Re: hey, what's mac in RATdom?

[Leon Martell <belon@ucla.edu>]

I'll second Mitchell
but what I find exciting is that, even before the listener, Wellman's work
pushes the actor, to find a new way to live in the material.  Beyond being
poetry, these are plays, meant to have a three dimensional life. Those
actors who can do it (A Steve Mellor, a Bill Mesnick, a Jennifer Griffen to
name a few) are breath taking because the words require the actor to make
leaps that are not the gradual, progressive movement of Realistic, modified
realistic, etc... drama.  The images are so strong and spectral, that in
making their own connections, the actor can bring in far more than exists
on the page, which of course, should be the idea with any play, but the
scope in Wellman's work, with a poetic coherence but little narrative, is
incredibly wide.  I don't claim this is a certified interpretation, in fact
I'd be willing to bet Mac would disagree with me, but it's what works for
me.  I get the same exhilaration from Ruth Margraff's work, and yet there
are writers of a similar vein who leave me cold. Once it's on the stage,
the experience of a play ends up being what the actors do with it (or to
it).
Leon


>One of the many things I respond to in Mac Wellman's work includes the
>notion that the language of the play pushes a listener to take in
>information in a dramatically different way than and film, television, and
>most plays. "A different hole" through which the imagery and poetry of the
>language enter  into my consciousness. A "hole" that has not been abused and
>refined by the violence and meaningless of the other media.(my
>eyes,mouth,ears) I can't watch a Wellman work the same way I can "End of
>Days" with Schwartzeneger.A purer entry into my soul. And the freedom that I
>don't have to comprehend every thought right away or in a linear and
>immediate process. I let it go in and work it's own way.That's one of the
>elements that really excite me.