[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: RAT The Sassies!!!!
Expanding a bit,
May I also throw into the nineties ring, yet more Chris Jeffries, I See
London, I See France and The Glory Booty Club - both of which manage to
take material from all over the millenium, and the past millenium to boot
(no pun intended) and open a very current vein.
(not so computer adept am I, maybe John will connect us to reviews of these
other two stellar works.)
Yeah, Shakespeare...
Yeah, Willy Lowman...
but I lay down across the trax for Chris Jeffries
Cara Rosson
>Going out on a limb (for the fun of it)
>
>
>Of the Millennium
>
>Obviously Shakespeare is the most important playwright of the past 1000
>years. I agree that Henry IV 1 and 2 are the best he wrote. Prince Hal's
>dilemma is much more interesting than Hamlets to me. Everyone grows up but
>doesn't want to. Hamlet's tragic flaw is procrastination. If Shakespeare
>wasn't such a good poet that play would be unreadable and as it is it's damn
>near unwatchable. The Henriad on the other hand is plain full throttle fun.
>
>Most important of the century.
>
>In terms of influence of the theater world and society in general its hard
>to beat Godot. Especially when you have to wade through piles of weak
>imitations even now. I would like to suggest a couple of radical options.
>
>A Chorus Line: Ensemble, serious, post modern musical. Expanded the idea of
>what a broadway musical could be about. Created a new model of how a show
>might get created and get to Broadway. Interesting structure. Great songs.
>Unforgetable characters. Saw it when I was 13. "What I Did For Love" still
>resonates. Still funny.
>
>True West: Tiny theater that started in a church basement brings a show to
>broadway. Got my interest.
>
>Death of a Salesman: ...oh I don't know. Blah blah blah good play blah blah
>blah critique of the American Dream blah blah blah
>
>Of the 90s
>
>The Fatty Arbuckle Spookhouse Revue (by Chris Jeffries) at Annex Theater in
>1992 - at Sacred Fools 1997(very first production): 50 years from now this
>will be seen as the most important play of the 20th Century.
>
>http://www.sacredfools.org/reviewsmain2.htm#fattyreview
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DgSWEET@aol.com [SMTP:DgSWEET@aol.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 11:01 AM
>> To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
>> Subject: Re: RAT The Sassies!!!!
>>
>> 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