of power, know that it’s fucked up, but not be able to pinpoint WHY. Well, here you go, eyeballs — do your thing:

Yes — this is a visual map of the American Theatre Industrial Complex. Ain’t it pretty? Here’s what you’re looking at:

The map diagrams what each of the primary “players” in American Theatre bring to the proverbial party. The cast includes Funders, Theatre Administrators, The Critical Eye, Creators, and Observers. All five of these entities work in service of bringing plays to life in what I have dubbed The Shared Space of Ephemeral Magic (which is just a really fun way to talk about the physical place where Art and Audience meet).

The whole system relies on ideas, prestige, and money to operate. In tracking each entity’s “Power Lines”, you can see what everyone brings into, and takes away from, the Shared Space.

And, as you look at the diagram, you can probably SEE why everything feels broken right now: inequity is literally baked into our prevailing model, making it nearly impossible for any of us to create with equity at the center of our work.

So yeah, it’s pretty clear why we’re all so fucking frustrated.

And yes, there are very real financial reasons theatre currently works the way it does, but the diagram shows us that there are under-valued nexus points already in play in the predominant operating model which we can refocus our energies into mobilizing.

So, if you’re still with me, I’m going to spend a little time breaking the model down for you and address the obvious questions (Why are you calling it the Empty Triangle? What the heck is the Invisible Triangle? Power lines? What? Do you honestly think you can do better?)

To the last point: Yes, and this whole thing ends with a push for us to invest in an Abundant Circle model of practice instead. So hang with me a bit, and then ya’ll can chew things over and decide for yourselves what — if anything — you want to do about it.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE

#FringeFemmes 2024: A Chat With Bonnie He

By Eloise Coopersmith

Bonnie He is an Asian American actor, improviser,  writer, award-winning physical comedian and clown and Hello Kitty super fan.  At #HHF24 she added producer to that list [co-producing “Recolonizers” – LAFPI nods to the show’s femme writers Megan Sass & Keisha Zollar]. I caught up with her before she headed out in her European tour for her solo show, “A Terrible Show for Terrible People.” 

Bonnie He – photo by Nicol Biesek

Eloise: When did you first start performing and what have been a few of your favorite fringe stops/experiences?

Bonnie: My very first Fringe experience was at Hollywood Fringe in 2022 with my clown show, “A Terrible Show for Terrible People.” I originally debuted it back in 2018, and I began studying clowning in 2014, so it took me 8 years to begin my Fringe journey. Hollywood Fringe holds a special place in my heart; I received the Diversity Scholarship, won Best Comedy, and met lifelong friends which has made HFF incredibly memorable. Another cherished experience was at Orlando Fringe Winter-Mini Fest, which was exceptionally welcoming and well-organized. Say what you will about Florida, but Orlando is truly magic.

Eloise: You have been very successful at the Fringe with audiences and awards. What does success mean to you?  Is it a packed house, income, creative satisfaction…?

Bonnie: Not gonna lie, for me a successful show has to start with a packed audience. That’s the risk of doing an interactive clown show – you don’t have a show if you don’t have an audience. At one of my first festivals, before I understood how to market my show, I had like only 2 people in the audience and I had no choice but to use them both twice. It was not really a pleasant experience for everyone involved haha. When the audience is full, there’s a synergy that just sparks, and I love feeling the joy of the audience – a lot of them discovering clowning for the first time.

Eloise: You have served as Fringe mentor and producer – what drew you to be more than “just a performer?”

Bonnie: At the Fringe, you wear many hats – you’re not just a performer but also a producer. I believe in being a self-starter; if you don’t produce your own work, who will? I really enjoyed producing my own show and felt that I could help other people get their show on their feet. There’s a joy in helping bring something to life. I feel very grateful I was asked to produce “Recolonizers” for the Hollywood Fringe this year, to help them bring their exciting ideas to life.

Eloise: What makes the Fringe experience different for you?

Bonnie: The Fringe experience is uniquely inspiring. It’s a gathering of dreamers and creators, all striving to realize their artistic visions. The energy and excitement are palpable, making it a truly special environment to be in.

Eloise: Last, one world of advice for Fringers and/or for those out there thinking of coming to see shows? 

Bonnie: For Fringers and those attending shows alike, my advice is simple: immerse yourself in the diverse offerings the Fringe has to offer. Take chances on new and unconventional performances—you never know what hidden gem you might discover. And of course, don’t miss “Recolonizers,” a wild ride of a show that promises to entertain and provoke thought. Catch us on Thursday, 6/27 at 8pm and Saturday, 6/29 at 2:30pm.

For info and tickets visit https://www.hollywoodfringe.org/projects/10841