Re: RAT Um...

[vz <dexteriously@yahoo.com>]

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. 

>>>If anyone actually believes this to be true, please identify
yourselves.  I certainly don't know anyone who does.


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 ?  

>>>If we get into a discussion of whether any given play or production
is "needed," we could end up losing losing most of what's being done. 
The utilitarian argument is a blind alley.


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

>>>Shakespeare's work has survived being feminized.  Or should I say
thrived?  And there was definitely a "marketing" angle to letting women
on stage in the first place.

( 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) 

>>>Marketing: bad!  Targeting productions to specific communities: bad!
Perhaps my theatre should abandon its upcoming production of Eugene
O'Neill's "Hughie," a bald attempt to lure audiences that prefer dead
white playwrights.

- 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.

>>>We could thrash about where one draws the line at calling a thing
"new," but your call for writers and directors to be "meaningful" is
fresh and exciting, and bears repeating here.


Wally (genetic mutt)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com