Roger Ebert himself ascribes to this philosophy, which may be why he’s my favorite critic. One of his “Laws” for movie criticism is “It’s not what a movie’s about, it’s HOW it’s about it.” This is true for any form of storytelling. The same jokes have been making the rounds since the Sumerians discovered irony. The same melodies have been getting rearranged since the Gregorians first started chanting. And we’ve all been watching the same sitcom plot over and over since Gracie Allen first said “Goodnight Gracie.”

This is not bad or surprising news. There are only 26 letters in the alphabet, only 12 musical notes, and the human body only bends so many ways. But dance, music and story live on. Because we don’t have to constantly re-invent the wheel. We just have to find a new way to roll it.

As a side note, it makes me impatient to learn more about editing. I wrote and storyboarded the video, cast it, directed it, shot it and put together the soundtrack (which is an abstract re-working of Hear my Train a’-Comin by Jimi Hendrix), I did everything except the editing. I supervised the editing, but the actual editing was accomplished by Jason Underferth. He’s great at what he does, but we won’t be a team much longer. We work on one more show together and then I head out to parts southeast. So I want (and need) to learn more about the nuts and bolts of editing myself. I’ve started one project and it’s going well, but the program I’ve been using (Windows Live Moviemaker) doesn’t do much, so I’ve gotten a new one. I will post my first project to share my progress!

Bear in mind we all work at a theatre, and theatre as a process depends on collaboration. We’re used to it around here, and of course this bleeds into how we operate as a media/marketing team. Also, as a writer, I’ve become quite a fan of collaboration over the years. It seems to elevate any idea and energize the creative process.

It is also widely known and accepted that nothing kills an idea more efficiently than a committee. Finding consensus on a creative idea or process seems the surest way to whitewash it into a bland, beige blob of nothing.  Committee kills.

So what’s the difference between committee and collaboration? They seem so similar, yet the results of these processes are polar opposites.

Collaborators imagine forward. Committees assess and react after the fact.

Successful collaborators have learned to let go. Let go of pride, let go of possession and credit, even let go of their idea if a better one comes along.

Successful collaborators are unified in their goal. They are not beholden to a constituency or an outside department. They are only there for the success of the project, and know that success is the very thing that will benefit all parties.

By instilling collaborative values into the committee culture, creativity not only survives, but thrives. A committee succeeds when it functions as a collaboration.

My Marketing Director gave me a brilliant nugget of an idea, completely out of the box (or planter). She was really jazzed about our talking dogs in our last trailer, and wanted to bring that anthropomorphism to this concept. Real talking plants scaring real people. I ran with it, fleshed out a few scenes, and I’m very happy with the result. Her idea gave me just what I needed – a fresh new angle and an opportunity to use contemporary video in its best areas of strength: capturing everyday life with a whimsical twist.

What stories engage your empathy? Connect you to the tale that is spun? What stories make you want to donate money to a cause? Attend an event? Buy a product? Vote for a candidate?

These are the questions I try to untangle when I attempt to turn informative facts into a story.

An example of our recent context video for Sylvia:

While the four-to-six minute context video might require more research than the 45-second trailer, it is usually the trailer that is the more challenging piece. In fact, I’ve observed that when writing, shorter is always more difficult. The shorter a piece is, the more one must identify exactly what must be said and distill it to its most essential components. Poe and Twain will tell you (if they could) that the short story form can be far more challenging than writing a novel for that very reason.

But aside from its compressed nature, the trailer offers another daunting challenge. You must tell two equally compelling stories: The story of what the play is about, and (more importantly) the story of why the viewer wants to see it.

Both are a challenge, but the latter is the most elusive, especially for a theatre production. Whereas cinematic trailers have been a staple for decades, trailers for theatre productions are a new form, still evolving. One must remember that theatrical audiences are different than movigoers – they are after an intimate person-to-person experience, the very thing that theatre can offer but film can’t. So the theatre trailer mustn’t make the mistake of trying to simply show the action of a play the way a cinematic trailer might. (this is also a practical difficulty – most shows are not rehearsed, costumed, or in some cases even cast, at the time work must begin on the trailer).

So what do we show in a theatre trailer? I’m still learning this myself. Short pieces of dialogue can work, if they are kinetic. Props, lighting, music can all tell the viewer what it might feel like to be in the theatre during the production. Here are two of my trailers that feel the most successful:

So now to my current challenge, the musical Little Shop of Horrors. What is exciting about the show? The music, the campy fun (the show originated as a shlocky black & white Roger Corman film), the choreography, the eccentric characters, the theatricality of the plant puppet.  These are all elements that will engage the audience during the live experience. So how do I hint at these with the trailer? How do I tell this story?

I guess I’ll find out soon. The deadline approacheth!