Re: RAT Toastmaster

[Cat Hebert <virtualdrama@juno.com>]

Jonathan,
 
> > 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.
 
How many directors and actors do you know who ignore all of that and just
move ahead?  Come to think of it, how many directors of Shakespeare (not
to mention new play authors) go to the First Folio to look at the
punctuation? (e.g. look at the To be or not. speech)
 
> 
> > 
> > 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. 
 
***Again. The difference between the new play and the established play.
For established (esp published) plays, directors who aren't
deconstructing texts (or are legally enjoined from doing so) *have* to
use interpretation. They'd be taken to task by critics, academics etc.
for making largescale changes textual changes. New plays are a different
story.  I see many directors / producers expending quite a bit of energy
getting changes from playwrights. This is often a topic of conversation
at playwrights' conferences.
 
>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.
 
*** Actually, you're making my point:) The classic theater situation
corresponds more to a remake of a classic film. The new play situation
relates more to writing a new sitcom/drama. (The film situation is
different, since the director/producer tend to be the defacto authors of
the final screenplay. The original screenwriter is, in practice, actually
a consultant)  For example, all of these homage remakes -- not films that
just pick up the storyline, but those that attempt to actually
reinterpret the filmscript -- show quite a bit of reverence for the
original.
Within the new play development process, all sorts of pressures come to
bear on the author to make changes in the material -- often making
acceptance of work for production contingent on changes. And, remember,
often material isn't even considered for production in the first place
because it "isn't right".
***** 
> > 
> > "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.
> 
****  There are some writers who are highly auditory/verbal/cognitive and
others who are quite visual. There are even those who are primarily
olfactory/tacile (and will have a hell of a time getting produced :)). Of
course there will be differences in productions. It's for the purpose of
keeping variations in performance in check that some more complex
notational system (several have been proposed) would be useful. You will
always have that interrelationship between character/actor/audience. For
writers who have very little visual sense, or no knowledge of the timing
of audience interactions, directors and actors can be very helpful in
fleshing out their work and making all-too-necessary changes. However, it
isn't hard to see that the current movement back to playwrights directing
their own (first) productions (and a formal movement, as well) has some
rationale. 
 
<SNIP. Sorry. We're two, really verbal folks.>
 
I agree that playwrights need to be more aggressive, and I am constantly
buttonholing authors who are about to make major script changes
(Dramatists' Guild contract or no) to perfectly good work on the basis of
someone else's vision -- and their own need/desperation to be produced. 
 
I totally agree with your approach toward the author/text. The process I
like best is to have the author tape the entire play -- playing all the
roles (even if they complain "but I'm not an actor"). Then, if possible,
I prefer to have the author markup the script with "ideal" stage
directions and I interview them (on tape, if possible) about their vision
of the characters, the setting -- the reason for the piece. For authors
who have very specific characters/rhythms in mind -- characters that may
be out of the range of experience of many actors, like Horton Foote's
wonderful concoction -- I want to get the rhythms out of their own
mouths. Then private readings with "possible" actors. A grueling process.
But the rewards (for everyone concerned) can be very great. 
 
Then, the caring director/producer (some of us may use the word
"competent") may have to say "I love your piece, but I don't see any way
of casting it here." The playwright has to have the "guts" to wait until
someone who understands their work comes along.  These days that tends to
be the role of the agent/manager -- sorting out the production
companies/directors/locations, or helping playwrights without lots of
contacts to find "soulmate" directors and actors. 
 
Even with the Mamet, Pinter, Ayckbourn examples at hand (not to mention
Shakespeare and Moliere) it is sometimes difficult convincing playwrights
that they *have* to have their own "house" directors and actors -- not to
mention audiences -- to be able to evaluate new work. Some folks just
want to crank out work and push it out and see where it lands.
 
On the other hand, I think that more playwrights should be taking more
chances at writing in styles that are "uncomfortable" -- including styles
that allow for vast amounts of interpretation -- like "shell pieces"
(where parts are designed to be improvized). Improvisation is *the*
performance form of the 21st century (that and interaction with automated
virtual characters), I believe. And authors would be wise to take
advantage of it.
 
 
Historical Stuff. What I probably should have mentioned earlier in this
post is that I believe that the director/actor as author approach in the
U.S. largely came from theater directors being a bit jealous of their
brethren in film after WWII. Stage actors saw the new control being
exerted by Method-trained actors in Hollywood and wanted more of a say --
not that star actors haven't always exerted a lot of control in every
medium. Many of the new acting / directing training schools (fluffed up
by the G.I. Bill)  picked up this attitude -- since they were actually
training actors who would (hopefully) wind up doing TV and film. And so
we wound up with a situation where both directors and actors were
pretending to be doing film even when they were actually doing theater.
(Nobody likes to have *less* control over a project :) 
 
Enough. Back to work.
 
Oh yeah. "LW" stands for Ludwig Wittgenstein: A parody of his famous
dictum "The world is everything that is the case. Very inside
philosophical joke intended for my own amusement:)
 
Cheers,
Cat Hebert
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



---------------------------------------
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