RAT "talking about theatre" (Wellman's Infrared) surrebutter

[Bobby Mrozek <bby@earthlink.net>]

Back in the last century (December 15, 1999 to be exact) I deposited a slight 
murmur on the RATlist regarding a current production of Mac Wellman's 
"Infrared."  Since then, I have recieved a good number messages, comments, 
questions, memories, dreams and illusions. Thus I tender the following comments 
in a brief effort to respond.  As a preface, it is worth mentioning that of the 
people who saw the original message on the RATlist and responded, most did so 
by emailing to me directly rather than posting on the RATlist.  In so doing, a 
good few stated their desire not to post on the RATlist because they didn't 
care to get "...shouted down by the youth movement."  Too bad, because there 
are included some rather good criticism.  As you might have suspected, there 
appears to be far more people looking at the RATlist than those who regualarly 
post on it. 

As per usual, I shall try to arrange items herein from the most pertinent to 
the trivial.  If you missed the original message and are still vaugely 
interested, it's at the very end.

RE: THE ENDORSMENT
Fancy Paints production of "Mac Wellman's Infrared,"  You still have a chance 
to see it, and, quite likey, other opportunities lay ahead.  I attended the 
opening night performance of the DTW run in New York.  It seems that I'm not 
alone with an opinion of high regards for the work.  Before the the DTW run 
ended, Jim Simpson signed it on for a 4 week run at The Flea Theatre -- a rave 
review in The Village Voice followed: 
<http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0004/soloski.shtml>  
At The Flea Theatre, 41 White Street, New York (Tribeca) 212.226-0051, through 
Februray 5th.  It's excellent, go see it! 

RE: THIS PRODUCTION AND MAC WELLMAN
I chose to post a message on this topic on the RATlist in part because, over 
the years, I've noticed that Mac Wellman's name came up from time to time, 
especially in press releases announcing productions of his work.  For me, prior 
to December 10 1999, Wellman's work spoke more as poetry than drama.  Often, 
his plays didn't quite come into focus.  That is to say, like many RATlister, I 
felt like I got something, but I didn't fully get it.  The Fancy Paints 
production of "Infrared" brought the lanuage to life in a way that I hadn't 
seen before.  It's quite an achievement for that alone. When it works, it soars 
-- flying off the boards.  The "Judas Man" scene was particularly successfull 
herein.  On a lighter note, I find there is something kind of American with 
Wellman's work: he works hard (there's a depth and complexity) and he plays 
hard -- in particually, he plays with the lanuage.  I've noticed sometimes how 
he creates speaches that tail off with a string of descriptive words, then 
lands on one, obscure, yet perfectly appropriate word and hangs it on the 
character.  Look for "proclivities" in 'Infrared."  In my original message I 
wrote: 
> ...his comments on
> the production were bold, and effusive, and enthusiastic, and glowing,
> and laudatory, and panegyrical...
In part, I wanted my readers to know that the author was elated with this 
production.  But also, it was my poor attempt at imitating Wellman's style. 
Seven people got the joke and responded with far more clever efforts (nick was 
not one of them).

RE: RHETORIC OF EMAIL
It seams to me that, unlike the all other common forms of written language, 
email (which is, for now, written lanuage) is usually spelled out in 
conversational rhetoric.  What's missing is the sound of the a voice and the 
sight of a face, which convey much of the meaning in conversational lanuage.  
It seems that where the email reader is left to fill in the blank, something 
ere the message.  Email readers don't hear the smiles or frowns, they don't see 
the face, know the sex, age, race and many, many other subtleties which create 
meaning for listeners. Suppose the word is "anarchy."  If it's spoken by an old 
man with thick glasses and a bow tie, then the listener is thinking "history 
lecture."  But, if it's spoke by a young woman with a shaved head and a bone 
through her nose, the listener is thinking "a brick through the window of a 
Starbucks."  

I was thinking about this before I wrote the second paragraph of my original 
message.  Firstly, the second paragraph was there to help ensure that the 
posting, the first, and more important paragraph, would get noticed.  For the 
most part, that seems to have worked.  I was wondering how the second paragraph 
might be heard by the readers. I was careful to write it as if something tagged 
on at the end, in rolling, sort of meandering afterthought, yawning laguage.  
Furthermore, I used the first person inclusive "we" so to insure that nobody 
might mistake it for some kind of accusation.  The first person "we" while 
talking about theatre, and complaining that we never talk about theatre is a 
direct contradiction used to create whimsy while illuding to some desparate 
points.  Like most of us, I'm on a number of email lists and, as we all know, I 
rarely see posted messages directly related to the topic -- most are forever 
personal.  So, I was kind of making fun at that.  And, I was growing a little 
weary of the aforementioned "throw a brick at Starbucks" stuff.  Most people 
who responded, got that pretty much as I intended.  

Oddly, there were two messages from people who heard that part as if it were 
being shouted at them.  Written lanuage that is meant to be heard as a shout 
can be conveyed, even in email, with short, sharp, telegraph rhetoric with a 
sense of urgency. And, it can be posted in all caps like, HEY I'M SHOUTING AT 
YOU!  Moreover, in the age of desktop publishing, there is a field of interest 
know as "visual literature" which I suspect we'll hear more of in the new 
century.  In the meantime check out the Portrait Series books by Warren Lehrer 
starting with "Brother Blue."  Brother Blue Storyteller is wonderful performer 
working in and around Harvard Square in Boston -- go see him too.

RE: SHOUTING DOWN 
The question was asked if I felt I deserved an apology from a few rebutters who 
didn't want to hear any of what I had to say, and let the RATlist know it, and 
so on.  My answer is that I don't think any apolgies are needed.  As I 
mentioned before, we can't always know age of email writers.  That which may 
sound like intolerance, might just be the smell of teen spirit. 

Back to the main point: many RATlister talked about the poetry in Wellman's 
dramatic writing.  Perhaps someone would like to do a little research and 
report on the comparisons and contrasts between Wellman's work and the 
Afro-American Chore-poem style of dramatic writing.  Perhaps a little course in 
diversity might be like a breath of fresh air on a winter day... for us all. 

THE ORIGINAL MURMUR:
> Has anyone see "INFRARED" at DTW (New York)?  It is excellent!  I've
> seen about 400-500 plays in the last 10-15 years, an this production is
> outstanding amoung all that I've seen.  The language is brilliant and
> the performances exist with a captivating physical presence that can't
> be ignored. And, the "Judas Man" scene, what do think of that!?!  I had
> the good fortune of attending opening night, with the author, Mac
> Wellman, present, and, as I had made his acquaintance years before, I
> had the chance to talk to him before and after.  He is the sort of
> person who is quite impossible to quote, so I won't, but his comments on
> the production were bold, and effusive, and enthusiastic, and glowing,
> and laudatory, and panegyrical, and so on... like a sort of poet's
> benediction (he had seen rehearsals as well as the first public
> performance). But the "Judas Man" scene -- why can't more theatre be as
> that?
> 
> "INFRARED," two performances remain, 12/17-18 at DTW's Bessie Schonberg
> Theatre, 212.924.0077.
> 
> Theatre.  May I suggest that this list could be of some use for
> discussion of theatre.  I've been on for 3-4 years, and we never, ever
> talk about theatre. We only talk about ourselves, with a vague reason
> that it has something to do with theatre, because, we also have an
> ancillary interested in theatre, but obviously not as profound and
> insightfull as our interest in ourselves, our sophmoric politics and our
> stunning realization of our own self-brilliance, which no one else can
> possibly understand...