Re: RAT Um...

["Glen-Skip-Newell" <skipworthy@hotmail.com>]

Cousin John says....

> From Backstage West - 1/28/00
>
> "After seeing a local production of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" at
> South Coast Repertory, writer/director Melissa Petro has a small
> epiphany.
>   'They did a great job,' said Petro, 'but you know, as a woman and an
> actress, the first thing I thought was: all the good parts are for men.
> There are eight men in this play and one woman and she doesn't even have
> a name.'

*ahem* THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S HOW JOHN WROTE THE GODDAM PLAY ...
WHY is it necessary to feminize shit like that ? I support , even admire
playwrights (and other artists) who choose to work from thier own
perspectives, in thier own voice...but this kind of shit just pisses me off.
Apparently, it's no good to write or produce a play with a couple of guys
doing guy things, not getting naked or gay or being psychotic but  involcved
in being MEN. WHY do we need a 'female' version of 'true west' , for example
? was it not written with enough drama ? Why a female 'Odd Couple' ? wasn't
the original bad enough ?  I have yet to see or read a 'feminized'
script/production ( I'm speaking now of adaptations of already 'proven'
material ) that did the original justice( and most attempts, frankly were
either blatent attempts to patronize a segment of the community or cash in
on the marketablilty of a 'name' show) - in every case the writer/director
would have been better off spending the time and energy to create something
new and meanigful, rather than plaigerizing someone else's material.

Skip
(straight and descended from dead white europeans and DAMN PROUD OF IT,
thankyouveryfuckinmuch)