# Why Teach Theatre in Our Schools?



## lieperjp

I recently got my EdTA membership packet, and they had this really interesting sheet in it that I thought I'd share.

Theatre is a _Science_
Theatre is _Mathematical_*
Theatre is a _Foreign Language_
Theatre is _History_
Theatre is _Physical Education_
Theatre is _Business_
Theatre is _Technology_
Theatre is _Economics_

Theatre is taught in schools
Not because you are expected to major in theatre,
Not because you are expected to perform all through life,
Not so you can relax, 
Not so you can have fun,
But
So you will recognize _Beauty_
So you will be _Sensitive_
So you will be closer to an _Infinite beyond this world_
So you will have more _Love_, 
More _Compassion_
More _Gentleness_,
More _Good_, 
In short, 
More _Life_.

Of What value will it be to make a prosperous living
Unless you know how to live?

That is why theatre is taught in our Schools.

I thought it was pretty interesting, even though it is coming more from an acting side. Comments?

*The sheet spelled this as Mathemetical.


----------



## icewolf08

Well, some of that is true, and some of it makes me gag.
So you will recognize Beauty
So you will be Sensitive
So you will be closer to an Infinite beyond this world
So you will have more Love, 
More Compassion
More Gentleness,
More Good, 
In short, 
More Life.
Funny thing that it sounds like a high school drama teacher wrote it. "Theatre is not so you can have fun" Oh really? Because I think that most of us enjoy doing theatre, and one of the first things I tell anyone is that if they are not having fun then something needs to change. Then explain to me how theatre teaches compassion and gentleness, even in the academic world, theatre is a pretty cutthroat industry.

However, if sting things like what that sheet says help get schools and parents to fun theatre programs then by all means keep sending them out!


----------



## seanandkate

I think Shakespeare came closer:

the purpose of playing, whose
end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the
mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own
image, and the very age and body of the time his form and
pressure.

I still like the idea though, however idealized. Theatre, as well as all art, should teach and delight (not my concept-- Aristotle and many others). It should absolutely have elements of fun (that'd be the delight part), but without the teaching part, the part where we learn about the human condition and how it speaks to us as an audience, the experience is kinda hollow. Good theatre should make us think. It should say something that was arguable. It should make us examine ourselves. No less than Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. . . 

As a teacher of high school drama, pitching theatre as a career is a hard sell at the BEST of times. I can tell parents that presentational and interpersonal skills are transferable to any job out there. But the larger reason (and here the idealist in me comes out) is because in the theatre you have the possibility of affecting many thousands of lives over the course of a career. How many other jobs can boast that? Out of the millions of people who know the name of Shakespeare, do you think ONE of them could name his lawyer? His accountant? His, um, hair stylist? OK, I'm probably grasping here . . .

I like one of my collegue's sayings that sort of mirrors the heart of your sheet:
“You’re going to study theatre? That means you have to learn everything!”


----------



## derekleffew

icewolf08 said:


> ...Funny thing that it sounds like a high school drama teacher wrote it. ...


Since it came from the EdTA, chances are very good that a high school drama teacher DID write it. Does this lessen its value in your perception? Would you respect it more if it came from a PhD at Yale, or a Broadway producer?


seanandkate said:


> ...As a teacher of high school drama, pitching theatre as a career is a hard sell at the BEST of times. ...


As well it should be. Who said "Art isn't easy?"


----------



## seanandkate

derekleffew said:


> Who said "Art isn't easy?"



Art _should _be challenging. In addition to that, I also want parents to know it's not _frivolous_.


----------



## icewolf08

Too much drama, not enough theatre!


derekleffew said:


> Since it came from the EdTA, chances are very good that a high school drama teacher DID write it. Does this lessen its value in your perception? Would you respect it more if it came from a PhD at Yale, or a Broadway producer?



Actually, yes. Why? Because it sounds like something that a high school drama teacher would say to the school board to get them to give money. It sounds great, but at the same time it sounds really contrived. I really can't see any higher education faculty member making statements like that. It certainly is not something that I would expect to hear in a college classroom when the question "What is the purpose of theatre?" is asked.

I believe that there is a big difference between high school drama and high school theatre. There are big differences between the high school drama teacher who also teaches English or Social Studies and the high school theatre teacher who teaches theatre. The two might put on the same quality shows, but the means to the end and what students take away from it are different.

I don't mean to come off as harsh or to insult or whatnot. I just think that academic theatre has many branches and some are more reputable than others. I certainly don't think that theatre classes are only for theatre people. I also realize that not every high school (not even most) has the resources to have a full time theatre program with at least one full time faculty member. However I think there is a big difference in what kind of educational experiences are brought to the table when you compare the classes taught by the full time theatre teacher and the English teacher who runs the drama department.

I don't want to sound like I am attacking EdTA as I think that they are an organization that stands for good things. I guess that statements like those in the orange above sound so highschool-ish and not professional. They make me feel like I am being talked down to, and as I said earlier, some of it sounds very contrived.


----------



## lieperjp

derekleffew said:


> Since it came from the EdTA, chances are very good that a high school drama teacher DID write it. Does this lessen its value in your perception? Would you respect it more if it came from a PhD at Yale, or a Broadway producer?



The sheet it was printed on says:


EdTA said:


> Adapted with permission from Music Educators National Conference MIOSM Planning Guide



So while it may have been written (or adapted) by a High School Teacher, I would hazard a guess that it was written by some of the most qualified High School Teachers in the country. Not to mention the people with PhDs and/or decades of experience that lead these groups.


----------



## lieperjp

icewolf08 said:


> Funny thing that it sounds like a high school drama teacher wrote it. "Theatre is not so you can have fun" Oh really? Because I think that most of us enjoy doing theatre, and one of the first things I tell anyone is that if they are not having fun then something needs to change.



I think the point of that statement is speaking to the fact that the classes offered in a High School are not meant to be "slacker" classes where students basically have a class to do nothing but goof off, talk and play games. Theatre is a lot of work, we can all agree on that. However, you should have be able to have fun, or why do it?


----------



## Bluefey

I realize that I am new to this board - but i do find icewolf08's posts very condensending to those of us who teach theatre in a high school - and must speak up to defend high school theatre programs on all levels.

You are very right that the quality of programs varies greatly from school to school; many schools are on a very limited budget and unable to produce elaborate productions. That does not lessen the impact that we have on the lives of children or on the legacy we leave behind! Thank God for that English teacher who takes on the added work that comes with being a "drama" teacher, for without her those students would never have had an opportunity to experience theatre at all.... 

Thank God for EdTA - for all the good things that they do and for the resources that they offer to help that "drama" teacher be the best darn drama teacher she can be! 

We cant all have that $100k budget, but please do not sell our programs short! And do not belittle our intentions or programs. No drama teacher sets out to short change their students - they give as much as they know how to do. It is a shame that all schools do not have the money to fund a full time theatre teacher, but with the funding issues and subsequent cutting of programs some schools dont even get to have that drama teacher. EdTA has worked hard to help save educational theatre and to provide facts, statistics, and cheesey sentimental statements (like in this thread) that those drama teachers and "real" theatre teachers can use to help insure that their students will be able to recognize Beauty
be Sensitive
be closer to an Infinite beyond this world
have more Love,
More Compassion
More Gentleness,
More Good,
In short,
More Life.


----------



## icewolf08

I find that I often get misinterpreted, especially on the intertubes. I think that all theatre education from elementary school through college and beyond is very important. No matter what background an educator comes from. Theatre is all bout community and the fact that every person brings different qualities to the table is what makes the industry thrive. I don't think that the schools that can barely support a small drama club give any less to their students than the schools which have huge budgets, multiple classes and a dedicated theatre faculty. The experience and the mindset is just different.

Lets put it this way, if I was sitting on the school board and someone came in to talk about the theatre programs with those statements [which we have been discussing], I would still see them as seemingly contrived and sentimental. I would want to hear what theatre teaches that students don't learn sitting in math class or social studies class. Tell me that theatre teaches how to interact with other people, how to work as a team, how to achieve a common goal. Tell me that it teaches interpersonal skills that sitting in a classroom taking notes or reading from textbooks doesn't. Tell me that students learning about technical theatre will come out knowing how to do something, not necessarily theatre. Did you ever ask yourself what the point of taking math in school was? Did you ever say "When will I use this in life?" Well, we apply a lot of those concepts from high school math in theatre, and that is what I would want to hear. All the stuff about recognizing beauty and so on could be said about any fine art class, photography course, choir, or band.

I am a theatre professional, and I probably would not be where I am today were it not for the theatre classes and clubs that I was involved in when I was in high school (and earlier). I understand the value of these programs and I want to see them thrive. I even would like to ultimately wind up as a theatre educator on some level at some point in my career. However, I think that it is the sentimental and seemingly contrived nature of statements like the ones being discussed that gives theatre a bad reputation in lower education settings. Parents want to hear that their children are developing sharp minds and will go out and be successful, not that their kids are being taught some mushy sentimental thing like theatre.

So, as I said before, I think that organizations like EdTA are very good for the educational branch of our industry, I just think that we need to re-evaluate the way we promote them, and the [perceived] fundamentals on which they stand.


----------



## gafftaper

icewolf08 said:


> I believe that there is a big difference between high school drama and high school theatre. There are big differences between the high school drama teacher who also teaches English or Social Studies and the high school theatre teacher who teaches theatre. The two might put on the same quality shows, but the means to the end and what students take away from it are different.



A few years ago I was a High School drama teacher who also taught two periods of History... Yep Icewolf is talking about me... and I agree with him. I was a one man show with almost no parent support. I had a yearly budget of about $500 coming in and managed to leave a balance of about $2500 in my account when I left. I worked way to hard. It affected my health and my relationships with my friends and family. I was a terrible history teacher during shows... this month I won't have time to do anything so there we will just be watching videos everyday. I fought my way through 4 or 5 shows a year but it was nuts. We got shows done... but they weren't always great and my students certainly didn't learn as much as they would have at another school where they had a full time drama teacher. As Alex said, we went through the motions, but what my students took away from being in my program was very little compared to what they would have gotten across town at the high school with the full time teacher. 

As for the original quote I like the first part of what theater is. Those are important ideas to remind people in your school. On the other hand I think the second half is a bunch of fluffy bunny crap. 
"Theater is taught... so you will be closer to an _Infinite beyond this world" _
Umm... yeah. 

Meanwhile they missed some really important things about why theater is taught in schools. 
Gaff's reasons to teach theater in school:
-an oportunity for students to express their artistic creativity
-an oportunity for students to experience the world from another person's point of view
-it builds self esteem, self awareness, and self worth
-teaches the value of teamwork
-gives students a place to belong at school
-a place for many students to fit in and feel accepted who aren't accepted other places on campus
I could go on but I think I've made my point. 

My biggest problem with the original quote is this line.
Of What value will it be to make a prosperous living Unless you know how to live?
The writer seems to be implying that theater classes don't help you build real life skills, and that theater classes do not lead to a prosperous living... Instead all theater class are apparently good for is fluffy bunny crap so we can "learn how to live". I can't disagree more, all the things I just listed above are direct results of a good theater program. If you work in the pedagogical world (Gaff breaking out the big words) you will no doubt know that every thing on my list is supported by extensive research as beneficial in helping young people be successful academically and avoiding the pitfalls of drugs, gangs, teen pregnancy etc. A strong argument can and often is made that both theater (and music) programs in school are outstanding at giving students the building blocks they need to be successful and prosperous in life.

Ok, slowing down... yes I understand that the point being made is that experiencing art helps you think about the world a litte differently and hopefully live life a bit fuller. But the premise of surrendering the high ground and not claiming that theater improves accademic success and helps you have a more prosperous life was a terrible choice to make.


----------



## David Ashton

Mush is mush, if I tried giving that line to students I occasionally teach, they would either burst into hysterics or throw up, theatre is fun, interesting, entertaining and challenging, but is hugely over intellectualized, by teachers trying to impress, well it doesn't impress me or the kids I work with, Shakespeare wrote crude, bawdy very funny stuff, it really should be translated into modern English, but would probably be banned from schools, the sanitized interpretations we see in school productions really lose the essence of his writing."All the worlds a stage"


----------



## lieperjp

gafftaper said:


> "Theater is taught... so you will be closer to an _Infinite beyond this world" _
> Umm... yeah.



I'd have to agree with you on that. What is that even supposed to mean? That could be taken in so many different ways...

Much of it is a lot of "fluffy bunny crap." However, and I'm just wondering here, do we come from a different background as someone who is into acting and the "arty" part of the theatre more so than the technical aspect where we have to deal with problems, deadlines, unrealistic expectations... It drives us cynical.


----------



## sk8rsdad

When I was getting my engineering degree at university and spending my nights teching at the 2 campus theatres we summed up the difference between the 2 disciplines as:

Engineering aims to make living better, the Arts aim to make life worthwhile.


----------



## DaveK

In art, we interpret differently.
Why are you guys so hung up on this individual's reflection of theatre? We all have different personal and professional philosophies on why we do what we do. Your comments are a little harsh... and ignorant and elitist. When was the last time you worked full time in a school?
Not all schools have the funding to have a full time theatre teacher. So maybe they do split time with English or another subject. That doesn't mean they are any less qualified. How are you to say that students would get any different of an education or experience from it? 
Money, facilities, and a well known institution does not equate to education and experience.


----------



## JChenault

DaveK said:


> In art, we interpret differently.
> Why are you guys so hung up on this individual's reflection of theatre? We all have different personal and professional philosophies on why we do what we do. Your comments are a little harsh... and ignorant and elitist. When was the last time you worked full time in a school?



Well - I think I am hung up on it because it is not an individual's reflection of theatre, it is an official position of the EdTA and (IMHO) it is a good example of fluffy bunny crap and the kind of thinking that put HS theatre programs at risk in this country. For my two cents, icewolf and Gafftaper hit the nail on the head about why theatre education is important. If I am a school board member, I am going to react much more positively to the kinds of list that Gaff and IceWolf have put togehter than the mushy original post.

I am so passionate about this thread because I hope that some HS teachers or students will read it and counteract this kind of 'fluffy bunny crap' that seems to be prevalent.

Indeed I am passionate enough that I am considering joining EdTA so I can object to this kind of language.


----------



## gafftapegreenia

derekleffew said:


> As well it should be. Who said "Art isn't easy?"


 

"The art of making Art, is putting it together."


----------



## DuckJordan

I'm sorry but i have to disagree with both gaff and icewolf, This probably wasn't more than a teachers view at theater, not as a way to promote more money running into their program, nor was it ever meant to be, but to show what others felt through theater. 

Also Shakespeare is mentioned several times but he really isn't the essence of theater, while yes his plays are very well known and well liked, the only reason they translate is because of the crude humor and his political points in the plays. If you want true theater look into the less known artists, the ones who aren't writing to impress anyone (unlike Shakespeare who was writing for the queen of England)


----------



## Pie4Weebl

*Start Commercial in the format of a "Save the children Ad"*

DuckJordan said:


> I'm sorry but i have to disagree with both gaff and icewolf, This probably wasn't more than a teachers view at theater, not as a way to promote more money running into their program, nor was it ever meant to be, but to show what others felt through theater.
> 
> Also Shakespeare is mentioned several times but he really isn't the essence of theater, while yes his plays are very well known and well liked, the only reason they translate is because of the crude humor and his political points in the plays. If you want true theater look into the less known artists, the ones who aren't writing to impress anyone (unlike Shakespeare who was writing for the queen of England)


 
And this poor child is why stronger theatre education, and education in general is needed through out the country. With out a proper training they are forced to make up "facts" on their own and confuse being belligerent with creating an actual debate. They lack the ability to properly express or understand their own feelings, let alone communicate in group functions or be able to work in a team. All of these things could be fixed if they just had proper exposure to theatre! For just the cost of a coffee a week you can help these poor children in a state most people don't even know exists!

Please send your money to Pie4Weebl Bartab Enhancement Fund today!

*End Commercial*


----------



## seanandkate

DuckJordan said:


> Also Shakespeare is mentioned several times but he really isn't the essence of theater, while yes his plays are very well known and well liked, the only reason they translate is because of the crude humor and his political points in the plays. If you want true theater look into the less known artists, the ones who aren't writing to impress anyone (unlike Shakespeare who was writing for the queen of England)


 
Someone really needs to tell the over 500 Shakespeare Festivals around the world that they should immediately switch to Marlowe and Jonson -- playwrights with serious catalogues.  There's just so much wrong with your statement, it would hijack this thread for pages.
And Shakespeare wrote for many individuals, as did other playwrights of the period. They were called _patrons_.


----------



## Tex

Happy first day of school! 

The quote posted by the OP was almost certainly written by an actor. Being of the actor persuasion myself, I can say that we are, as a group much more touchy-feely than your average tech. I never much cared for all the mind and emotional games that actors play with themselves. I know how to recall emotions in a controlled way and I'm not afraid to let people see me do it. It's a skill, like any other. I'm not sure why actors have to try and make it mysterious and mystical. It's not any more or less difficult than say, welding; it's just that some are better at it than others. 
When I read this kind of thing, it makes me cringe a little. While I appreciate that doing theatre makes people mushy inside, at the end of the day it's simply what we do. Just like welding is what the welder does. 
What makes me emotional is when my kids reach outside of their comfort zone and grow. I love the look on a kid's face when he does something he always thought he couldn't do. So I guess what I'm trying to say is the most important thing we offer kids is opportunities to grow. They may get some of that other fluffy bunny stuff too, but mostly they learn about themselves. 

Here's what I hope my students take with them:
The belief that when one makes a commitment, one should honor that commitment. Our actions affect others.
The ability to work cooperatively with a variety of personalities in a high pressure environment.
Good audience etiquette.
Confidence that they can speak in public.
An appreciation for the amount of effort it takes to make a show look effortless.
A love for live theatre.

I think that when we take ourselves too seriously, we come off looking very silly.
Sorry for the ramble...


----------



## ruinexplorer

DaveK said:


> In art, we interpret differently.
> Why are you guys so hung up on this individual's reflection of theatre? We all have different personal and professional philosophies on why we do what we do. Your comments are a little harsh... and ignorant and elitist. When was the last time you worked full time in a school?
> Not all schools have the funding to have a full time theatre teacher. So maybe they do split time with English or another subject. That doesn't mean they are any less qualified. How are you to say that students would get any different of an education or experience from it?
> Money, facilities, and a well known institution does not equate to education and experience.



Hi, @DaveK. I hope that you take the time to introduce yourself and your background in the New Member Board. I hope that you understand that the membership of ControlBooth is quite diverse including High School and College students, Educators (as your profession indicates), volunteers, and professionals (stagehands/administrators/vendors/manufacturers). Simply, as you have pointed out, we all have our own viewpoints. You may not agree with what some members have pointed out and that is acceptable in this forum. Some of those with whom you disagree work fulltime in an educational facility or are students.

While I agree with your last statement to a degree, I can't say that I can completely say that you are correct. Just because a school has quality equipment does not mean that they have quality instruction. However, just because a school has wonderful instructors does not mean that they have the tools necessary to make their students successful if that is their career choice. Just as it would be very difficult to teach computer programming if you had no computers (don't have to be the newest model) for the students to learn on.

I have worked in nearly all areas of technical theater in almost every variety(educational to corporate). So, while this gives me a perspective through which I could add my own interpretation of the original post, I would never assume to call others' opinions ignorant nor elitist (harsh maybe, but I know that I can be blunt). 

Please, take the time to introduce yourself and join in the forums. We all learn by looking at different perspectives.


----------



## pmolsonmus

As indicated in an earlier post, the quote was adapted from a Music Educator organization statement. More or less the word "theatre" substituted for the word "music". As a music educator for the past 20 yrs I can assure you that although I have seen it before it is by no means the statement that that organization uses to save programs in peril. They are very organized and somewhat successful if there is local community support to help make it happen. I would tend to lean toward the "bunny fluff" crowd myself but sometimes that type of argument and perspective is what reaches people.
I have seen it more often on posters in elementary and middle school general music classrooms for the general student population who want to know "why" they have to learn that music stuff and what difference it makes in the "real" world.

I think for that target audience the statement works. Not that they need to be "dumbed down" to, but an intellectual argument of aesthetics is hardly appropriate either.

My .02
Phil


----------



## misterm

as a teacher, i have to disagree with whomever said that theatre classes should always be "fun." i draw a huge distinction between fun and enjoyment. some kids who come to my class just want to have fun and play improv games and hate the class the other 90% of the time when we're studying theatre history and lit or when they're supposed to be rehearsing a scene. then i have kids who enjoy all the aspects of the art, from writing to directing to production, etc... They know that its not all fun. But they still enjoy every minute of it. I wish my rehearsals could always just be fun and goofy every single minute, but then we'd never get anything done. We have a lot of fun, but I believe that students should know how to work hard. Those that enjoy theatre will want to do the work for that show in 2 months and reap the benefits when the curtain finally goes up. 
Someone else mentioned that its over "intellectualized." How is that possible? Our best students in our program are the ones who have taken the more difficult theatre classes and studied theatre history and lit, directing, and production desgin. EVERYTHING you learn translates into what you do onstage or backstage. without those classes, some of my students wouldn't be studying stage management or screenwriting in college now.


----------



## gafftaper

_Gaff takes off his senior team badge and enters the fray as just a common CB community member to defend his honor..._ 

DaveK said:


> In art, we interpret differently.
> Why are you guys so hung up on this individual's reflection of theatre? We all have different personal and professional philosophies on why we do what we do. Your comments are a little harsh... and ignorant and elitist.


 Yep that's me, ignorant and elitist. I have a masters degree from a *state* university. I chose to teach in a messed up urban school district. The kind of district where anyone who can afford it either puts their kids in private school or moves to the suburbs. Why did I chose to teach there? Because I believed that if things are ever going to get better the best teachers have to choose to work in the worst situations. What a fool, I was *SO* elitist thinking that I could make a difference! 


DaveK said:


> When was the last time you worked full time in a school?


Well you got me there because I teach college now and I haven't taught high school for about 6 years now. But before that I spent 15 years working with high school kids in a variety of positions including 5 years teaching in one of the poorest high schools in Washington State. The school was situated right in the middle of 3 housing projects. 60% of our students were on welfare and we guessed that around 95% of our students had been on welfare at some point.


DaveK said:


> Not all schools have the funding to have a full time theatre teacher.


 Yeah tell me about it. During my 5 years at that school, there was 1 semester that I was full time drama. The rest of the time I had 1 - 3 non-drama related preps. 


DaveK said:


> So maybe they do split time with English or another subject. That doesn't mean they are any less qualified.


 If they were properly trained in theater (or technical theater which is what this website and my post was really about) I'm not complaining. There are some really good mixed discipline drama teachers out there (I was one of them). Unfortunately there are many schools where a teacher took a couple acting classes in high school or college and they get put in charge of the drama program without any proper training. Some get lucky and are competent at teaching the kids about acting, but most have no clue how to handle the tech needs of their shows. So students end up starved for tech education. Hopefully they find CB where we can help. 


DaveK said:


> How are you to say that students would get any different of an education or experience from it?


 Well having taught Sophomore World history, Speech Communication at the same time as I was also running a drama program. I know for a fact that my students got a substantially lower quality instruction when I had to teach all that other stuff. It also was a huge drain on my personal life and not very good for my health. 


DaveK said:


> Money, facilities, and a well known institution does not equate to education and experience.


 I agree 100%. I got about $600 a year to run my drama program (depending on my cut from the student activities center's Coke machine sales). Plus every teacher got another $250 for personal classroom expenses, which I used on scripts and stuff for my theater program. With good management and careful selected season I left that school with a balance of $2500 in the drama department's bank account. My tech crew was top notch and many of them are still working in theater. My actors were good and several went on to colleges with acting programs. All at a school with a reputation for drive by shootings, not theater.


----------



## What Rigger?

Art IS math. And it IS science. And sometimes....if we (meaning "I") are lucky, the kid in high school who couldn't stand algebra (but loved geometry. That's how motorcycle frames are designed!), became the same guy who avoided math in college (yes, in the Cal State system it's possible, even probable), became the same guy who started rigging and _flying people_ and now is stone-cold in love with the following: *physics*.

I don't make art, anymore. I make commerce. There's a LOTTA technology in my world, and very little soul. I get paid well, and lotsa folks want my gig. And that's okay! And it's totally not my point...where was I? Oh, yeah: I used to make art, and in a roundabout, weird sort of way, it totally back-doored me into the gnarliest part of math/science this side of quantum physics. So yeah, if you ask me, we do need to teach the arts in high school.

(and remember...I'm not even one of the really smart ones!)


----------



## shiben

Im reminded of a book im reading now on stage management: It says something to the effect of "if everyone worked like they do in theatres, our world would be a lot more accepting, efficient, and advanced". Theatre is one of the few places I can think of where we routinely create new worlds every few days (think of a tour), and have 4-5 different departments working in relative harmony to get things done, one of the few places where 100+ people can all work to a common goal and get there without blood being shed. I honestly feel like theatre can make any work enviroment better, if you can suffer through a 3 day load in and survive, how bad can the corporate grind possibly be?


----------

