Re: Playwright needs help describing work
- From: "afrodyte@xxxxxxxxxxx" <afrodyte@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Oct 2005 17:56:36 -0700
> Organizing a reading isn't so hard - a living room and some extra chairs
> will do. As you observed, getting the feedback you want or need is harder.
> Sometimes it is easier to get someone else to lead the talkback since that
> way it is less personal for the audience to give comments. It is important
> to be sure that you've discussed what you feel you need from the reading and
> talk back with the person who will lead it so that the discussion focuses on
> what you need, though it isn't a good idea to focus it too much since other
> useful things will come out as well.
That's the main part: getting enough people together and asking
questions about it afterward that will help me develop the play. A
generic feedback or critique tends to bring out the inner theater
critic in people. Not that I hate critics, but sometimes I need
something constructive that I can work with. "It's too long" doesn't
do much, but when one guy said he was winded from the main character's
monologues simply by reading it aloud sitting down, I took notice. Of
course, it's strange how people are more willing to say something as
useless as "It's too long" than to say something that even hints at
inadequacy.
> Everyone involved in new work development realizes that asking a playwright
> to alter, and especially to cut, his/her work is sort of like asking a
> parent to perform surgery on their own favorite child. In our experience,
> it is harder for newer playwrights to do this.
Often I think it's the manner in which it's suggested rather than the
suggestion itself. With the reader I mentioned in my original post, I
was sort of insulted by what she was saying. It's not like it wasn't
true (hence the heavy revisions), but the way she asked me felt like
she was trying to tell me how to tell my story. Now THAT I don't like.
Yet, if she had gone about it by asking questions of the text more in
the sense of getting inside my head or getting to know the text, I
probably would have taken it better. Asking, "What are you trying to
with this scene/exchange/monologue?" invites me to think more deeply,
which leads to constructive changes. "What's the point in that?" makes
me shut down. Of course, not every new playwright works this way, but
I know this is true of myself.
I think the key is to be as non-judgmental as possible, especially
before the piece is performed (which makes all the difference). I know
that I personally prefer open questions, questions that invite me to
probe more deeply into my work, as opposed to closed questions that
sort of put me in the position of justifying my work. Of course, I
must eventually be ready for that, but I don't think a more nurturing
(not coddling) attitude is detrimental to a playwright's development.
Personally, I find that telling people to "grow a thicker skin" is more
harmful than advising them to work smarter and harder with their works.
If everybody had rhino-hide hearts, I sort of wonder how we can create
works of subtlety and sensitivity. But I digress.
> It is good that you are looking at the piece with making it move forward for
> the audience in mind. In the end that, and the visual impact of theatre, is
> what separates it from prose and poetry!
Thanks for the compliment.
.
- References:
- Playwright needs help describing work
- From: afrodyte@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Playwright needs help describing work
- From: zzz
- Re: Playwright needs help describing work
- From: afrodyte@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Playwright needs help describing work
- From: zzz
- Playwright needs help describing work
- Prev by Date: Re: Anti-war playwright awarded Nobel
- Next by Date: Re: Angels in America: Perestroika
- Previous by thread: Re: Playwright needs help describing work
- Next by thread: The Musical Comedy Murders of 1940 by John Bishop
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
