You may have noticed how questioning one thing can lead to a cascade of additional questions. This is why many are reluctant to do anything new—it’s just one damn thing after another, and pretty soon you have a whole new model! Better to simply follow the well-beaten path. Unfortunately, as we have seen recently, the well-beaten path leads over a cliff. It’s time to bushwhack a new one, and the journey begins by questioning assumptions.

The Cascade

A few days ago, we started by examining a different way of budgeting a production based on 37 Signal’s concept of “appetite” as described by Ryan Singer in the book Shape Up. Using “appetite” in theater reverses the order of the budget process in order to have a better chance of financial sustainability. This led to the associated concept of scheduling in 6-week cycles, where we encountered the concept of “small batch” and “large batch” projects. This helped us escape the constraints of scheduling an entire season of “slots” six months in advance. And the idea of small batch projects led us to a reconsideration of a concept that has a long tradition in theater, but that has been largely abandoned over the last few decades: rotating rep.

<aside> 💡 Appetite —> 6-week cycles —> small and large batch projects —> rotating rep

</aside>

Rotating Rep

For those unacquainted with the term, rotating rep is the performance of multiple productions in the course of a week or two. Productions can be revived and inserted into a performance week as needed. You’re most likely to encounter rotating rep in “destination” theaters, usually Shakespeare festivals, which use rotating rep to allow visiting tourists to see multiple productions during the course of their visit. (In this case, the number of productions is limited to those being done that season.) In its early days, the Guthrie Theatre in Minneapolis operated in rotating rep.

There are many advantages to rotating rep:

• the audience can see the same actors in several different roles, which they enjoy;
• the performers are provided variety (having myself once experienced a run of 80+ performances, I can’t imagine actors who stay in Broadway hits for years);
• performers playing a demanding role can get some rest (the actor playing, say, Lear might play a small role in another play, or might even have a night off);
• productions can develop and deepen over the course of time;
• the company itself benefits, especially if they are using 6-week scheduling, by being able to:
  • schedule more performances of a hit and fewer of a flop;
  • take chances with challenging material if they are not locked into a certain number of performances (theaters might be more inclined to give a full production to a new play, instead of sticking them away on a small second stage and providing them only with a staged reading;
  • plays can also be eased into the repertoire in order to allow time for word-of-mouth to do its magic.

Ramifications

Predictably, rotating rep naturally leads to the reconsideration of several other aspects of standard operating procedure. It requires:

• a company that will be together for at least a full season (preferably longer);
• it requires an approach to design that is much lighter, so that changeovers are easy;
• it requires the audience to keep track of offerings (but they’re already used to that from their experience of the constantly-changing availability of movies on streaming services);
• it requires a shift in marketing and publicity in order to keep the audience informed about what being performed.

Legendary British director Peter Hall, who had previously led both the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) and the National Theatre, instituted rotating rep when he took over London’s Old Vic. He wrote with enthusiasm about the experience:

[Set designer] John Gunter developed a simple design where the actor and his text was clearly presented on a well-planked stage. The actor, his passion, a few visual elements and some bare boards: this was all we had or needed. The audience's imagination was encouraged—we had no technology or complication.... By having a strong design discipline at the Old Vic—in effect a permanent stage—we spent little of our money on building and rebuilding sets. Our changeovers from one play to another took one hour—no more than is customary to set back to the beginning of a single play. We were able to play real repertory—which meant a change of play after every performance.... Did the permanent stage at the Old Vic result in monotony? I don't think so. There were no complaints from the critics or from the public, and several other designers enjoyed using John Gunter's stage as an environment in which they could place the essential images for their own play. Everything on the stage was strictly demanded by the action, and at all times we tried to avoid decoration. We never needed to go 'dark' in order to dress rehearse a new play, because the ready availability of the stage allowed us to dress-rehearse during the day. We then maintained our repertory each evening. The maximum use of the stage was therefore enjoyed both for rehearsals and for performances. And for seven days a week, theatre was alive.