|
Pious Pete posted:Sorry, I was in a wedding party last week and didn't really have time to read anything. I just opened Who by Drowning, Who by Stoning this morning. To clarify though, I'm not in a position to buy the rights to any new scripts. Right now I'm interested in filling out my personal library with published plays I haven't read yet. For example, I just bought copies of Chad Deity is one of my favorite scripts of the past two years, and I will forever be annoyed we passed on doing it. "The Whale" by Samuel Hunter just had its premier at the Denver Center, and is going on to Playwrights Horizon followed by Victory Gardens, and if there is any justice in the world, a lot more places after that. "Blackbird" by David Harrower is a great two person show that is one of the most intense 90 minutes of theatre I can remember. "Pentecost" by David Edgar is almost unproducably huge, but a very strong script. Other recent shows to check out: Time Stands Still, Maple and Vine, Brothers Size, American Night, The Liar, Nine Circles, Lydia. Other playwrights to check out: Michael Mitnick, Octavio Solis.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Rakekniven posted:Chad Deity is one of my favorite scripts of the past two years, and I will forever be annoyed we passed on doing it. Thanks man, this is exactly the kind of list I'm looking for. I just finished "A Bright New Boise" last night and definitely want to look into him a bit more. I really liked his characters and am intrigued by his voice. My only complain was that it seemed a little bit rushed toward the end. I'll definitely check out "The Whale" though, and I'll let you know what I think of Chad. I've heard nothing but good things about it so far. Pious Pete fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Pious Pete posted:Sent. Enjoy! If you could send those scripts over to me too, that'd be great. legitimatefront at gmail.com.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 13:17
|
|
|
Ksrugi posted:If you could send those scripts over to me too, that'd be great. legitimatefront at gmail.com. Just sent. Have fun!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Hey CC I wrote a poem, what do you think Doing theatre In the Summer Sucks my loving balls
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
As someone who lost a precious day of tech rehearsal (which ended up reducing my total rehearsal time for the show by one-third) to a blizzard, I'd like to offer the following rebuttal to my good friend: Suck it up sweetheart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:Hey CC I wrote a poem, what do you think I actually can't wait to get back in the theater---I just spent all of spring and summer up to last weekend filming outdoors in Texas. At least theaters are air-conditioned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
I may be moving to St Louis in the near future, does anyone know anything about tech jobs and such out there?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
The three places recommended to me when I was thinking about moving to St. Louis were The Peabody The Sheldon The Fox but my move didn't happen so I don't personally know anyone or what is available there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Allen Wren posted:At least theaters are air-conditioned. Some theaters are air-conditioned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:Some theaters are air-conditioned. Until right before curtain so the sound of the AC doesn't compete with the show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Got a script for another Off-Broadway. Modern Terrorism, or They Who Want to Kill Us and How We Learn to Love Them by Jon Kern. Comedy, very similar to the film Four Lions but a bit more American and a bit less satirical. Shoot me a PM or leave a message here if you'd like me to email you a copy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
Burger Crime posted:The three places recommended to me when I was thinking about moving to St. Louis were Cool, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Oh hey there, theatre thread! So here's my story: I just transferred from FSU to USF to do theatre, and I love acting. I really want to be on Saturday Night Live or at least Second City in Chicago. The thing is, I'm only slightly sure about what to expect as a theatre major. Could I get some knowledge from you sexy people? Here, a list of questions that you could maybe answer: 1) What will I do in my classes? I have all the basic theatre classes it seems - Intro to Theatre, Great Performances on Film, Intro to Technical Theatre and Lab, and Voice-Body Improv 2) What sort of extracurricular theatre-related things should I get involved in? 3) What are your favorite plays and/or musicals and why?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Allen Wren posted:At least theaters are air-conditioned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 10:52
|
|
|
Pious Pete posted:Got a script for another Off-Broadway. Modern Terrorism, or They Who Want to Kill Us and How We Learn to Love Them by Jon Kern. Comedy, very similar to the film Four Lions but a bit more American and a bit less satirical. Shoot me a PM or leave a message here if you'd like me to email you a copy. Yes please! I'm loving this hookup  Yoshimi posted:Oh hey there, theatre thread! So here's my story: I just transferred from FSU to USF to do theatre, and I love acting. I really want to be on Saturday Night Live or at least Second City in Chicago. The thing is, I'm only slightly sure about what to expect as a theatre major. Could I get some knowledge from you sexy people? 1 and 2 depend on the type of program you're going into. I have no idea what USF is like, but in general you have two types of programs a) BA/Undergraduate/Liberal Arts-style programs, which have required classes to actually receive the major but are otherwise pretty free-form about what classes you take, when. Expect to get a wide range of topics, including classes on: acting, directing, technical theatre, and design (and maybe other stuff like stage management). The idea here is to give you a "big picture" look at theatre. b) Conservatory-style (usually resulting in a BFA). All your classes are laid out for you--you don't choose anything. You're usually with a smaller group of people, and there's a pretty strict, all-day schedule of work. Expect much more intense focus on one particular area of theatre (usually acting, where you will have acting classes, voice, movement, singing, maybe Alexander Technique, etc.). If you are in option B, you won't be doing outside work as your program will almost certainly forbid it. You'll have guaranteed casting in shows 9if you're doing an acting conservatory) and the rehearsal process will be part of your school day. If option A applies, you'll still be heavily encouraged to work within the department first and foremost. There will probably (?) be some outside, non-department-affiliated groups doing shows, which you can do if you have enough time. The advantage to option A is this: you can (in fact, you will have to!) take classes and learn things outside of theatre. Do this. Take classes from a variety of other subjects. If you can--if at all possible--double major with another subject. Seriously, I wish I had done this. You aren't betraying the craft and you won't be getting any less of a theatrical education by double majoring . . . you will just be giving yourself a set of skills and an opportunity to do something you enjoy while you work towards your life in theatre. You will almost certainly not be working in theatre full-time when you graduate unless you are a) a gifted tech theatre person or b) an extremely lucky actor or director. Don't get hosed into some lovely entry-level job or food service when you graduate--find something else you're passionate about. OSheaman fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jun 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Yoshimi posted:Oh hey there, theatre thread! So here's my story: I just transferred from FSU to USF to do theatre, and I love acting. I really want to be on Saturday Night Live or at least Second City in Chicago. The thing is, I'm only slightly sure about what to expect as a theatre major. Could I get some knowledge from you sexy people? 1 and 2 can best be answered by your professors. Only thing that seems off to me is taking in major intro classes. My experience is intro classes are for non majors. Professors are usually in their office a week or two before classes start so they can get organized. It wouldn't hurt to email one of them and introduce yourself and ask them about the program and other theatre going on in the area. Most professors are working professionally as well and can be a good contact for work during and after your undergrad. I got to stage manage the US premiere of a show my senior year of undergrad because one of my professors knew the director and recommended me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Burger Crime posted:Most professors are working professionally as well Not that this really applies directly to the question asked, but I feel that it's worth mentioning: if the above is not the case, at least with decent frequency, reconsider getting your major there. I was in an area with three comparably-sized universities, and one of them had a theatre faculty who hadn't done anything outside their own department or summer theatre program for at least 10 years each. They had no conception whatsoever what theatre was like out in the real world, but man did they churn out students that seriously believed they did. I'll second what Burger Crime said-- we had "intro" style classes that were for non-majors, and some majors were mistakenly put into them by some well-meaning counselor-type departmental person who had no real connection to the theatre program. Do your best to contact a professor and verify that you're taking the required classes you should be taking. Even if you're not in a conservatory-style program, it's worth your time to sit down and at least roughly lay out your ideal class schedule for your future years at the university. I didn't do this, and found out the end of my sophomore year that two classes I needed wouldn't be offered again until my second semester, senior year. Had to take those, plus my senior thesis project, plus all the other general classes I managed to put off for way too long. Don't make the mistake of cornering yourself into taking 20 credits your last semester of college.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
Interesting discussion going on amongst the Chicago theatre community about dwindling audience numbers this year. It started with this blog post: http://mortartheatrecompany.org/2012/06/where-have-all-the-audiences-gone/ which led to this and this. It's specific to Chicago but I would also argue applicable to other communities. And in many ways it's not just theatre! Certainly ticket sales at the box office have been down for the past few years (as anyone working in Hollywood could tell you) and, in fact, jsut about any form of entertainment has lost patrons over the past few years (with sports being the glaring exception, for a number of reasons). What gives? Is it the economy? Bad marketing? A change in what people are interested in seeing and doing? Basically I'm a little depressed now
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
I dunno man, this sounds like the sort of overstated crisis that we seem to get every few years. I mean, in that original blog post it seemed like a large number of people didn't see that show because the title sucks and the marketing was bad. Sure, things are rough right now in the storefront world but when are they ever not? The two big newspapers don't have much love for storefront (at least that prick Chris Jones doesn't, and I don't even know who reviews for the Sun Times) and the Reader has started falling into the trend of seeming not to like theatre at all (the Time Out Chicago Effect). We're mostly able to market in print media, through postcards at local businesses and Facebook. We've also got a shitload of quality theatre and there's no way anyone could reasonably catch it all. Yes, we need better visibility, there's no question. Yeah, marketing is a bitch. Yeah, the weather has been incredibly nice and that's causing people to stay outdoors. We've been through all this before and we will again. And we'll learn stuff from this slump (even if it's an imagined slump), things will change and the next time around it will be a whole new set of problems. Buck up, champ. It will pass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 13:16
|
|
|
How saturated with startup companies has Chicago become? I know there has been an explosion of them here in Philadelphia as people latched onto the DIY aesthetic. It's interesting to have a choice and that means that different, more offbeat stuff can be produced but at what point does an influx of offerings start detracting from the market? It's also looking like with the Live Arts and Fringe Festival organization is looking to establish a theater that also has spaces for other theater companies to do admin and logistics out of so it's going to be interesting to see what effect it's going to have. http://www.livearts-fringe.org/new-home.cfm
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 13:31
|
|
|
NC Wyeth Death Cult posted:How saturated with startup companies has Chicago become? Chicago is loving awash in theatre companies. We'd need a major extinction event to get down to only having a glut. That said, most of our companies do carve out distinct niches or have specific visions that they represent so there's not much toe-stepping-on. There are plenty of mediocre/bad companies out there that don't really do much to distinguish themselves and yet manage to hang on anyway, but I don't think they're the root of the problem. They're not helping but I'm not sure they're doing overly much harm, rather than just sort of adding to the ambient noise of theatre. No doubt, there's more theatre than we know what to do with but there's also a lack of theatre spaces with 50-100 seats so there's also a competition for spaces that companies are having a hard time affording and... yeah, there are some messes going on. And I hope I didn't come across as too dismissive of your concern, OSheaman; whether or not this is just part of a normal cycle of things, these are questions worth asking and considering. I'm just a bitter, jaded, husk of an actor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
No it's a fair point and seeing as we're theatre people it's not, you know, outside of the realm of possibility that we're just being dramatic. If it was the one place with the terrible name and marketing campaign I wouldn't worry as much, but I do definitely get a bit concerned when Theatre Wit--a very well-established company with a fantastic new space, for those who don't live in Chicago--starts talking about a big downturn in sales, because they're not exactly a small startup that nobody knows about. The last show I was in got pretty small houses in general, and while we blamed it on a lovely location and a couple of early bad reviews, the fact is that the company I worked for has been around for the better part of a decade and got great reviews from the Times and the Reader. You're probably right and this is just some annual handwringing, but I guess it's confirmation bias for me since I keep wondering what's going to happen to theatre when the greyhairs that make up 70-80% of the audience out there start dying off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:I keep wondering what's going to happen to theatre when the greyhairs that make up 70-80% of the audience out there start dying off. I do community stuff in a small town but I am trying like mad to get young people interested and involved. Usually this just means that we do a few shows the greyhairs don't like, so they do poorly (since young people still don't come). I obbsess over how to expand the audience constantly, though. I'm putting together a show this October that's an attempt to skirt the line. It's just a night of Edgar Allan Poe adaptations (since his stories are in the public domain) put together by locals. Budgets are essentially $0 and each segment will be put together by a different director with some readings to fill in any time we need to. I'm encouraging experimentation and plan on adapting Pit and the Pendulum as a one-person piece where the actor presents the action of the story while a voice-over plays (read by the same actor), narrating it. Since Poe lacks female characters, I'm gender-swapping it and playing up a bit of phallic imagery for some nice "woman escaping from patriarchy" sub-text (that, just like every other bit of subtle imagery I've added to shows, no one will get). The Pendulum and other effects will be created entirely via a projector. The greyhairs won't find any bit of the show offensive, but if we can bring in some younger folks they should enjoy it, too. It's the weekend before Halloween, so I'm hoping to get a good seasonal crowd in who want something spooky. Nothing will be inappropriate for families (I've even got someone working on adapting something for little kids to do), but there's real content there. We'll see if it ends up being successful or not, but I don't plan on us putting more than about $300 into it, including advertising, so we can't bomb too badly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
Good luck! I like the idea, and it sounds like something that should be able to put butts in seats, assuming it's marketed well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Not long ago I was visited by some old friends from Berkeley, and I've been thinking about that as a definite option for as long as grad school isn't on the table (even if I do get accepted somewhere, that's not for 14 months). I'm in love with New York and I'll do that scene eventually, but right now I just need to do something. I'm still living in my undergrad town, I haven't had so much as a job interview in two months, the fourth loving generation is entering the crippled program, and the River Valley Players are up on their feet and functional. I'm confident in all the generations I trained and I know that it's their time to pick up the mantle. I think my life here is done, I need to get out and loving direct. I need to stop reading about Brecht and Boal and create some loving meaning for people. I need to do real work and I need to get into the real world before my calling turns into a hobby.quote:I do community stuff in a small town but I am trying like mad to get young people interested and involved. Usually this just means that we do a few shows the greyhairs don't like, so they do poorly (since young people still don't come). I obbsess over how to expand the audience constantly, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
I asked this thread for some audition advice a little over a month ago, and it worked! I got the part of adam in our little community theatre's production of the complete works of william shakespeare (abridged). I'm sore pretty much all the time and have sustained a couple of rehearsal related injuries, but I'm still having more fun with this than any other show I've done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
CainsDescendant posted:I asked this thread for some audition advice a little over a month ago, and it worked! I got the part of adam in our little community theatre's production of the complete works of william shakespeare (abridged). I'm sore pretty much all the time and have sustained a couple of rehearsal related injuries, but I'm still having more fun with this than any other show I've done. That's awesome! One of the tiny theatres I used to work at is pulling out some Shakespeare for its 80th season. They are doing Hamlet and I hate Hamlet. Then they are doing Laramie Project. So disappointed it all happens the year after I leave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
For the promotional photos I was holding a copy of I Hate Hamlet, as a matter of fact
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Pious Pete posted:Also, does anyone want some broadway/off-broadway scripts? I've got a friend who forwards me the pdfs he gets for each audition. Right now I have copies saved of Regrets which just finished off-broadway and The Lyons which I guess just won a Tony? Either way, I can email em to whoever would wants to read. Both are real good. That sounds awesome! Looks like I picked a good time to end my forums hiatus. nagol0607 at gmail
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 12:32
|
|
|
So, I don't want to post this in the daily writing thread because it's pretty much all prose there, but I'm looking for some feedback on a play I'm screwing around with: e: if anyone has something for me to give feedback on, post away Prologue - Breathe Foster and his family. Foster speaks. FOSTER The crisis is this: There is Nothing. It has all been destroyed: Some say it never was. What you see before you is a husk: A shell of a shell. Do not look for quality: We have none to give. Do not offer redemption: We seek it not. Just sit: sit and breathe. Foster inhales. FOSTER In... And exhales. FOSTER And out... Act I: Scene 1 - Fostering Hope The rest of the family disappears. FOSTER The First Foster died on a Sunday in September in the year of 1998. He was 26. The First Foster died doing what he loved, which was ice hockey. Ice hockey, like American football and dog fighting, is the kind of sport that can look acrobatic and sadistic at the same time. It is a game determined by sheer will, brute force, and occasionally finesse. When the First Foster was at his best, there was very little of the latter. When he was really flying out there, sport became grand spectacle, The First Foster playing all the good parts: Emperor, Executioner - The Hero. Foster dims the lights in his apartment. FOSTER The First Foster was a hockey player who liked to hit other hockey players - hit them "really loving hard." Hit them so really loving hard that they sometimes really loving didn't get up. But they loved the hitting, they even (not so secretly) loved the not getting up. The Big Hockey Cruncher they cheered him, with many OOHS and AHHS. When the crunchee stayed down the cheer would only waver, notching down several oohs and ahhs, becoming respectful-like until the crunchee went to one knee, and then he too would get an OOHAHHING (a polite wehaveto version - not as loving as they gave before). Through high school (his golden years), and college The First Foster kept on crunching. Many continued to not get up. Then, at semi-pro, the spectacle stopped: Emperor ousted, Executioner unmasked, The Hero turned The Victim. One, two, three, four, five, six times he was turned. 'Concussions', they called them, as they had called them before. "The seventh will kill you." said the old man with the clipboard. "Can you go on Sunday?" said the other old man with the clipboard. On Sunday, the seventh killed him; The Big Hockey Cruncher had became the crunchee. Foster sits down on his bed. FOSTER A concussion is a funny word for 'brain damage.' It is the rattling of said brain against the skull due to blunt force impact. They said his brain changed because of all that rattling. They pointed at The First Foster's charts: "Look, proof!" They did this while The First Foster's father and mother watched their son sleep. They were wrong. It did not change him; it just killed him. Do not weep for the father and mother, on Friday, November 15th, 1998, they had another child - The Second Foster. He was 26; he is me. Foster fades out. John and Jane on stage. He's looking out. She's looking at him. JOHN There's nothing. Nothing to be done. JANE I could kiss you. John shrugs. JANE That could make it better. It could help. JOHN For a little while. Then it would come back. She kisses him. JOHN Thank you. JANE That's all? JOHN It helped. JANE That's it? JOHN That's it. John takes out a gun, and puts it to his temple. Jane screams. They fade out. Foster, and Prostitute, sitting on the edge of the bed. She's reading a script. PROSTITUTE I can't read this last part. PROSTITUTE That's intentional. PROSTITUTE It's really dark in here. FOSTER Yeah. PROSTITUTE Can you make it any brighter? FOSTER No. PROSTITUTE Why not? FOSTER This is as bright as I get. She looks at him. He looks back. They sit in silence. PROSTITUTE You know I charge by the hour, right? FOSTER An hour is an hour, no matter what? PROSTITUTE Yeah. FOSTER Intercourse and fellatio, they're the same rate? PROSTITUTE What? FOSTER Sex and blowjobs cost the same? PROSTITUTE Uh, yeah. FOSTER Which do people prefer? Between the two. PROSTITUTE Blowjobs. FOSTER Are you good at them? PROSTITUTE Do you want to find out? FOSTER ...Maybe. PROSTITUTE You have thirteen minutes left. I can get you off in six. FOSTER That's pretty fast. Foster scratches his head. FOSTER What do you do with the expulsions? PROSTITUTE The what? FOSTER The...fluids, what do you do with them? PROSTITUTE Uh, I don't do anything with them. FOSTER You don't? PROSTITUTE You wear a condom. FOSTER Oh. Silence. FOSTER So I keep the expulsions. PROSTITUTE You're loving weird. FOSTER How much time do I have? She looks at her watch. PROSTITUTE Ten minutes. FOSTER Read this one. Foster hands her a script. PROSTITUTE (reading) "Spunk - A Survival Tale." A man dressed in a sperm costume walks onto the stage. Right behind him, a man in a suit carrying a megaphone, the Narrator. NARRATOR The average human male between the age of 15 and 30 produces an average of 300 million sperm a day. Each of these sperm has a unique DNA. Some have the potential to be athletes. The sperm does a cartwheel. NARRATOR Some will be cripples. The Narrator takes out a crowbar and crumples the sperm's left fibula. NARRATOR Some even, have the quality of genius. SPERM The meaning of life is - NARRATOR One is you. The sperm takes out a video camera and points it at the audience. Their image is projected on to the back of the stage. NARRATOR Yes, you. Improbably, you. You were the winner. You beat them all. Monday's sperm went into a sock, Tuesday's into a shower drain. Wednesday's was cock-teased into a goat-skin condom. But Thursday's, Thursday's were the chosen few! And you were the star of that greatest generation. Yes, you - improbably, you. The mother and father and liar and saver and friend and foe and doctor and lawyer and black and white and everything in between. You, the drinker - so much drink that the Williams line ends right there, executed by lethal ingestion. You, the Trumpet of Justice in Kalabancoro, Mali - saving the world one monthly payment at a time. They say your name when they go to sleep. Can you imagine that? Someone is invoking you like a saint. You, the one who swam straight - past the killers, blockers, and corpses - straight on to glory. The best of the best, sir. The Lord of the Eggs, Life Maker - The You. You made it. A woman dressed like a chicken's egg walks on to the stage, then is abruptly yanked off. Fade back on Foster. FOSTER The egg part isn't as good. I have trouble writing female characters. How much time do I have? PROSTITUTE You have seven minutes. FOSTER Enough time to get me off. Pause. PROSTITUTE That's right. FOSTER You don't have to. PROSTITUTE What? FOSTER Get me off. You don't have to do that. You can leave now, actually. PROSTITUTE Uh, alright. You've gotta pay me first. FOSTER Here. Foster pulls out a check and pen. FOSTER To whom should I address? PROSTITUTE We don't accept checks. FOSTER Since when? PROSTITUTE Since forever. FOSTER That's a long time. PROSTITUTE You don't have any cash? FOSTER Not on me. PROSTITUTE So, you need to go to the bank. FOSTER That wouldn't be a good idea. PROSTITUTE Why not? FOSTER I don't have an account. PROSTITUTE Then how the gently caress were you going to write a check? Foster shrugs. PROSTITUTE Are you loving kidding me? FOSTER Sorry. PROSTITUTE What did you loving think this was? FOSTER Good company? Prostitute points down. PROSTITUTE What about that laptop? FOSTER Does your business have an online component? PROSTITUTE It looks pretty new. FOSTER I use that to work. Prostitute inspects the laptop. PROSTITUTE Yeah this'll do. FOSTER And to masturbate. PROSTITUTE I'm taking this - as payment. FOSTER I'm sorry, I can't agree to that. PROSTITUTE Or, I can call J, who will beat the poo poo out of you. FOSTER J is your pimp? PROSTITUTE gently caress off. FOSTER Is 'pimp' not the right word? Prostitute picks up the laptop. Foster clamps his hands on the other side of it. They're nose to nose. FOSTER What does the 'J' stand for? PROSTITUTE Let...go. FOSTER I'm imagining a big, gaudy, class ring with a ruby 'J' imprinting into my forehead. PROSTITUTE Don't gently caress with me. FOSTER J the Pimp...he was chosen. Think about that. Prostitute pulls on the laptop; Foster's grip only tightens. PROSTITUTE Let loving go! FOSTER We all were, really, You the Prostitute, William the Poet, J the Pimp. PROSTITUTE I'm not going to say it again. FOSTER Well, I wasn't. But you, and William, and J - you made it. How does that make you feel? Pretty good, right? Pretty wonderful? You, Shakes, and J: billions out of trillions, the cream of the crop, PROSTITUTE Come on, I don't want to call him. I know you're just a nice guy. I know you're new to this - FOSTER How do you know that? PROSTITUTE Because you tried to pay with a loving check. FOSTER No, how do you know I'm a nice guy? Maybe I'm a killer. Maybe I eat young girls' hearts. Silence. PROSTITUTE gently caress you. FOSTER I don't have the money for that. Foster pulls hard on the laptop, yanking it from Prostitute's hand. FOSTER Sorry. He turns to leave. PROSTITUTE Hey! FOSTER I need a drink. PROSTITUTE I'm not kidding, If I call J he's going to loving kill you. FOSTER That is why I am getting a drink. T-Bone fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jul 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 10:44
|
|
|
One of the theatre companies in the city I just moved to is doing a stage version of Quentin Tarantino's movie Four Rooms in September. I am hoping to at least tech it if not design since that is one of my favorite movies. Has anyone ever seen/been in the stage version before or know how well it transitioned from film to stage as a script?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:thing Since you asked, it seems to me like a boring Writing 101 assignment, or maybe what passes for "artsy" for a midnight show at a medium sized state university. We learn nothing about the main two characters, they exist in a writerly void in a generic black wash of blandness. Theater is about human beings in conflict with each other, but there isn't really any conflict here, until the prostitute tries to get her payment, and even that results in the guy has no money at all; he exists alone in a sea of nothing. The opening speech is terrible, overblown, and most of all boring. The "John" and "Jane" scene looks like a desperate attempt to make the play deep through large gestures that make no sense and are totally unearned. (LOVE! SEX! DEATH!!!!!) Same with the other thing where a "narrator" shows up; it seems like it's just trying to be 'edgy' cause OH MAN TALKING ABOUT SPERM! I don't mean to be an rear end in a top hat but this really isn't the kind of tree you should be barking up if you want to write plays. You're not Caryl Churchill or Samuel Beckett [yet]; You're not good enough [yet] to throw arbitrary formal gestures or symbols out and have them work. Write five plays that use a conventional one- or two-act structure. Give them characters that want things from each other but can't get them. There's even a good germ of an idea here; a play about a playwright who hires a prostitute to read his plays is potentially interesting! But we have to actually know things like, why does he hire the prostitute (he has no friends? he is embarrassed about his writing? he is in France and doesn't know anyone else who speaks English?), what kind of world is he in (is it modern? Is it 19th century Europe? Is it a fantasy world? If so, what are the qualities of this fantasy world that affect his behavior vis-a-vis what he wants?), etc. If you want some inspiration, some goon was distributing "The Whale" earlier on this page; it's a brilliant play and probably the best one I've come across in 3-4 years ("Circle Mirror Transformation" being the next most recent brilliant play I've read or seen). Read it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Thank you. I had an (apparently bad) reaction to the Pacific Playwrights Festival, which featured many lifeless, cookie cutter plays written by MFAs that ascribe to the type of conventions (not saying those conventions are bad in and of themselves) you're talking about, and which prompted me to try something wildly different. I will say that hopefully some of the things you say don't make sense would eventually perhaps make sense as the play moved on, but if they don't work on their own (or worse, aren't intriguing or interesting), then I shall start anew (I haven't done much with this particular project since I posted it - perhaps that is a sign!). Oh and I've read and seen Circle Mirror - awesome play (they did it at SCR, where they're also doing The Whale this season). e: Here's one of the things I've been thinking about that will maybe spur some discussion and cast the spotlight away from my horrible brief dead play - Would you guys rather see a solidly plotted play with thin character or something a little more experimental (and "interesting," to be completely unhelpful), but sort of a dog chases tail affair? In new playville, it seems that all I see is the former (which, to again revisit my posted embarrassment, led me to that terrible turn), and while adequate and watchable I can't help but think it's the anathema to what theatre should and can be (I mean if you want to do just enough to make money, film is right down the street). de: And I hope I don't come off hostile or trying to defend my work to the death, I'm just frustrated that the bulk of new theatre coming out uses structure as their strike out pitch, rather than a set-up. August Osage County comes to mind, like, it's a Pulitzer winning play and effective and fine, but it's utterly ensnared by convention. There doesn't seem to be anything organic about it. Examined closely it's a series of events and counter-events, linked by snarky writerly turn of phrase, ending in third act turnabouts that are so instantly "edifying" that what came before ceases to be an integral part of the whole, but rather is laid bare as a finely tuned punchline. There's something dishonest about the whole thing. te: There's also some weird feeling inside of me that you're always doing disservice in realism (or that I am always doing disservice), or worse yet, exploiting, by condensing chaos so prescriptively into structure. At some point (and I swear I've seen this repeatedly in new play festivals), plot simply overwhelms truth, and character falls in the wake of function. What you have left is merely an entertaining exercise, which to me seems like something film is much more adept at. Shouldn't theatre be a little more? Again I'm not trying to (consciously) defend my own work, except to say that this is where my head is at right now. T-Bone fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jul 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
You seem fatalistically anti-structure. Structure exists because it's a logical framework to put other things around, like the frame of a house. Subverting just to subvert is pointless, and a good team doesn't HAVE to choose between form and fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:You seem fatalistically anti-structure. Structure exists because it's a logical framework to put other things around, like the frame of a house. Subverting just to subvert is pointless, and a good team doesn't HAVE to choose between form and fun. You're probably right, but what I'm seeing is the opposite right now, structure as an end, and it's way more sinister and harder to catch - well made plays with a pot of congratulatory gold at the finish that do nothing (or do something so obviously that all life therein is allowed to thrive only within chance moments, or because of a talented actor let on the loose). I guess what I'm disputing is the "logically" part of your argument. I see a lot of modern plays that use structure in a very illogical way that make their themes easier to digest or adds entertainment value, but by the very nature of the imposed structure destroy their credibility beyond the realm of the theater. I don't like that sacrifice. T-Bone fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jul 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Does anyone know if the rights (or even the loving book) are available for the Donmar Warehouse version of Threepenny Opera? It's the best translation I've run across, but all I can find is the album.T-Bone posted:I guess what I'm disputing is the "logically" part of your argument. I see a lot of modern plays that use structure in a very illogical way that make their themes easier to digest or adds entertainment value, but by the very nature of the imposed structure destroy their credibility beyond the realm of the theater. I don't like that sacrifice. If you don't want to check out Poetics (I don't really recommend reading this alone, it depends too much on Aristotle's other works), then check out Theatre of the Oppressed. It begins with Augusto Boal's astonishingly well written commentary and explanation of Aristotle and is one of the best play analysis tools I've encountered. Also, you should check out Red by John Logan. It has a very loose structure and I think it's one of the best recent plays in years. quote:I see a lot of modern plays that use structure in a very illogical way that make their themes easier to digest or adds entertainment value, but by the very nature of the imposed structure destroy their credibility beyond the realm of the theater.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
I've read all three actually  Actually I haven't read all of Theatre of the Opressed - just excerpts for various assignments. Again, I understand what structure is for, I just think it's being abused/misused in today's theatre. Red is pretty good, if meandering (particularly in the monologues - yeah I know pot/kettle/black). e: And I don't think Lost is a good example. On an episode by episode basis it was your basic three act structure show. It's not like they were trying to explore the human condition in some kind of illuminating, nontraditional manner, they were just making up cool poo poo and then never doing anything it. The convolutedness came from a bunch of setups that never paid off or flat out didn't make sense, which in a show based entirely on setup/cliffhanger/payoff (specifically the solving of the island's mystery), was ruinous. I'm not talking about stuff like that (not to be artsy fartsy). That's not to say, as you rightfully posted, that there isn't a clear other end of the spectrum (of course you can't forget your audience). I guess I just favor leaving them just a little in the dark because that's how I like to be as an audience member  Wolfgang Pauli posted:I don't really know what you mean by this. e: can't find the Pinter quote, must have been from some book I had. Anyway, what I'm saying is that not all stories fit into typical two act/one act structure, and should not necessarily be bound to them. Many do, but by automatically confining an idea to say, three act (as in B/M/E), instead of perhaps seeing how it would fair in say, periodic/episodic form, I think a disservice is done. Then there is the literal writing of plays FOR structure before any exploration has been made (I swear I've seen this done time and time again with new plays), which is obvious and painful and insulting. You can always tell when a play has been originated with that third act turnabout as its #1 priority (not to say such plays aren't occasionally good - I've just seen a lot of them that aren't). T-Bone fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Jul 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:e: can't find the Pinter quote, must have been from some book I had. Anyway, what I'm saying is that not all stories fit into typical two act/one act structure, and should not necessarily be bound to them. Many do, but by automatically confining an idea to say, three act (as in B/M/E), instead of perhaps seeing how it would fair in say, periodic/episodic form, I think a disservice is done. Then there is the literal writing of plays FOR structure before any exploration has been made (I swear I've seen this done time and time again with new plays), which is obvious and painful and insulting. You can always tell when a play has been originated with that third act turnabout as its #1 priority (not to say such plays aren't occasionally good - I've just seen a lot of them that aren't). What I mean by Lost is that it's engaging on a low level and complex because it promises you theme and meaning, leads you on for six years - getting more and more complex with each passing season, and fails to deliver in a big way. I didn't mean to suggest it being unstructured. The opposite, actually, it had a heavy and overbearing structure, and it had it for no reason. I guess I'm just not sure that you're ever going to liberate yourself from a three act structure, it's just a matter of how many you want and how creatively you experiment with them. Take The Importance of Being Earnest, it's three-act structured even though it ends 30 seconds after the climax. quote:Again, I understand what structure is for, I just think it's being abused/misused in today's theatre. Alternatively, start reading Brecht and Piscator. quote:Anyway, what I'm saying is that not all stories fit into typical two act/one act structure, and should not necessarily be bound to them. Wolfgang Pauli fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Jul 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 11:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
T-Bone posted:Thank you. I had an (apparently bad) reaction to the Pacific Playwrights Festival, which featured many lifeless, cookie cutter plays written by MFAs that ascribe to the type of conventions (not saying those conventions are bad in and of themselves) you're talking about, and which prompted me to try something wildly different. By all means, defend your play if you like! All I'm doing is offering an opinion. ("I wouldn't ask you to change a single word. Who am I? Some vain Broadway LEGEND!") The truth is, the bones of theater are ALWAYS in interpersonal interaction. It's humans living out aesthetically shaped relationships right in front of us. Without getting too fussy about it, that's the aesthetics of what theater IS. So you have to have some baseline of human experience changing over time due to interaction with other humans -- some struggle for a person to get what they want. Otherwise it's unrecognizable as a theatrical experience, and more importantly, it's boring as gently caress to watch. So no matter what you're writing -- whether it's the Orestia or "Waiting For Godot" or "The Rivals" or "America Hurrah", it has to have that as the basis. For what it's worth, I love formal and subject-matter experiments. I'm a big fan of Samuel Beckett's bizarre, short plays like "Play" and "What Where". They're really brilliant and very powerful. Or, take the greatest play of at least the last 30 or so years, "Angels In America". It strolls along being relatively realistic (people meeting in dreams notwithstanding) and suddenly at the end of the first play A GODDAMN ANGEL CRASHES THROUGH THE CEILING. Like, that is literally what happens. And then a good chunk of the second play is spent with the main character literally in heaven (a place that looks a lot like San Francisco) arguing with the Angels that represent the continents of the world about God and humanity. It's really bizarre as gently caress. Or Caryl Churchill as I mentioned, who often has strange alternate personalities, characters written to be performed by actors of mismatched gender and race, crossing time and space in non-literal ways to suit her whims. But she's really absurdly gifted, so her plays are first rate. I don't know if you saw "August: Osage County", but its success was that it did what it did (a big old fashioned American family play) really well, while hitting pretty deep [melo]drama as well as very hilarious comedy at the same time. And it helped that it had a really magnificent and exquisitely directed and performed Broadway production. Also, I just want to throw out there my personal recommendation that you should ABSOLUTELY read about aesthetics if you are interested in learning about why art works the way it does, but particularly where plays are concerned be very careful of being misled because a lot of it is dumb. When I was in drama school I saw plenty of bad productions that happened because people had read something by someone important that they took as gospel. "Poetics" is neat and obviously seminal, but a lot of it is just wrong. And Brecht is really dangerous because Brecht had sort of silly and bad ideas about how audience members experience theater (most of all his idea that people can't think and feel emotions at the same time). Brecht is important because he wrote a bunch of really good plays, not because of his theory (as much as people just LOVE to talk about alienation/Verfremdung etc. in drama school cause it's just so edgy). You'd learn more about plays by reading Sophocles and Euripides and Brecht than studying theory, I think. I say this as someone who has read a lot of aesthetics, mostly for fun. The best writer on aesthetics in the last ~50 years is probably Susanne Langer. She predates postmodernism mostly, but if you want a solid way to think about what art IS she's a wonderful writer, and pretty easy to read. "Feeling and Form" is excellent. (And Wolfgang is right, learning a poo poo ton about how plays have been structured over the last two or three thousand years is an amazing tool because you can't run until you walk, and you can't break the rules in an effective way unless you have a really deep understanding of what they are and how they got to be that way) I agree that a lot of "realistic" plays can err towards the boring and mediocre, and I applaud you for erring in the direction of the interesting. The point is, though, they are both errors. I guess my question is, what is it about the guy-and-the-prostitute story that just screams "this doesn't need to be in a conventional and easily understandable storytelling structure"? Usually, except in rare cases of the best writers like Tony Kushner, Edward Albee, Caryl Churchill, many of the absurdists, etc., weird structural poo poo is code for "this story isn't interesting if it's told conventionally, but maybe if I tell it in a REALLY SUPER COOL NEW WAY I can trick people into thinking it's good!" I am not accusing you of being in that category, but I have seen things that really do approach it that way. "Play" is a sort of a good example of this (and what I imagine that form-obsessed writers are going for), except it's an amazing play due to a few things: Beckett's sheer force of will and almost absurd faculty with language; the truth of the really simple and disturbing image of putting the three characters inside urns (  ), the fact that the relationships are simple and there's not a lot of complexity or facts we need to understand, and the play mostly expounds in a visceral way about the experience of their relationships. In other words, Beckett transcends these issues with this kind of writing by JUST BEING THAT loving GOOD. It's something we can all aspire to.Fun theater effort posting ITT!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 06:46
|
|