Re: RAT, The dramaturgy of...

[Dan Dietz <ddeitez@jump.net>]

This was a really great post.  Yes, "under-standing" literally is just getting
a sense of that which lies beneath and supports a work.  It doesn't have to
mean a complete appreciation of every little thing.  You don't have to know the
difference between Peruvian marble and pink granite to appreciate the different
effects they have on your eyes and feet as you stroll through a building.  And
it's not really the job of the building to teach you to be an architect or to
teach you how to read a blueprint.  (Though it could inspire you to educate/go
on that journey yourself...)
Kind of a cool thread to follow.  Thanks to all participants.

Dan
Salvage Vanguard

Elizabeth Ware wrote:

> Rats,
>
> I am not the most experienced of theater artists, but I've worked on pieces
> that were "willfully obscure" and on pieces that are not.
>
> Recently, I directed was Mac Wellman's "The Difficulty of Crossing a Field"
> and I am directing a nice, traditional version of Pride & Prejudice now.
>
> I have hopes that the audiences of each piece will have an equal chance of
> "understanding" the work.  But "understanding" is different for each.
>
> In the Jane Austen, I want the audiences to follow the plot, and connect
> with the characters, and root for everything to turn out ok for everybody.
> On an intellectual level, they may note how the world today is the same, and
> how the world today is different.  And how people are always the same.  If
> the production is really successful, the beauty of the story will stay with
> them for a while.  I do not expect heated discussions of its meaning at the
> bar afterwards.
>
> In "Difficulty," the plot was not entirely clear.  I had ideas of "what
> happened," and each of the cast members had ideas, and most of the audience
> members had ideas.  No two alike.  The audience left that show with
> questions.  Some of them came to see the show again, only to have more
> questions, and more clearly defined questions.
>
> Some people just left the show bewildered, and did not have anything to take
> with them when they left.
>
> I dragged my father to one of Erik Ehn's plays years ago.  Afterwards, he
> told me he didn't get it at all, it didn't make any sense.  But over the
> next several years, he would continue to bring it up.  He was still thinking
> about it, and still trying to understand it.
>
> If the play is just a muddle, you forget about it.  If the play's mystery
> has its own internal logic, you continue to seek the "secret decoder ring"
> of the play.
>
> I would argue that if you are still puzzling over it years later, or if you
> go back to see it again, to clarify your questions, Then the show makes
> sense.  It may not make sense on an intellectual level, it may make a kind
> of sense that is impossible to articulate.  Some audience members will
> envigorated by that, and some will shut down.
>
> I've also done "willfully obscure" shows where only a small percentage of
> the audience left with good questions.  In these shows, the window into the
> work was too tiny to let very many people in.  Those are the ones I consider
> failures.
>
> It sounds as though we are all discussing this window, trying to decide:
>
> "How small is too small?"
>
> - Elizabeth Ware
>

--

Dan Dietz, co-Artistic Director
Salvage Vanguard Theater
www.salvagevanguard.org
1705 Guadalupe Street, Suite 301
Austin, Texas  78701
PH: 512.474-SVT-6, FAX: 512.474.SVT-0
"I hate theater."