Re: RAT The dramaturgy of ...

[Greg Romero <gregoryromero@yahoo.com>]

Wally (and other RATs), no need to apoogize for
pouncing on that last statement.  It was one
that, while it was made offhand, it is something
that I wrestle with and am, in fact, wrestling
with right now on a play I've written and am
developing with rm 120 theatre.

For the current experience, those of us who are
working on it share, I think, a similar outlook. 
We think the piece is enjoyable enough and are
having a great time navigating and creating its
many contours and dimensions.  We "get it" (in
fact, my dramaturg Ann Taylor and actor David
Young have taught me a lot about the piece) and
that's enough reward to us.  It's also a fun
challenge to present without being obvious or
concerned with audience understanding.

I'm at a point where my theatrical sensibility is
something like this:  the work I write and
develop is imaginative and challenging.  If
people "get it" that's one thing and all very
nice and such.  But I don't necessarily care if
they "get" what I/we intended.  If they "get"
anything at all meaningful or positive or
exciting or captivating out of the experience or
participated in some way other than as a
disinterested spectator then I feel the
performance succeeded.  And if they don't, so be
it.  Those people can go watch TV for all I care.
:)



--- vz <dexteriously@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- 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/


=====
Greg Romero
Dramaturg
rm 120 theatre
PO Box 300165
Austin TX  78703
(512) 481-8366

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/