The Herald spoke with some of the principals from “Guitar Strings, a Cowboy and a Lost Peacock” about getting the play to curtain, how the production materialized so quickly, the process of collaboration and some of the difficulties experienced along the way.
Sarah Syverson
Writer
On working with producer Rod Barker
I came in and met with Rod in late November, and he told me his idea for the show. He wanted an older cowboy-type character, a Will Rogers-type character, and then he wanted to incorporate a younger, millennial character into the show to educate, but in a fun and entertaining way, about the history of Durango and the community of the place and how things have changed over time.
I liked Rod, first of all. I’d never met him and didn’t know who he was, but I just felt like we had a nice resonance when we met for the first time. We had a similar sense of humor, and I left there thinking, “Oh, this is really something I could write about and enjoy doing the process.”
On the collaborative process
This was the first time I’d done something so specific in a way and something so collaborative. In the past, I’ve worked with the producer or director of the show … but it was always my ideas and my focus.
(Collaboration) can be a horrible experience or it can be an enjoyable experience. In this instance, it was really enjoyable. I think there’s an overall feeling of positivity around it. The first part of it is just brainstorming and coming up with ideas, “Hey, what about this, what about that?” (and) doing a lot of research on the area, from the late 1800s to the present time period, and letting those ideas gestate and seeing what bubbles up in the script that’s incorporated from those historical facts.
On director Scott Levy and the working environment during production
If you can have a relaxed, creative environment, then it creates the best conditions to develop the script, and that’s what he spearheaded, being the director and calling the shots. That helped us focus and enjoy and develop the script together. So that meant everybody had a say, including the stage manager, Sarah Nichols and all three of the actors. Everyone made contributions to that script. It has my name on it as “written by,” but really, truly, it’s a collaboration where everyone in that crew had a say in the final words.
On the short time table for production
Relatively speaking, you’d want a minimum of a year to be able to write a script, write all the drafts that come with that, then to workshop the script and get a lot of information from the audience that it’s workshopped with and integrate those ideas. The process was really sped up. That being said, it was a very enjoyable experience.
It’s nice to lay something down and let it sit for a little bit, then kind of forget about it, then pick it back up and look at it with fresh eyes. We were able to do that, but not as much as we would have normally. When I watch it, there’s always an evolution of anything where it’d be fun to add something or subtract something or shift something a little bit. I think that’s true of any work of art. It’s always an object in motion. It never feels quite complete with any kind of work. I think there’s always room to shift or change it.
David Holub
Note: The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity
