Re: RAT The Sassies!!!!

[DgSWEET@aol.com]

In a message dated 01/13/2000 12:34:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
NOMADMONAD@aol.com writes:

<< The Cherry Orchard.  1904.  Okay.  Chekhov was at the cusp of the century, 
 even though he's usually classified as a 19th century playwright.  So what 
 makes you believe Cherry Orchard is more important than Vanya or Sea Gull or 
 Three Sisters?  And if I had to vote for a 19th century playwright who in 
 some seminal way led theater into and through the 20th, I would go with 
Ibsen 
 or Strindberg.  Ibsen's last work When We Dead Awaken is an excellent play 
on 
 which to study that century to turn.  The Dream Play by Strinberg connects 
 with Freud and much more of the new century's obsessions.  

+++ You're welcome to go with Ibsen and Strindberg.  I find attending them 
too often a duty.  I find Chekhov a continual pleasure.  And if you were to 
poll contemporary playwrights, I have little doubt that you would find that 
most would name Chekhov as a primary influence.  (There was an article on 
this subject somewhere recently called, I believe, "And, Of Course, Chekhov," 
in which a batch of very dissimilar playwrights all citec Chekhov as their 
inspiration.)  Ibsen certainly was important in opening the stage to new 
subjects, but his stuff plays almost as dated as much of what he wrote to 
destroy -- including some of the worst and most heavy-handed exposition 
written by a major writer.  Strindberg?  OK, gang, how many of you have 
actually seen or read DANCE OF DEATH?  Thank you.  Now, how many of you have 
seen CHERRY ORCHARD.  I thought so.  My theory -- it's hard to be influenced 
by a work if you haven't read it or seen it.
 
 <<HENRY IV, pys 1&2.   ???  What's here that no one else has seen? 

+++ No one else?  You mean, like Orson Welles and Ralph Richardson?  HAMLET 
may be the most profound investigation of an individual's psychology, but the 
HENRY IVs are not only psychologically profound, they are politically 
sophisticated and paint a portrait of the upper and nether levels in society 
and how they interact.  To my mind, much more complex, richer stuff.  And I 
would vote for Falstaff as the great Shakespearean character.  Shakespeare 
seems to have been pretty fond of him: second only to Margaret, he appears in 
more plays by Shakespeare than any other character (HENRY IV, pts 1&2, MERRY 
WIVES) and is shadow hangs over a fourth (HENRY V).

<<< Lear, Macbeth, Tempest all seem better contenders.

+++ To you, to you.  Frankly, I prefer RICHARD II, KING JOHN and WINTER'S 
TALE to these.  My opinion.
 
 <<<< As for your 90's nomination "too soon to tell."    Who wrote that and 
where 
 was it produced?  I never heard of it.

+++ Oh, a joke.  Yes, amusing.
 
<<< You will need to elaborate on your nominations otherwise the Committee 
will 
 sentence you and your opinions into the dustbin. 

++++ Ouch, ouch.  Though, ya know, I think I've done enough creditable work 
to be able to talk my way out of most dustbins. 

----------------------------------
Jeffrey Sweet
Resident Playwright, Victory Gardens Theatre
Faculty, Actors Studio at the New School
Council, the Dramatists Guild of America
http://members.aol.com/DgSWEET/index.html