Whatever problems the VDP hasencountered so far have been caused by what isperceived by some as its near-monopoly of the HRDCBoard's members hold major positions on the castand crew of The Living, while none weremembers of the production staff of ThreeSisters, the student-directed spring mainstageproduction. However, the Board is responsible foroverseeing both shows.
McSweeney emphasized that the staff for the VDPwas chosen before the present Board was elected."I think it's an unfortunate situation. But theoverlap between the Board and the VDP staff ismostly coincidental."
The tensions surfaced early this month, asPeter Freilinger, producer of ThreeSisters, expressed his opinions in an openletter to the HRDC Board, written in the HRDC'sOpen Book in its Loeb Center offices.
"There are two mainstage productions, it istime you started acting as if you understandthat," Freilinger wrote. "The Board has wrappeditself in the VDP and in the process gained afalse and undeserved sense of superiority."
Stewart conceded that the imbalance between theVDP and the student-directed show is something theBoard feared when it initiated the project. "Interms of balance between the two shows, in termsof Board members and the best people on campus,they were all weighted towards one."
Matthews said that the attention paid to theVDP is partly inevitable. "Inherently, a visitingdirector project is [an HRDC] event from theget-go because there's a lot more pomp andcircumstance surrounding it," she said.
"I never thought the first slot should be afull production," Rouse said. "I can't imagine a[student] director who would put themselvesagainst a visiting director and the Pudding, fordesigners and for actors."
Many hope that the VDP can become aregular part of Harvard theater. But the HRDC doesnot currently have funding to continue theproject.
"Hopefully, someone will see the show and beoverwhelmingly supportive. But as it stands rightnow, we won't be able to do it again," saidMatthews.
Rouse is working towards the project'scontinuation, and is planning to meet with Dean ofStudents Jeremy R. Knowles to discuss thepossibility of using part of a $1.5 million grantfrom Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Loeb to fund futureresidencies.
"Aside from physical plant needs, I can't thinkof a better way to spend the money," said Rouse."Having a director here every year willunquestionably improve the quality of acting anddirecting all over campus."
Others are concerned that an annual residencywould change Harvard student theater.
"Having it every year would be overkill,"McSweeney said. "I think that it should ideally bedone every three years, two years at the most. Itwould allow members of every class to work on theshow without depriving student directors of theopportunity to work in the space."
"We've seen frustrated production afterfrustrated production," Rouse said. "How many moredo we have to watch before we learn our lesson,before we re-gear the value system of theorganization to promote good mainstage shows?"
For the semesters in which a professionaldirector is in residence, Rouse and McSweeney haveproposed a solution to alleviate tensions with the"competing" mainstage show: a series ofstudent-directed one-act in the earlier mainstageslot.
Freilinger objected to the idea. "Making theother mainstage slot in the spring a joke--whichis what one-acts would become--amounts todegrading the mainstage and will do nothing tohelp theater at Harvard."
"Perhaps one-acts might work, but keeping theintegrity of one of the mainstage slots as apurely student-run show is a good idea despite thepolitics." said Matthews. "Inherently, any newproject will have more politics surrounding it;the first step is always the hardest."
Tonight, The Living will take that firststep.