Re: RAT Toastmaster

[jonoh1@juno.com]

A few things:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:15:34 -0500 (EST) Cat Hebert
<virtualdrama@juno.com> writes:
> "Everything that is not the case is toast" LW
> 
> A very large problem I see for playwrights is the lack of a 
> universal notation system for intended emotion, important 
> inflection, and various sorts of subtext.

But we have that system.  It's called punctuation.  An appropriately
placed italicized word, an ellipsis,  a comma, etc. The problem lies not
so much with the current system as with the interpretation of that
system.

> 
> The assumption that's been made ever since the Method/Hollywood 
> connection took over U.S. performance process is that a playscript 
> contains the ingredients from which the director and actors make ... 
> toast.

I find this naive. Who's making this  "assumption"?  I have certainly
never made it.  Neither has anybody  I know who works in both the theatre
and film/tv. If anything they are painfully aware of the vast differences
between the two disciplines. In the theatre the text is and always has
been tantamount to untouchable. Text is the great holder of secrets. The
light in the dark, manna in the wilderness, the whole nine yards.
Theatrical directors look to text for conceptual takes. (The good ones
know when it works, the bad ones don't.) Actors flutter their scripts in
ofttimes manic justification of some bit or other, or ,conversely in
protest to a particular direction. Film doesn't work that way. Period. It
never has. It never did. It never will. It was never intended to. It
varies with teleplays. A star (or a powerful Guest Star) can often change
comedic text to fit their particular style or tastes, but don't try it if
you're co-starring or have little clout. The writers of sitcoms have
final say over all text (unless they are trumped by stars). It's the
rhythm of dialogue that makes sitcoms work. Anybody who works within the
discipline knows that. Directors can suggest and only suggest (unless
they're also producers). In one hour drama it's vastly different. Far
more room for ad libbing. None of this applies to the theatre.

> 
> "Collaboration" became a code word for actor/director-centric 
> performance for which the writer provides "raw material" -- the 
> number of eggs, the amount of yeast. It is up to the other 
> collaborators to determine what sort of toast it becomes.

While I certainly appreciate the continuation of your toast metaphor,
your point, again, strikes me as something less than informed. "Code
word"? Maybe I'm being too literal here, but..."code word"? And not to
split semantical hairs but when it comes to performance, the actual
<performance> of a piece the writer has no choice but to sit back and let
go. Also true for the director perhaps, but a less so. Or perhaps we
don't agree that the writer's medium is a bit less dependent of the
<visual> aspects of the theatre. The play I read and hear in my head is a
completely different play than the one my lover reads and hears in their
head, even though it's exactly the same play.  Our inner ears effect the
writer's intent indelibly. The director and the actors  coming into the
equation also must effect the writer's intent. Introduce an audience and
you have a whole other version. You're selling the baker short here.

> 
> This works well for work coming out of improvisation, or intended to 
> allow for a lot of interpretation, or for playwrights (like Mamet or 
> Stoppard, or Shakespeare/Moliere) who are writing for specific 
> actors and know that the initial productions will probably be 
> "right", or for playwrights who are heavily visual or mostly 
> auditory and *want* a lot of help with interpretation.
> 
> For most other playwrights I've worked with / commiserated with, 
> though, the process is a culinary minefield. Their carefully crafted 
> English scones will be turned into toast, or loaded with marmalade, 
> or deconstructed for the raisins. Playwrights understand that 
> different casts will have slightly different interpretations (and 
> some, defensively I think, welcome that publicly), but they don't 
> expect an entirely different play to emerge.

If an entirely different play emerges out of a rehearsal process this
would be due only to the writers lack of balls in defending the written
word. Even to the point of pulling the play. 

> 
> In a way this is teenage rebellion that has found a home in a 
> performance form. "I don't want to do it the way you wrote it. I 
> want to do it my way. I like it better my way. And besides, I'm 
> producing the piece and they're acting in it. You just put these ... 
> blobs of ink on paper."  And so the playwright finds him/herself 
> back in high school (in grade school?), having the [fill in the 
> blanks] taken away from them by the popular/aggressive kids. 

See above.

> 
> One justification for this, of course, is that by allowing wide 
> varieties of interpretation, the way is opened for many more 
> productions and assures wider exposure to a particular play.
> 
> But, what I actually see happening, throughout this country -- and 
> extending into Europe -- is that film/TV saturated actors and 
> directors tend to have such homogenized perormance/directing styles 
> -- and such homogenized life experiences -- that they turn scripts 
> that are very different than one another in intent into *the same 
> performance piece". The characters of Chekhov, Tristan Tzara, Bill 
> T. Jones all come to look like the cast of Friends -- hungover, or 
> having a particularly verbal day in the coffee shop. 

You betcha. The homogenization of the American Theatre is one of the
many, many nails placed firmly in its' coffin, but geez...Chekhov and
Jones looking/sounding alike? That's worth the price of admission right
there. I question your giving them (the homogenized actor/directors) that
much power though. Have you no faith in your own work? Put up a fucking
fight, people. Or give up the ghost. "They" turn scripts into generic
crap? Not without the implied consent/tacit approval of the author, if
you ask me.
> 
> But... if you think of a playscript as more of an engineering 
> specification than a do-it-yourself bakefest, you can see why I'm 
> arguing the need for a notational system that "scores" many of the 
> elements from the playwrights point of view. 
> 
> Different casts will *always* produce different productions. The 
> assumption that the playwright's vision isn't correct, or isn't 
> practical or doesn't make sense often really means "I don't know 
> what she is talking about" ... or ... "We don't have the skill to do 
> it that way, so...." ... or ... "The plot and characters are cool -- 
> and just like something I was thinking about. I can't write for 
> shit, so I'll turn what you wrote into what I would like to write."
> 
> So... the next time "making toast" comes up, how about thinking 
> about "making a fine watch" from blueprints. Too time consuming? Too 
> much trouble? Too ego suppressing?
> 
> There we have it.

  Not quite. As I've said, I've always held the script as primo. Period.
Only stopping to rewrite my own (occasionally,  I must admit, at an
actor's suggestion). It's more a matter of the playwright being involved
with the rehearsal process and not being intimidated by the director,
producer and/or actor out of fear of the play not getting produced. (I'm
of two minds when it comes to writer's being allowed on film sets, but,
ultimately, I think, it's a given that they should be there.)It sounds
like you've been burned as a writer by what was clearly either a bunch of
dilettantes or a bunch of power mongering know-it-alls. Sorry 'bout that.
But one <must> defend one's work. It's all we have as artists. The actors
defend their choices rather stupidly on occasion. But it doesn't stop
them from trying. Directors mumble justifications that boggle the clear
mind, but they, at least, offer an opinion. Writers, or at least the
writers you're referring to in your post, could take a lesson from their
theatrical brethren and realize that it's not enough simply to give birth
to their children, they must raise them in a hostile and nasty little
world.
  I like your style.
  Jonathan Harris

P.S. - Who's L.W.?




---------------------------------------
To [un]subscribe to the rat-list, send an email to "majordomo@ratconference.com"
with [un]subscribe rat-list" in the body of the message.
For information on other functions send a message containing the word
"help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
---------------------------------------
You may also [un]subscribe on the web at http://www.ratconference.com/cgi-bin/web_domo.pl?list=rat-list