The Purple Rose Theatre Company Script Library: Collection as Process
Everett Wiggins School of Information 504 5 December 2003
In case you haven't noticed, the New American Play can't get a cup of coffee in New York. It seems to me that if the American Theatre is to remain vital it must produce American plays and it can only do that by supporting, nurturing, and developing American playwrights. (Jeff Daniels, PRTC website) The majority of contemporary American theatre successes begin with development in regional theatres and other workshop venues, where the playwrights benefit from the interaction between their work and the creative contributions of theatre artists and audiences, who help bring the plays to a point of completion. (Kahn & Breed 1995, xiii) The Purple Rose Theatre, in Chelsea, Michigan, is fast becoming known as one of America’s top developmental theatres. This theater sees its mission as developing new talent, both on- and off-stage. Thirty-one of their forty-four productions to date have been world premier performances, and in the past five years, three of their plays have been nominated “Best New Play” by the American Theatre Critics Association, with Lanford Wilson’s “Book of Days” winning the award in 1998. When asked about the secret of their success, Artistic Director Guy Sanville most often answers, “We don’t pick plays. We pick playwrights” (PRTC 2003, 3). Since they put so much emphasis on new, original work, they receive a large number of unsolicited manuscripts each year. These scripts, to be read and evaluated for production potential, are referred to as the script library, and comprise a collection which provides an interesting look at how the theatre goes about the business of making plays.
The Purple Rose Theatre Company (PRTC) was founded in 1991 by Chelsea native Jeff Daniels. According to their website, “it was his dream to bring quality live entertainment to Michigan audiences at an affordable ticket price. He also wanted to make educational programs available to people interested in pursuing a career in theatre”. Daniels had benefited from an apprenticeship at the Circle Repertory Theatre in New York as a young
actor and hoped to make such an experience available to aspiring talent in the Midwest, as well as providing an outlet for Midwestern playwrights who would otherwise be unable to see their work staged: “I wanted a professional theatre company, featuring midwestern actors, directors, designers, and playwrights situated in the middle of America producing plays about the middle of America.” Thus, the theatre’s mission, as stated on its website, is “to seek out and develop playwrights, actors, designers and directors who believe a healthy, working theatre can strengthen a healthy working community” (PRTC website).
Daniels himself provides an example of why this process is necessary. To date, he has written nine plays produced by PRTC. Early on, he was developing his craft, but four of his plays are now carried by Dramatists Play Services and his most recent show, “Across the Way”, was a finalist for the 2002 American Theatre Critics Association “Best New Play”. PRTC has gotten to be very good at finding and developing new talent; the script library is how they keep a stock of fresh new plays on hand.
The PRTC website sets out submission guidelines for playwrights, which describe the intake procedure for new material.
SCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
The Purple Rose Theatre Company is dedicated to the development and production of new plays and emerging playwrights. We enjoy reading unsolicited scripts and script synopses. Please note that we do not accept screenplays as we are unable to review them. SNAIL MAIL SUBMISSIONS: If you're thinking of sending us an inquiry, the preferred method would be to send
the following: * A one page synopsis of the script * A character breakdown of the script * A fifteen page dialogue sample from the script * A Self Addressed Stamped Postcard for our reply If you choose to send in a full script, include all of the above except the postcard. If you would like the script returned to you, include an SASE of appropriate size. If you would like to send a synopsis or full script via snail mail, please send it to: Purple Rose Theatre Company Attn: Anthony Caselli PO Box 220 Chelsea, MI 48118
EMAIL SUBMISSIONS: We welcome your email submissions! Being a not-for-profit organization, we are not blessed with unlimited RAM and disk space on our computers. Please do NOT email full scripts! If you'd like to submit an email synopsis, please include: * A one page synopsis of the script * A character breakdown of the script * A 5 page dialogue sample from the script
Because of our dedication to producing new work, we receive hundreds of scripts, synopses and inquiries each season. Each script received is read by at least 3 of our professional readers. Because of this thoroughness, a waiting period of 6 to 8 months before you get a response is not uncommon.
Should you have any further questions on our Literary Department or policies, don't hesitate to email the Associate Artistic Director, Anthony Caselli, at
[email protected]
We look forward to hearing from you! (PRTC website) Before delving into what happens once an item enters the PRTC script library, however, it is helpful to understand how other, similar theatres operate. Unfortunately, very little
has been written about this aspect of the script development process. What does exist is aimed at playwrights hoping to write and market scripts1, or at dramaturgs and directors2 to assist in their evaluation. Having searched the literature to no avail, we must turn to other sources for insight. Fortunately, the internet makes this much easier. URLs for the websites consulted are available in the bibliography.
An open submission policy for unsolicited scripts is no longer common. Among eleven theatres suggested as good examples of script development, five accept unsolicited scripts. Three others accept synopsis, and will request full scripts based on their interest, while one of those accepting unsolicited scripts prefers this method as well. Three no longer accept unsolicited submissions of any sort. One theatre no longer accepting scripts attributed this directly to current economic conditions, stating that staffing levels could no longer support reading unsolicited material. None of the theatres accepting unsolicited scripts allow electronic submission3. Those requesting synopsis and dialogue samples were split on the subject: one requests only print submissions, one only electronic, and the third accepts synopsis in either form. From these synopses, each theatre requests those plays which may be of interest, and when these are received, adds the play to its manuscript collection for evaluation.
As these findings may suggest, the collection of new play manuscripts at PRTC is not so much a set of physical objects as a process: the process by which material passes through this collection on its way to being staged for performance. The physical items being 1
See, for instance, Kahn & Breed’s Scriptwork or Singer’s Stage Writers Handbook. See, for instance, Ball’s Backwards and Forewards. 3 As Caselli noted, electronic submission would complicate the process, add printing expense, and require more computing power than the theatre can afford. 2
considered in this collection are manuscripts of new plays: typewritten, bound pages of paper covered in ink. Most of these plays have never been produced, and many are from rank amateurs. Most are also not very good4; nonetheless, they are all important to their authors. These items represent a great deal of work, and carry great hope. They occupy two bookshelves and a file drawer in a junior staff member’s office. This collection is more subject than most to deselection; it is (necessarily) of a more transient nature than what we generally think of as a ‘collection’. This script library is not intended to collect and preserve examples of good plays, but to facilitate new play evaluation and production. An item enters the collection for the sole purpose of leaving it—when the play is evaluated, it is either purged from the collection or produced. Either way, it leaves this collection.
Anthony Caselli, Assistant Artistic Director at PRTC, who oversees the script development process and the script library, was kind enough to describe the PRTC evaluation process in an interview on 24 October, 2003. As noted in the submission guidelines, PRTC accepts both script synopses and full manuscripts. Synopses simplify the process somewhat; while adding an additional step, reading a plot outline and dialogue sample takes much less time than reading an entire manuscript, and allows him to decide immediately whether the piece is a good match for the theatre. If it is, he requests a full script—which then goes through the same evaluation process as an unsolicited script. The only exceptions to this process are known commodities, plays either by commissioned authors, solicited at new play festivals, or by writers with whom
4 “As an apprentice, script reading mostly seemed like punishment. In the entire year, I read 2 plays that I would say were any good; only several more that weren't out and out painful” (Duffield 2003).
the theatre has worked in the past. These are plays the theatre wants to see, rather than plays that playwrights want seen, and thus get “fast-tracked” directly to Caselli for evaluation (Caselli 2003).
The purpose of this evaluation process is simple: it reduces the number of plays Caselli must read. He estimates that PRTC receives two to three hundred scripts each year5, and as many separate synopses submissions, yet the theatre only puts on four shows each season. To cut through the large number of (often very bad) plays, PRTC has developed a routine for this process. This routine is something that all apprentices learn early in their stay, so that any member of staff can perform any of the functions necessary, though in reality, most of the work is done by apprentices. PRTC does not currently have explicit policies governing the collection, though the apprentice handbook used to describe the process. However, the theatre has changed the process since then, and now relies on oral tradition. While this could be troublesome, it seems that very few groups have formalized or codified their processes, trusting ad-hoc, in-house processes that work for the specific organization. This may be why so little literature on the subject exists.
5
Actual number of scripts logged each year 1997 - 197 1998 - 142 1999 - 97 2000 - 175 2001 - 189 2002 - 225 2003 (so far) - 184 The low number in 1999 is due to not having offices that year because of building renovation (Duffield 2003).
A script arrives at the theatre6. The office manager opens the package, determines that it is a new scripts, and delivers it to Caselli. Caselli performs a cursory examination to determine two things: was this script requested from a synopsis or known author—in which case it is fast-tracked—and is it feasible for the theatre to stage the play. Some are immediately rejected as impossible; these plays are not logged in the script library database. All others are then turned over to an apprentice for processing.
Processing a script for entry into the library involves two basic steps. First, it is entered into the script database. The PRTC uses a very simple MyMail database from Microsoft, originally designed to manage mailing lists. Since it is customizable and searchable, and PRTC does not record a great deal of data on each script, it serves their purpose well without being complicated—a very important feature, because PRTC takes on and trains new apprentices twice a year. The database includes fields for a unique script reference number, the author’s name, script title, date received, date returned or recycled, whether a return envelop was included, if the author is local, and agent information as well as a notes field for comments such as whether the script was requested. It is searchable on the script number, author, and title fields, which makes finding and updating records easy. The database script registration numbers are what makes the collection useful, by providing order. The format is chronological yyyy-#### (e.g. 2003-0123), based on the year and order in which scripts are received, telling both when a script was acquired and where its accompanying documents are filed. This number goes on the script, all correspondence, evaluations, and other associated papers, connecting each to the official database record and corresponding provenance. 6
See Appendix A for visual representation of the process.
The second step involves creating a paper file for materials accompanying or relating to the script. This material, such as the cover letter, reviews, and recommendations, is all marked with the script number assigned to the item in the script database. Likewise, as readers provide evaluations, these are marked with the script number and filed with the cover letter. These paper materials are kept for at least a year after the script has been evaluated, in case the author asks for comments, before being recycled.
Fast-track scripts are then returned to Caselli for his immediate evaluation. All others go into the script library, where they wait—sometimes up to thirteen months—for an initial reading; each play will be evaluated by two different readers. Each reader will fill out a Play Evaluation Comment Sheet7, which rates the story, dialogue and characters on a five-point scale and assesses the development potential of both play and playwright. To insure that evaluations have some degree of consistency and are informed by the PRTC aesthetic, all apprentices and other potential readers go through a play-craft workshop. This seminar addresses basic dramatic structure, to remind readers of the need for a clear protagonist and antagonist, as well as formal plot structure considerations such as having an early incident causing conflict, which the protagonist then tries to resolve until reaching a climactic moment of decision. While anyone volunteering to evaluate plays for the theatre doubtless already knows this, the reminder is necessary because the plays being considered are often from new, untrained authors who lack these basic structural techniques. Reminding the readers of how a good play is built helps them identify problems in the scripts they read. The seminar also teaches what PRTC looks for in a 7
See Appendix B for copies of Play Evaluation Comment Sheet and sample form letters
play; in general, they try to avoid “issue” plays, preferring to focus on the characters than their situations. PRTC also looks for some element of magic in the script, something outside of everyday reality, and loves comedy—especially as a response to pain.
Caselli then approaches the scripts through their evaluative comments. Based on the readers’ advice, he rejects some out of hand. Remember, he is already reading the scripts PRTC has solicited from known playwrights. Now he is beginning to consider those playwrights have submitted; both scripts following synopses and completely unsolicited scripts have now been read by two trained individuals, and each has made informed comments about the script. He reads what still looks interesting, and uses his own authority to further pare the list. What remains then goes to Sanville, the Artistic Director, who together with Daniels as Executive Director, will determine the season’s plays.
Those upon which all three agree receive table readings, where the theatre brings in actors and stages a reading to get a better sense of how a piece might play. This is a fair expense to a small non-profit group, as much because of the time required as for the financial costs, and a limited number are done each season. Part of those will be reserved for actively solicited scripts or to confirm that traditional favorites are suitable. The remaining readings will determine the fate of surviving unsolicited scripts, with those that pass going into the group considered for future production. Whether one of these plays is actually staged depends on several other factors now, but the play itself is declared satisfactory and suitable for the Purple Rose to produce.
As the Directors make their choices for the upcoming season, they consider not only whether they like a play, but also how a particular play might fit into a unified theme for the season. They also weigh familiarity with the playwright and whether a play has been previously performed when making their selections, and once they have picked four scripts for the next season, yet a few more of the remaining scripts are returned to their authors. Yet a handful of these unsolicited scripts are so well-liked that even though they do not fit the upcoming season, the theatre wants to keep them for future consideration.
By now, all but a very few scripts have been rejected by the theatre. This is not necessarily an indication of quality, but means that the theatre, for whatever reason, does not wish to produce the play. Given that the theatre receives approximately two hundred unsolicited scripts a year and produces four shows each year, this is inevitable. Unfortunately, it also means that approximately two hundred authors must be told that their manuscripts will not be produced by PRTC.
This task falls to the apprentices, as well. As each script is rejected, both its database and paper files are updated. If an SASE was included with the submission, the script is returned to its writer; otherwise, the theatre recycles the paper. Once the files are closed, paper items are kept for at least a calendar year in case the writer requests comments or evaluative feedback, and then also recycled. The database file remains as a permanent record. Meanwhile, an apprentice generates a form letter in Caselli’s name, which he signs and often annotates with personal comments.
This process requires a great deal of effort from the theatre staff, all in the hope of discovering a new play; discovering a great new play or playwright can make a theatre’s reputation. The eleven developmental theatres referenced above are all trying to find this new play, too. An email survey of Literary Managers at these theatres produced only three responses; these are, nonetheless, useful for comparing how PRTC handles this process with the methods of similar organizations.
The first response is from a West Coast organization that puts on an annual playwright’s festival. They receive approximately three hundred scripts each year; these are logged in a database, where evaluation status is tracked. The scripts are read by a twelve-member committee of local theatre professionals. Authors are notified of script receipt, and evaluation results, by email. No comments are provided, and scripts are recycled unless an SASE is provided. The process covers about three and a half months from submission deadline to festival (Young 2003). This process is different from the PRTC, especially in the use of theatre professionals for initial evaluation, but it is also conducted for a very different purpose: these scripts are being judged for a contest, rather than being considered for staging a many-week, money-making production.
The next responding theatre is on the East Coast, and like the PRTC, they accept scripts for production consideration year round. They have separate, but similar, processes for unsolicited, requested, and agent-submitted scripts; in reality, they only look at unsolicited scripts if other submissions are slow. If they are busy, they return the script
(if an SASE was provided) and ask the author to submit a synopsis and ten-page sample (Watson 2003).
If the script will be read, it is logged in their database. Covering materials are separated, date-stamped, and filed by author; the script is placed on a “first-read” shelf. A reader is chosen, based on the script description and reader interests. The script is then given to a reader for evaluation8, and the database record is updated with the reader’s name and date. When the reader returns a script, evaluations are recorded in the database and attached to the script’s paper file. So far, the process is basically the same as what PRTC does. However, only some scripts get a second reading; if so, the second reader is not told that it is a second reading or shown the previous evaluation. Others are slated for return or recycling and go into a “pending” status, where the literary manager then determines the next step. If the theatre decides to keep the script, its database record is updated to show this, and it is filed in the library. Scripts are filed flat, in alphabetical order by author, and identified by author’s name and title printed on the bottom edge. If the script is rejected, the author is notified and the script either returned, if an SASE is provided, or placed in a bin to be recycled. The theatre waits one month before recycling scripts, in case an author sends an SASE to reclaim his work.
The final responding theatre is, like PRTC, in Michigan. This is a very small group, and has a much simpler process. Submissions are read by a single person, who provides a synopsis and evaluation of the play to the artistic director or rejects the piece out-of-hand if it is not something they would produce. If the artistic director thinks the script might 8
See Appendix B for evaluative criteria and forms.
be worth pursuing, it is passed along; otherwise, it is returned (Williams 2003). This simplicity suggests a rather small number of submissions each season, if one person can manage the entire process.
As these process analyses show, the script library affects a theatre at every level. Even the Development department has a stake in it, since submission guidelines consume precious space on the theatre website, which can only be considered a marketing effort. More importantly, Development must raise the funds to support both script evaluation and providing commissions or royalties to authors. From the barely-paid apprentice to the celebrity Executive Director, theatre staff are the cataloguers, the readers, and the ones who make decisions about whether a play is rejected or produced. It is central to the PRTC’s mission and its work. As Caselli noted, “New scripts are how the Purple Rose is a writer’s theatre”(Caselli 2003). Yet PRTC staff is only one audience for this collection.
The script library has two distinct audiences: first, it has the PRTC staff. However, these scripts—inasmuch as some are given table readings or even produced—also have a stage audience. While the items in the script library have not yet been produced, each one is there in hopes that it will be preformed. That is, after all, the point of a play—it is intended to reach an audience. The script library is simply one step in the journey. Each play is a potential piece of theatre, and theatre’s role in society is well-documented.
Still, access to these scripts is very limited: only staff (including the well-trained volunteer readers) is allowed to use the collection. As Caselli indicated, these
manuscripts do not belong to the theatre, but are ‘on loan’ for evaluation—if PRTC likes it, they will make arrangements for compensation with the author. Thus, the theatre has only limited rights for using them: the PRTC can read them, and can even do a table reading with actors taking various parts to begin giving voice to the author’s words. The theatre can not, however, invite the public to such a reading or make money off the evaluation process in any way (Caselli 2003).
Yet Caselli feels the same fiscal crunch as his non-profit colleagues, and is beginning to feel the magnitude of his task. Scripts wait over a year, sometimes, before decisions can be made, and still more keep arriving. For all the staff time spent processing and reading them, unsolicited scripts very rarely provide a producible play—PRTC has, to date, only produced two unsolicited plays. He is seriously reconsidering the open invitation currently posted on the PRTC website; while he is trying to keep the process “personal, friendly and open”, he would like to begin requiring a synopsis as introduction to any new scripts (Caselli 2003). This would be a major policy change for PRTC, but one with immediate benefits for the staff: the number of plays read would go down, but because only requested plays would be read, the quality would simultaneously go up. The odds of finding a producible play would go up accordingly. Dana Singer captures the dilemma Caselli, and other developmental theatres, face: “Theatres acknowledge that in restricting submissions, they may miss out on the opportunity to discover and produce a wonderful new work by an emerging writer; but, they have arrived at a solution, on balance, which allows the theatre to continue pursuing its mission and artistic vision without overwhelming the staff and the budget”(Singer 1997, 130).
References Actors Theatre of Louisville. (n.d.). “Humana Festival Play Submissions”. Actors Theatre of Louisville. Available http://www.actorstheatre.org/play_submissions.htm [1 December 2003]. Andrea. (2002). “Submitting a Play”. Trinity Repertory. Availalble http://www.trinityrep.com/index.cfm?Action=PartOfTrinity.ScriptSubmissions [1 December 2003]. Ball, D. (1983). Backwards and Forwards: A Technical Manual for Reading Plays. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Berkeley Repertory Theatre. (n.d.) “about the rep > get involved”. Berkeley Repertory Theatre. Available http://www.berkeleyrep.org/HTML/AboutTheRep/script.html [1 December 2003]. Caselli, A. (2003). Personal interview, 24 October. Center Theatre Group. (n.d.). “How to Submit a Script”. Mark Taper Forum. Available http://www.taperahmanson.com/taper/scripts.asp [1December 1, 2003] Detroit Repertory Theatre. (n.d.). “Playwrights”. Detroit Repertory Theatre. Available http://www.detroitreptheatre.com/playwright.htm [1 December 2003]. Duffield, Q. (2003). Personal email, 25 November. Kahn, D. & Breed, D. (1995). Scriptwork: A Director’s Approach to New Play Development. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Mendenhall, M. (2001). The Playwright’s Path: An Analysis of the Canadian Play Development Process as Practiced by the Saskatchewan Playwrights Centre, 1982-2000. Regina: University of Regina Planet Ant Theatre. (n.d.). Planet Ant Theatre. Available http://www.planetanttheatre.com/ [1 December 2003]. Playwrights Foundation. (n.d.). “Submissions Guidelines”. Welcome to the Playwrights Foundation. Available http://www.playwrightsfoundation.org/sub.shtml [1 December 2003]. Purple Rose Theatre Company. (2003). “For Playwrights”. The Purple Rose Theatre Company. Available http://www.purplerosetheatre.org [1 December 2003].
Purple Rose Theatre Company. (2003). “The Good Doctor”. Program. Chelsea: Purple Rose Theatre Company. San Jose Repertory Theatre. (2003). “Playwright Submissions”. San Jose Repertory Theatre. Available http://www.sjrep.com/general/jobs/playwrights.shtml [1 December 2003]. Seattle Repertory Theatre. (2003). “Script Submission”. Seattle Rep Theatre. Available http://www.seattlerep.org/ContactScriptSubmissions.html [1 December 2003]. Singer, D. (1997). Stage Writers Handbook: A Complete Guide for Playwrights, Composers, Lyricists and Librettists. New York: Theatre Communications Group. Southern Repertory Theatre. (2003). “Submit a Script”. Southern Rep: Premiere Theatre. Available http://www.southernrep.com/ [1 December 2003]. Stickney, G. (n.d.). “Artistic Programs/ New Play Development”. The Cleveland Playhouse. Available http://www.clevelandplayhouse.com/newplay/index.asp [1 December 2003]. Watson, C. (2003). Personal email, 31 October. Williams, A. (2003). Personal email, 9 November. Young, C. (2003). Personal email, 3 November.
Appendix A Visual representation of The Purple Rose Theatre Company script evaluation process
Scripts arrive Office Manager delivers to Assistant Artistic Director Ast. Art. Dir. determines if script was requested, is feasible
Actors stage ‘table reading’ Dirs. like some, which are considered for production!! Art. & Ex. Dirs. Read and like some plays
Remainder rejected
Read and reject others Apprentice logs in database, creates file Returns Fast-Track scripts to Ast. Art. Dir. Puts others out for Readers
Reader 1 reads and comments Apprentice files comments, puts out for 2nd Reader Reader 2 reads and comments Apprentice files comments, forwards to Ast. Art. Dir.
Ast. Art. Dir. reads comments, rejects some scripts based on them Reads other plays. Rejects some Recommends remainder to Artistic and Executive Directors
Apprentice sends form letter Returns/ recycles script Closes database and paper files
Appendix B
I II III
Purple Rose Theatre form letter responses Purple Rose Theatre Play Evaluation Comment Sheet Trinity Repertory Theatre Guidelines for Readers and Lit Form
These items will not appear in the electronic version.
