Revisions

So, upon reading Shaffer's preface to Amadeus, I realized that revisions never have to be final. A writer must keep working on a piece until they are satisfied. This of course does not mean the play can be done at an incomplete stage, as seen by the many versions of Amadeus that were successfully produced. I think something that is key in revising plays, is watching one's vision in completion, and then deciding what to do from there. A writer who knows what they want to convey can then gauge better what they need to write and revise for this to translate to an audience.

This preface also raised my awareness to the importance of endings. It is the final image and words the audience takes away from a work, so it is important to have an ending that has a punch. I am having a lot of difficulty changing the ending on my second one act to one which I am satisfied with. I feel like from this preface, I have gathered that I need to just write them all down, close my eyes and pick one. Because at this point I will not know what works or what does not until I see it staged. Even if the piece turns out to be a success, I have learned from this preface that I must keep revising it until I am satisfied.

Comic 10 Minute Plays - (why do people think urban coffee shops are funny?)

Aimee

This play begins with a break-in of "heartland security" and immediately the audience is waiting for a catch. I would not necessarily classify this play as funny, but more as cute. The strange situation at the start of the play draws the audience in. The situation is intense, and seems to have dire consequences. When the catch is that love is un-American, one is baffled and yet amused. It is concluded that love was developed in France. I love the irony of the term "heartland security" in all this. I feel most of the work in making this funny is is through the way it is acted as the unbelievable circumstances need to be believable.

Anything for You

So, a question that popped into my mind immediately as I read the setting, is why do people think urban cafes are so funny? There are so many one-acts that are in urban cafes, it's sad. Perhaps it is because the majority of people who watch one-acts frequent urban cafes? This play was interesting, but I do not necessarily see it as funny, only trying to be funny. Perhaps the laughter evoked is nervous laughter at an awkward situation, or perhaps its a catch when one isn't expected. The catch that Gail is really in love with Lanette the whole time. Still, I kind of want to write a one-act that parodies the concept that funny things happen in urban coffee shops.

Duet for Bear and Dog

This play was incredibly odd, and it is banking on its absurdity to maintain the audience's interest. Honestly, I lost interest half a page after the Bear and Dog started to converse. "She" also brings up the randomness of the comedy, a random woman with a Russian accent suddenly appears. I cannot help but wonder if this was a drug induced writing process. I am not sure what to make of this play, but perhaps that is the point.

Philadelphia

This is my favorite of the four plays we had to read for today. I like that it is situationally funny, and filled with contradictions of what the main character wants and what actually happens. The situation is strange, as in the other plays, but it is more applicable to everyday life: everyone has these days, they just know they are not stuck in this pattern. There is also a clear and creative theme of always having to be somewhere.

10 Minute Plays

A Bowl of Soup:

This was my favorite of the four plays we had to read, and upon reading the first page I did not expect it to be. I liked this play because I could not see where it was going or what its significance was until the very end. It was interesting to ponder why Rob was silent in the beginning, as Eddie seemed to be slightly patronizing to him, and obligated to look after him. The relationship Eddie created thorough the monologue in which he was trying to make conversation with Rob, proved to be a powerful one. They were brothers, spent a childhood together, and this seems infinitely important to Eddie. One question I would have from a directorial standpoint would be how to portray Rob with equal importance to Eddie, even though Rob is silent for the majority of the play. I guess if Eddie is directing everything toward Rob and giving him the majority of focus (with some exceptions of tending to the soup) this would work out beautifully. Everything finally makes sense in the end when Eddie brings up David; and when Rob finally speaks, his words resonate far more than Eddies, as they get to the point instead of trying to work around it or work into it.


That Midnight Rodeo:


This play, like the first, opens with a topic that avoids the underlying issue. Through this, however, one can see where the couple's interest, time, money, and effort goes: into Sonny and the Rodeo. However, unlike the previous play, a conflict between the two characters is introduced: Bo wants Cindy to keep the child, and Cindy wants to get the abortion. Cindy is in a catch 22, as she is afraid she will kill the child, and that she will not love it, but she is not giving herself a chance. It is interesting, as there is no right or wrong answer to her dilemma. The concept of a turning point in conversation seems especially pertinent in short plays as there is so little time in which things happen. I also liked how in this play nothing was concluded: how the audience will never know what Cindy chose to do.


The Man Who Couldn't Dance


This play differs from the first two as the serious situation is already set up when the play stars, it is not unraveled later (though it is elaborated upon.) This play is really theme heavy. It begins with Eric's bitter cynicisms about the situation (which are actually quite honest and amusing: observations of a "desired" adult life) and fades into a deep conversation between him and Gail. I would say the theme to this play is the concept of choices: is making a choice okay if it might be the wrong choice or is it better to make no choices at all? We see two characters who have taken these two different options, the metaphor for this being the ability to dance. Eric finds it better to not make any choices, to not dance at all as he is afraid he cannot. Another theme in this is asking what it means to be human. Like the previous play, what happens to resolve the plot is left up to the audience's imagination.


The Road That Leads Us Here


I did not like this play. It was really weird, and I just didn't like it. I think this is the first play for this class in which I could barely find anything I liked. For some reason these three brothers who travel across America every year refer to their father as the Eminent, as if they were part of a cult. It is really impossible to tell what is going on in the first page, other than that these three characters have been traveling. I guess describing beautiful places can be interesting, but is this really a good enough story to make a play out of? I guess this shows the diversity to the world, but it is really unclear what sort of themes this brings up. My only stab would be the playwright is trying to say that the beauty of the world is no good unless people lead lives in it. But it took me forever to think of that, and it should not have been that hard. Yeah, I was not a fan of this one.

Vanya!

Alright, what can I say about Vanya? Reading Chekhov is one of those things that I don't really mind, but it's not my favorite. Performing Chekhov, however, is a different story. I think this is because the story-line is so simple and real: the play is character driven. The story stems from character conflict more than anything else. When playing a Chekhov character, one can figure out so much about them through what other people say behind your character's back. When playing a smaller role, like Maria, this is necessary. We know little about her through her own actions, she basically sits, reads her book intently, and once in a while argues with her son or idolizes the professor. It was really helpful to write down everything everyone says about her, and from this I began to discover exactly who this character is, the life she led, and the life she is leading now and how she feels about that. As Vanya is all about character conflict, it was important to look at her relationship to all the other characters. This proved difficult at first, as she only really interacts with Vanya or the professor, and even those relationships are difficult to analyze. For instance, I learned through overhearing Vanya's confession of love to Yelena that Maria did not like her. She feels Yelena has driven her son to this confession, that it is her fault and not his. She also thinks Yelena will never be able to replace her daughter. Maria is also annoyed with Waffles. He plays guitar every time she is trying to read, and he is not even a member of the family. She doesn't mind Astrov as much, however. She sees him as an enlightened person, someone else who is trying to move the world forward. At the same time, however, he is not moving forward what she is interested in (women's rights.) Her relationship to Vanya is also really complex. She is really tough on him, but I believe it to be out of love; she is trying to get him to snap out of his melancholy, and it the only one who will confront him. In the third act, when Serbriakov talks about selling the house, Maria, although she only speaks three times, is torn between whom to side with. She realizes this house is everything to her son, and was everything to her daughter. At the same time, however, she is hoping to be whisked away to Finland with the professor. I also found it interesting that at the end of this scene Vanya looks to her of all people for an answer as of what to do. In this moment, we see she really cares for him, no matter how tough she is, or how many times she sides with the professor. Almost everything in her life has disappeared, except the professor, Vanya, and her passion for activism, so these are the things she latches on to. So, I guess this gives an example about what character driven means. Through interactions and descriptions we get a play with a basic story, in which very little happens or is resolved. Still, this play is engaging as the characters are all unique and provide a different perspective on the world in which they live.

Amadeus! Wow factor.

This play definitely exceeded my expectations of what theater can be. This is because of the melding of various genres to create a historically motivated story. I guess I will start with my one criticism of the work, and then explained why it "wowed" me from there. Upon beginning to read this, I felt the stage directions were a little to precise and complex. It was difficult to picture in my mind as I was reading the play, as many characters were on stage even if only Salieri was speaking. It was really difficult to keep track of the characters locations, and because the stage directions are so precise this play seems especially difficult to direct. That being said, however, the concept of these silent characters and the interactions that ensue is interesting, and I really would like to see this play performed as I feel a lot would become clearer.

So, now on to all the things I liked! As I said, I loved the melding of genres. It is obvious that Shaffer has a firm knowledge of theater history, as I found this work to have threads of Classical Greek drama, Commedia, and Film Noir. The Greek drama aspect of this play, can be seen thorough the Venticelli, these two characters possessed the role of the chorus, giving narrative, opinion, and influence to the story. The influence of Commedia del Arte makes sense, as this play took place in the era in which this style of theater was popular (as seen though Mozart adapting Figaro into an opera.) The last influence, that of Film Noir, I found to be the most fascinating. This modernized the work, through a freeze-frame narrative, in which Salieri gave opinions and intentions to the audience.

Salieri is an interesting character to have as the focal point of the play as he is the forgotten composer, and claims to have led to Mozart's demise. In this work, the audience is made to understand and pity this bitter and hard-working composer. Mozart, is also pitied, though portrayed in a more negative light, and does not possess the same focus on inner psychology as Salieri does in this work. The portrayal of Mozart is through Salieri's eyes, and through this we see his psychological journey, of hating Mozart and his pretentiousness, to pitying him, to begging for forgiveness. This play is also incredibly thematic, as Salieri declares that Mozart is not his rival, but God. There is the theme of the conflict between hard-work, and God-given talent in this play, that most people, as being more the hard-working type can relate to. Also, portrayed is the war between talent and work in one's lifetime, and physical demise leading to death; this concept that God-given talent can never be crushed. I love this play for its concrete yet multiple themes, its portrayal of characters that are human: neither bad nor good, and its interlocking use of genres giving the work a unique layout. These three characteristics are what I plan to apply to my writing in work to come.

I love weird plays: Orpheus and Eurydice

So, after hitting my head pretty badly in rehearsal and possibly having a mild concussion, this play was quite strange to read, just saying. But I feel it would have been anyways.

There is something about theater that is not what I am used to or expecting that makes it incredibly refreshing. Perhaps this is why I like Dr. Faustus Lights the Lights so much. It gives the reader/audience a perspective they might never have thought of before, and that makes the play intriguing and captures attention. I have never written a play in such an abnormal fashion, but am interested in trying it.

In Orpheus and Eurydice, the set up to the play drew me in. They are both in 50s bathing suits, not something expected for a play based upon a Greek myth. I found it interesting that the stage directions were either incredibly specific in the time period of the costumes, but little was described in how to portray the unique atmosphere of this piece. In a way I like this, because in a play this strange directorial leeway for interpretation makes the director's job a lot more artistic and fun. Still, I am trying to figure out the significance of the costumes either from the 30s in the underworld, or the 50s in the present. Perhaps it has to do with the re-birth one experiences in the playwright's version of the underworld. I am guessing Eurydice is about 20 when she dies, so it is fitting that she is in the clothes of the era she is born in as her father has to re-teach her everything. This theme follows as the Lord of the Underworld is a child.
The dialogue is fast, and seems to be heavy with symbolism. It is somewhat vague, which is nice, as just like I said earlier, this adds to the director's and actor's interpretation of the piece. I also liked the repeating theme of water, the fact that they are at the water in the first scene, and Orpheus asks "Will you remember my melody underwater?" I love the irony of the water in the Underworld wiping the memory of its inhabitants. I feel the playwright is trying to draw connections to the world of the living and the Underworld. This connection is also felt through the letters, and it is this connection that leads Eurydice to her peril. There is a wealth of pathos felt in this play, the idea of memory loss, and yearning are the feelings that stuck out the most to me. The characters striving to achieve an impossible goal and then almost succeeding.
This play also is a great example of creating an atmosphere not through stage directions but through dialogue. In the Notes, the playwright says the Underworld should be remnant of Alice and Wonderland. In other words, this is the atmosphere of unknown territory. However, even in the world of the living, this atmosphere is unfamiliar and strange. The Nasty Interesting Man, and his apartment is the perfect example of something out of the ordinary, and this is what brings Eurydice to her death. It is also interesting that his apartment is so high up, as the next place she enters (falls into) is the Underworld. The playwright also conveys forms of breeched communication between the dead and the living through language and letter writing, and the parallels of this between Eurydice's interest in books, and Orpheus's interest in music. What I take out of this play, and will try to explore in my own writing is the use of parallels, the creation of unfamiliar atmosphere, and the use of dialogue to guide the interpretation of the director as opposed to informing through stage directions.

Blogging about Dialogging

(2am in the morning, Hanna sits facing the patrol Computer in a Security uniform, drinking a mug of Emergen-C. She opens the internet, sneezes, and runs to get a tissue, then returns.)

Hanna: Okay, I'm going to do this before I feel so tiered I'm going to die.
Computer: Error: Address blackboard.ups.edu not responding. In people talk: I hate you.
Hanna: You have got to be fucking kidding me. I need to get this done!!!!! I guess all I can do is wait and see if it is working again in a bit. Damn, I need a cigarette.

(1/2 an hour later)

Hanna: Please work, please work, please work. (takes a deep breath)
Computer: Blackboard Leaning System, login. In people talk: I guess I was being a bit harsh
Hanna: Yeah you were.
Computer: But I still hate you, so I am going to turn all your readings upside down and make the rotate button take forever.
Hanna: Hahaha, I can still print out the readings.
Computer: Not of I freeze first. Now I'm nothing but an hour glass.
Hanna: Nooooooo! Dude, I'm too tiered for this.
Computer: Muahahaha
Hanna: Oh yeah? Well watch this!
Computer: Are you sure you want to log off?
Hanna: Don't play nice with me!
Computer: Logging off.
Hanna: Now this time you better work.
Computer: Logging on.
Hanna: Now on to talking about dialogue. FINALLY!


I love dialogue way more than monologues. Like way more. Pretty much because I feel human interaction is what keeps theater interesting. Yes stories are good, but they are better if they unravel before our eyes.

The scene from Below the Waist was one of those scripts that I laughed out loud reading. I think that says a lot about a play, if it evokes a verbal response upon reading it, because that means when it is acted in front of an audience, the audience will probably respond on even a greater scale. I really liked the contradictions put in place by the Doctor in this scene. In dialogues often nothing is what the audience or the characters expect, and this captures attention. In many of the reading, one or more characters knows something that another does not, and so the power of information is key as it creates a conflict internally and externally in the scene.

In the scene from Boy Gets the Girl, the key thing I took away was a shared experience between characters. While conflict occurs more often than not in dialogue, it is important to note that characters, while different, are sharing this common experience. This scene also brought out the concept of a character's relationship to the surrounding atmosphere, and the solving of a mystery resulting in an unexpected realization.

I really liked the scene from Closer. The concept of having to scenes switching rapidly is a fascinating concept. There is a strong theme of love and the pain that comes with it, and it is clearly a dramatic piece. It therefore is interesting to note that while comedy is filled with contradictions that make a person laugh at loud, drama can use contradictions to make something inspire and compel. When Dan says to Alice he loves Anna because she doesn't need him at the beginning, and then later on, Anna tells Larry she's in love with Dan because she needs him, that is a contradiction that, for lack of a better term, "tugs on heart strings." There is also an interesting unraveling of a story that plays with the audience's knowledge of the situation, as Dan reveals to Alice that he is leaving her almost immediately, while Anna does not tell Larry until the scene is nearing the end. So, the audience knows the chance that Dan is taking, and wonders if Anna will do the same.

In the scene from Hamlet, Hamlet portrays his madness by revealing things that both he and the audience already know. I have always loved the debate as to whether Hamlet is really mad, whether he is faking, or whether he starts by faking and then eventually it becomes a reality; and this scene encapsulates this debate. Also, something we have not yet seen is the use of asides, and the concept of where dialogue is directed (to inform the audience or the character or both.)

The scene from Importance of Being Earnest is the scene I chose. I like it for it's portrayal of passive aggression, bordering physical aggression. There is struggle within the characters as they try not to cross that line. This is most evident in the Sugar and Cake bit. I like the openness of the physical possibilities here given to the director to determine if the line from passive aggression to aggression is ever crossed. Also, I like how the audience knows the misunderstanding between the characters that is causing the conflict, and knows that really there is no need for this enmity the characters feel towards one another.

The scene from The Beauty of Queen Leanne, gives a sample of dialogue in a dialect. While we saw monologuing in a dialect in the New Orleans Monologues, this shows that when writing dialogue one needs to be aware of conversational patterns of the dialect. This scene also demonstrated a conflict build, an arc in the scene, which is something that can easily be lost in monologues. I feel like every interaction has an arc that needs to be drawn upon in order for the scene to reveal the story of the play.

The scene from Much Ado About Nothing shows the importance of character subtext when writing dialogue. While a character might act like they hate another, they might secretly be in love with them, and this needs to be conveyed through subtleties that the audience will pick up and the other character will not. This scene also shows what happens when the truth is revealed, when a character puts themselves on the line. It also shows a character's use of tactics, and of wanting concrete reassurance of this truth from a character, when Beatrice asks Benedick to swear he will kill Claudio.

The scene from The Philadelphia is another creation of atmosphere, but more than that, it is an introduction to a concept the audience is not familiar with. It uses the common threads of the scenes I have described up to now to solve the mystery of this odd atmosphere. This is done by having one character analyze the other's problem, and fully understand the issue, while the character with the problem, like the audience, remains in the dark until informed.

In the scene from Plaza Suite, the conflict between a character's motives for his/herself and for the other characters in the scene is demonstrated. Norma, while Roy is trying to get her to focus on helping their daughter, cannot help but become self involved by petty and over-dramatized issues (such as ripped stockings.) From this, I think it is important to realize it is human nature to think of ones self first, and this needs to be taken into account when writing a dialogue. There is no such thing as a completely selfless character. This scene is also an example of the use of drastic measures in comedy and when a character is motivated enough to cross that line.

The scene from Street Car Named Desire starts with the breaking of an awkward silence. It is clear that Stella and Stanley don't want to talk, and Blanche can sense this but forces conversation anyways. It is then revealed that Stella and Stanly know something they do not want Blanche to know, and so there is a shared subtext between the two about trying to hide it. This scene also uses the concept of conflicting personalities, and poses the question: when do you stop pretending? It is important to consider a character's level of tolerance for the other characters in the scene.

And that is my 2 cents about dialogue.