Re: RAT Reading Series --What Brecht thinks

[MFarkash@aol.com]

Subj:    Re: RAT Reading Series --What Brecht thinks
>From    MFarkash@aol.com

Response to: InTheLime@aol.com


I was certainly ready to drop the topic, but here comes another letter from a 
Philly group leader, in defense of Brad Rothbert's cavalier treatment of a 
playwright.

More importantly, I believe this discussion goes to the heart of how 
playwrights are treated.   Many of us writers are familiar with sending our 
scripts into the void, and never getting a response back, yea or nay, even 
from actor-driven companies and literary/artistic directors who claim to be 
on the side of the playwrights.   I'd rather get a note back that a 
particular play of mine is "shit," instead of wondering about its status.

I too have had the experience Karen did -- back in college, when I was told 
my play would be part of a one-act festival, then showing up with friends at 
the fest to discover that the director had dropped out of school, the play 
canceled -- and no one thought to tell me.  It was my own fault. I was young 
and green, and didn't think to check on the process.

Another time, a well-known LA group said it wanted to do my play, and were 
considering a reading. This was two years after submission, when the play was 
already in rehearsal at another venue, and also after three unanswered 
queries on my part about the submission's status.

 I certainly do feel that if Brad feels badly, he should arrange for 
reimbursement of the playwright's ticket and expenses.  That's between him 
and Karen to thrash out. Also: He never explains why an "awards ceremony" 
made it necessary for him to reschedule the reading series, and knock out 
Karen C's play.

If a reading is about playwrights, then why is there a big chunk of bio about 
Brad himself in his original press release?  I've RARELY seen a press release 
about a reading series where the facilitator is the star.  It couldn't be 
self-aggrandizement, could it?
 
Brad is only doing what dozens of theaters in major cities do all the time -- 
hold a public reading for underappreciated playwrights.  Some groups do it 
weekly. They do it for the love of it. And by God, they also pick up a phone 
if they have to postpone or knock out a reading.

Yes, indeed, I do believe that if someone is overworked, and pleads that as 
an excuse to explain why a project is running badly, then certainly he or she 
should have thought twice about taking it on.

I also don't think we should bring personalities into this, as Aileen 
McCullouch has, as opposed to critiquing professional behavior, .

McCulloch writes: 
"It's a bummer that Karen finds staying with her mother an extra week such an 
unhappy situation...but that's a debate for another time... and that's 
certainly not 
Brad's fault either!"


As for your theatre company existing because of your efforts, Ms. McCollogh 
-- hey, there are hundreds of such companies.  Theatre companies are born and 
thrive, because actors and writers have a need to work.  If the people are 
dedicated, they'd work whether you held them together or not.   Holding out a 
particular company's existence as arising from personal virtue and effort is 
yet another example of overweening ego.  

MFarkash@aol.com