RE: RAT The dramaturgy of ...

[Laura Winton <fluffysingler@prodigy.net>]

Seems to me the question is can the audience get anything from the reference
or the basis of the piece without that prior knowledge.  The best artistic
work to me--poetry, music, theatre, film, etc.--is that which almost anyone
can observe/participate in and "get", but which is layered so that the more
you know about the piece, the richer it becomes for you.

This might seem a silly comparison (although I hope not), but someone
mentioned Chuck Jones the other day.  The best "children's" cartoons are
those that are layered with adult references so that the older you get you
start going "oh, I never understood that before but now I do."  I think
about all those great opera parodies.  You think any 8 year-old ever knew
anything about the Marriage of Figaro than what they saw on Bugs Bunny? 
There were always all kinds of great adult inside jokes in those things.

Back to the more esoteric--I think there IS something to be said for
bringing your audience along with you--challenging instead of simply
presenting them what they already know, which at its lowest level becomes
pandering.

After all these years of participating in arts and politics, I have no
illusion that I am "just like everyone else".  In a sense, I do make art for
myself, but I assume that there are at least a FEW people out there like me
looking for something similar or that will appreciate what I'm going for or
feel inspired by it or grow from it.  How many more Lethal Weapon sequels
(or performances of Showboat) can the public really watch?  My point
being--that there are plenty of people out there doing stuff that is more
universally enjoyed--and many of them do it well and genuinely like creating
that kind of theatre or film (or poetry or fiction).  I'm not trying to be
elitist here, necessarily.  It's just that it's the more obscure and
esoteric work that interests me, and I have to be true to myself first,
above all else.

------Original Message------
From: vz <dexteriously@yahoo.com>
To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
Sent: January 15, 2001 5:01:15 PM GMT
Subject: RAT The dramaturgy of ...


--- Greg Romero <gregoryromero@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But then don't tell anyone and see if
>> people get it.

This statement interests me.  Apologies, Greg, for taking it out of
your context!  But what the hell.

"Not telling, and seeing if it's gotten" is something that I see
happening in the theatre all the time, especially by artists who are
inclined take risks in how they connect with their audiences.  I also
run into many a critique of this practice, especially by artists,
critics, and audience members who feel that to connect is the point.

I've done it: written plays that had layers of meaning or context that
I knew would not be gotten by all.  I remember writing one play based
on a particular film, without citing that film, and not one person has
ever seen the connection.  Was I being self-indulgent?  Entertaining an
audience consisting only of myself?  In that instance, I thought not: I
wanted the play to be a whole thing, a full experience, without regard
to that film reference.

But then I wrote another play based on an outside work, that I felt had
failed.  Every character in my play corresponded to a character in that
other work.  To see that correspondence, I felt, was to enter into a
depth of connection with my work that would reward you.  To miss that
correspondence was to be less well-rewarded for having come to see my
play.

Why did I feel my play had failed?  I'm not sure, I'm still thinking
about it, but perhaps I was mindful of percentages.  I guessed that
maybe as much as 50% of my potential audience would "get" the premise.
More, if I ever had the kind of production that earned a buzz and clued
in an audience beforehand (a scenario that might be considered
presumptuous).

Then again, I can't be *too* mindful of percentages.  Michelangelo
Antonioni has said that he doesn't worry about his films being
understood by audiences, that the audiences for his work are created by
the work, come into being because of the work.  I understand what he
means, because I love his work and can't adequately articulate why.

But I can't quite embrace the Antonioni outlook without discretion.  If
I employ a reference to Monica Vitti (as I once did in such a heartfelt
way in one of my plays), can I be satisfied to assume that the audience
for that reference, and its function in my play, will 'come into
being'?  In that particular instance, alas, no.

I'm not trying to formulate a thesis here.  I'd be interested, though,
to see if a conversation can break out here: how have you RATs wrestled
with being 'gotten'?  How have you responded to works that have
challenged you to 'get' them?

Wally Z



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

"Those poor kids.  So young.  So nauseous."
--Krusty the Klown Telethon for Motion Sickness


Laura Winton
fluffysingler@prodigy.net
http://pages.prodigy.net/fluffysingler