Donna Hoke offers page-by-page script analysis and career coaching for a reasonable fee. If interested, please inquire at


August 29th, 2013 donnahoke



I’m taking a sidebar here to talk about missions, because if you’ve been following the Real Inspiration for Playwrights Project (RIPP) for the past five months or so, you know that a recurring complaint from literary managers and artistic directors is that they get plays that don’t fit their missions, and that we are not doing our research in determining whether or not our plays are a good fits for the particular companies we’re sending them to. I want to flip that contention to say that many theaters, when establishing their missionary positions, are not clear about what they want. Here are some real examples pulled from some random theater websites:


“[X Theatre] is committed to producing both classic and contemporary works, giving full voice to a wide range of artists and visions… By dedicating itself to three guiding principles—quality, diversity and community—[X Theatre] seeks to be the premier cultural organization in [insert city here].”


Do you know what kind of plays this theater is seeking? Here’s a few more:


“[This company] engages, inspires, entertains, and challenges audiences with theatrical productions that range from the classics to new works; we train and support the next generation of theatre artists; we celebrate the essential power of the theatre to illuminate our common humanity.”


 “To create and produce professional theatre productions, programs, and services of a national standard.”


“The mission of [our company] is to sustain the tradition of professional theatre and contribute to its future viability and vitality.”


Is it just me, or do all of these mean “We make theater”? And this is to say nothing of all the theaters who use vague mission buzzwords like “bold” or “edgy.” And the catchall “as well as outstanding works of literary merit” basically means that many, many theaters are leaving themselves open to produce anything that suits their fancy—and any particular artistic director’s fancy is elusive at best.


I actually asked one AD whose theater does a lot of experimental work how it was that a certain, very  naturalistic, playwright was listed among his favorites. Answer: “I’m a big fan of great writing, great characters, and interesting stories, whether the story is simply told or weird and wonderful.” And honestly, is there an AD out there who doesn’t feel that way? In my own town, Irish Classical Theatre last year produced Next to Normal, which is neither Irish nor classic, simply because they wanted to. And they did an astounding job.


This is not to say that theaters don’t stick to their missions most of the time; the problem is that we don’t really know what they are, and they are fluid. I understand the desire for that fluidity—I really do—but then is it fair to say that we are not doing our jobs when the missions are purposely vague enough to include just about anything?


Even companies with very specific missions can easily be misconstrued. Take this one:


“[This company] makes theater of the imagination. Our company thrives on adventure and believes no story is worth telling without a little risk. We love our villains as much as our heroes, especially in those puzzling moments when we can’t quite tell them apart. Above all, we aim to leave you with stories that stick somewhere in your heart, your brain, or your guts.”


It sounds a little vague, but the key to the kingdom is in that first sentence, theater of the imagination: this company loves made-up worlds, and if you look at the plays they produce, you can see that very clearly. But the thing is, you really have to take that look to know that. Otherwise, you might be saying “My play is very imaginative, and you can’t tell the villains from the heroes. I’m sending it.” And it will be totally wrong for this company and that will be on you.


When every company—understandably—wants the ability to say “We want to produce this play,” without having to answer to either patrons or playwrights about their reasons, a solution remains out of reach. For new playwrights, it may be best to stay away from vague-mission companies, and seek out those with missions so specific that there can be no mistake that your play is perfect for them. Historic, Jewish, and Grand Guignol theater companies are quintessential examples. There’s even a company that only does productions of adapted novels, and one that insists on fight scenes between women. Even with my rudimentary math skills, I can figure out that these companies probably don’t get the thousands of submissions that more generically-missioned companies do. So find them. Write for them. They are probably looking for you in a way that those big companies just aren’t.




  1. 1 Michael Perlmutter said at 12:02 pm on August 31st, 2013:

    Well, what I “take from this” (to borrow from your own format) is to check out past and current productions–research what plays the theatre has done in the past to get a feel for where their heart lies. Mission and Vision statements can be necessarily vague but the proof is in the pudding as it were. And if none of the play titles are recognizable you may have actually stumbled onto a theatre that truly does new works. Search the internet for reviews of their work if you have to. Hey, it wouldn’t be called ‘work’ if you didn’t have to put in the effort, would it?

  2. 2 Donna Hoke said at 12:09 pm on August 31st, 2013:

    I’m talking primarily about theaters that do new work, which means when you do that research, the plays have no histories to find, which makes it hard to pinpoint a particular aesthetic. I don’t think any of us are unwilling to do that work, but oftentimes, doing it only makes things murkier.

  3. 3 Stephen Sossaman said at 10:13 am on August 30th, 2015:

    My guess is that those mission statements are meant not primarily for playwrights, but for potential subscribers, local newspapers, potential donors, and maybe local actors and volunteers. That might be especially true for statements that emphasize audience benefit (“We entertain, challenge…”). A similar (and for me far more maddening) vagueness appears in the mission statements of literary journals, variations of “We publish the best contemporary writing by established and emerging writers.” Most journals suggest that writers first read a sample issue to see what they publish: but if an editor can’t articulate what they like and dislike, how can a writer suss that out from one issue? Vague mission statements probably backfire on theaters because they encourage the “shotgun” submission technique, so at least there is a little punishment for their unhelpfulness.

  4. 4 donnahoke said at 12:10 am on August 31st, 2015:


  5. 5 Hal Corley said at 10:51 am on April 2nd, 2018:

    We all read those annual lists of the most produced plays. It was startling how many self-described “edgy” companies chose Durang’s “Masha…” or “Baitz’s “Other Desert Cities,” two plays that have one thing in common: a NYC imprimatur. Hits with audiences. (I like both scripts, and saw both original productions, this is not about their earned profile). But both plays were already tested as audience accepting. The same proved true of a more controversial play, “Disgraced.” Would companies producing “Disgraced” welcome a play depicting another untried piece about complexity of identity politics and cultural backlash? Or was “Disgraced” (again, a play I admire) oft produced because it had been validated with a Pulitzer and NY generated buzz? It’s very important to tease out the track record of every theater’s repertoire, not merely contemplate “edgy” content. Go back a decade. Many theaters staging “August: Osage County” wouldn’t work on another (large cast) play about an equally troubled family. These fine plays tell us one thing: theaters like to produce stuff which has name, even brand value. We should interpret their selection with clear eyes about why they were slotted. The mission may only be: “plays likely to put butts in seats.”

  6. 6 donnahoke said at 4:22 pm on April 2nd, 2018:

    All too true. The avenues for true advancement of new scripts that haven’t come through New York City are so few, and the open submission with vague mission statements just doesn’t help.

  7. 7 Patrick Martin said at 3:35 pm on January 19th, 2021:

    Yes, all of those statements say, “We make theater.” Purpose statements should not be vague or generic. Purpose statements state why the company exists. If it is 501(c)(3), why does it exist as a nonprofit charity? All theaters want to produce good plays. That is generic. What great action is the theater going to do for its customer, community, or world? The answer should be their purpose should be.

Leave a Reply