| Author | Post |
|---|
Edd
Moderator
| Joined: | Sat Jun 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Denver, Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 01:55 pm |
|
| ON PLAY DEVELOPMENT AND WORKSHOPPING:
Some Personal Thoughts on the Art of Playwriting
by Edward Crosby Wells has been removed.
Last edited on Mon Apr 21st, 2008 04:16 pm by Edd
|
Mary Alice
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 146 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 03:25 pm |
|
Edd,
Bravo! Thank you! Lead on!
Mary Alice
|
katoagogo
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 04:59 pm |
|
I kinda dig workshops -- but not all forms of it.
I believe strongly that the playwright should be responsible for the workshopping of heir play -- the workshop is best held in their community -- and that the playwright should be a vital part of the workshop's production.
Whether or not there is commentary about the play is entirely at the discretion of the playwright.
That's why my theater project -- The Planning Stage -- is about workshop opportunities for playwrights in my community. We act in each other's work, help get spaces, and all lend a hand in the production of readings and stagings.
I've had a few outstanding workshop experiences -- but they all have involved a residency. The ones where you go in for a day and see the staging, those aren't as good. But still, I've had fun at most of those. I try to decline commentary sessions after the play -- or I try to really get a sense of what the audience was experiencing during the work -- not so much what they were thinking. The way I've found to do this is to prime them at the beginning of the reading about what I'm looking for/at from them.
I liken the watching of the play to a conversation -- the play and the audience. I also do not allow more than two rows of seats to be set up until after those rows have been filled. The conversation is going to be intimate -- so I insist on people sitting in the front row. If we're in a house with set seating -- the I won't let the reading start until people move forward. hat way people are committed to the play and the experience of being close to it. People hang back because they are afraid of that commitment, like they want to be able to exit if they feel like it -- but I wonder why they would bother to come see a new play-in-progress if they're not going to commit to being close?
That's my take on it.
--kato
|
katoagogo
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 05:01 pm |
|
| What if we called it work-shaping rather than work-shopping? Seeing the shape of it all -- testing that shape -- and checking that it hangs properly when worn around by others.
|
Edd
Moderator
| Joined: | Sat Jun 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Denver, Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 05:09 pm |
|
"I believe strongly that the playwright should be responsible for the workshopping of their play -- the workshop is best held in their community -- and that the playwright should be a vital part of the workshop's production."
I applaud that thought, kato, but the thing is I have no beliefs at all about what a playwright should be or should not be responsible for. My only belief concerns my responsibility to myself. I am, however, a strong believer in whatever works best for you.
Like I said, I am not looking for converts, just a nod of confirmation and a hello to the like-minded who share a common plane in the vastness of our universe.
|
katoagogo
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 05:13 pm |
|
"in which participants aren’t invested enough to deserve any say-so."
This troubles me. I believe that participants are invested -- if their not -- then why write for theater in the first place?
It is important, however, to remind the audience that they are participants throughout the performance -- that's the dialogue part of it. Their most valuable feedback comes to you and the performers while the play is being witnessed -- which is one of the coolest relationships on the planet.
Plus , I think it's a great idea to get people actively talking about the work they've just seen. It's just that we're still at the beginning of learning how to do this -- and sometimes it's awkward -- or it becomes about who's smarter than who -- or who has a right to an opinion and so on.
It's really about teaching people in theater how to have these kinds of conversations. It takes a while to get used to it.
Most people are not sure how to pay attention to a play in order to articulate their experience. What I tell an audience (and I get some pretty good results with this) -- is to pay attention to what brings them into the play -- to notice what gets them paying attention -- to notice that and make note of it. After the play, if that moment still seems important, please share that with the playwright -- or with the actor who performed it. So often we ignore or forget to acknowledge the things that move us, that compel us, but tonight I'd like you to pay attention to that and to share it afterward.
It's about nudging an audience in a new direction around attention. Instead of coming at the play with a "how to fix it" attitude, most folks really do address "what worked" for them. It makes for some potent post-performance dialogue.
--kato
|
katoagogo
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 05:16 pm |
|
I get ya Edd -- I'm not arguing with you. You make some really great points.
And your experience is the kind that I hear from a lot of playwrights.
It's just that for some reason, I haven't run into that sort of thing so much, and I'm not sure why.
--Kato
|
katoagogo
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 06:04 pm |
|
Edd--
Until you posted this -- I had no idea that I had so much to say about the workshopping process.
It's regarded as a practice that either
a) a theater gets to taste the milk without buying the cow
b) a theater tastes the milk before deciding whether or not to invest in the cow.
But -- there is a third option --
the playwright gets to check out the herd before running with the bull.
An unhappy workshop experience will mean a bad production experience. I know I could forgive/ignore/fahgeddabout a bad workshop -- a bad production could probably do some damage to my career or the history of a particular play -- and that would be heartbreaking.
|
Edd
Moderator
| Joined: | Sat Jun 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Denver, Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 06:19 am |
|
Something just found. I've inserted it into the article:
On the subject of new play development Edward Albee said in a September 1994 interview for American Theatre: "It is to de-ball the plays; to castrate them; to smooth down all the rough edges so they can't cut, can't hurt. It's to make them commercially tolerable to a smug audience. It's not to make plays any better. Most playwrights who write a good play write it from the beginning."
I've also inserted an A.R. Gurney and a Robert Patrick quote. In fact, I've rewritten or added much to it since it was first posted.
~Edd
|
Basso
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 02:06 pm |
|
Collaboration is the vaunted form in the current climate of all things educative, and this, unfortunately leeches into the realm of the artistic. Our belief that the process of creating is a particular process, shunning methods that do not conform is indicative of a society gone mad with hearing everyone’s voice. The fact is...not everyone's voice is worth hearing, and further, few have the insight to glean what even their own voice means, let alone the voice of another. To wit, we all assess another's work through the filter of our own prejudices, and receive such filtered prejudices through another, equally biased filter. In other words, we see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear. Sometimes there comes along a voice, an ear, an eye, so potent that the chord it strikes resonates past our filters, ekes it's way through our prejudice, and perhaps, if we are lucky, stirs a part of us to go beyond what we know, what is safe.
So, of what use is a workshop or a reading if it is only to allow others to voice what they already know, instead of responding to what they might not understand? Well, it might be useful for the playwright to hear the words read aloud by voices accustomed to reading words. Also, it gives a certain life to a creation that before inhabited only the playwrights head and the singular dimension of the typed page. Whether this makes the workshop worthy, or not, is up to the author to decide.
However, we all need some instruction, beyond our own inclination, as to what constitutes good playwrighting. We need to understand the geography of writing; at least to some degree of proficiency, otherwise, even our most erudite ideas will fail, as we haven't the basic structure to convey them. Grammar is such a conveyance and rhythm another. Personally, I think this is where most writers fail; they have ideas enough, but not the economy of words, or the understanding to give them life and power.
For this reason I believe that some sort of mentorship or commiseration with other artists is important, for nothing of much consequence ever happens in a vacuum, save for dust. So, the question for me is not whether a workshop is of any value, but rather, what means do I have at my disposal to bring my writing forth. What vehicle/s send my voice out into the world, imposes the austerity of clarity, yet allows the spirit to expand in all directions.
Basso
Last edited on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 08:07 pm by Basso
|
Edd
Moderator
| Joined: | Sat Jun 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Denver, Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 02:29 pm |
|
". . . I believe that some sort of mentorship or commiseration with other artists is important, for nothing of much consequence ever happens in a vacuum, save for dust."
Basso, I couldn't agree with you more! That's why I feel this forum is so important. We can share our thoughts, ideas and our work. Some have found mentors here and commiseration is the order of the day.
However, does dust really happen in a vacuum?
~Edd
|
Basso
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 105 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 02:50 pm |
|
Dust, it would seem, is ubiquitous; especially before one's morning coffee...or is that cobwebs? LOL
Basso
|
LadyBug
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
Edd,
I think I see your point. I agree that a writer has to hold dear their voice. I believe that all stories have been written before but it’s our voice that allows us to retell things in a unique way.
And, in a workshop environment, I've experienced the participants trying to encourage me to get rid of things that I considered primary the perspective I was trying to communicate.
But I'm stubborn. I'm willing and eager to hear input, but I only change the things "I" think need changing. I think part of what I hear you saying is that often writers will take the input too much to heart and let their work become watered down.
I'm the student in a class that gets back a corrected writing assignment from a teacher, reads their notes, and listens to what I agree with and ignores the rest. In that way, I’m a terrible student. On the other hand, I’m always seeking out new teachers to give me input I haven’t heard before.
The reason I value and desire the workshop environment so much is because the blindness I experience with my own work. There are sometimes things I miss. Sometimes it's continuity. Sometimes it's something I assume the audience knows; only to find out I need to be clearer.
I keep hearing that there is such a thing as “over-workshoping.” I’ve certainly heard enough new works that I feel are completely flat. And I’ve seen writers that don’t know when to stop tweaking their work. So, I can completely believe that such a thing exists.
I value the cautions against workshoping I’m hearing, even if I don’t agree, because it reminds me to stay true to my voice. (LOL…I always like it when people tell to do what I’m already doing! Especially when the REASON I’m doing it is purely out of hubris.)
|
HarveyRabbit
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19th, 2008 04:45 am |
|
I’m 100% with Edd on this one. You’re work is your statement. It is your art. It is your declamation of what you have to say as a playwright. To open it up as a free-for-all that all and sundry can manipulate and influence according to their personal tastes is a travesty. If that’s what you want, maybe you should go and write movie scripts where focus groups guide you into making a “crowd pleaser”? Does a painter or a composer or a novelist have to subject him or her self to a jury of the public to decide if what they’ve spent so many long and hard hours working on suits their personal taste? Of course not.
Refining and rewriting a play during the rehearsal process is a different matter altogether. That is a natural and organic part of the collaborative nature of theatre. But “test” audiences chiming in on how they think your play should start, end, or focus on is a fallacy.
You are a playwright. You write and rewrite and rewrite and rewrite until you have what you intended. Some may like it, some may hate it. But that is your work, and that is what you had to say. If you don’t have enough confidence in your work when you have completed it that you don’t feel able to stand by it as a proud parent, then maybe you’re not yet ready to consider yourself a “playwright.”
I love you all.
Harvey
|
Paddy
Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19th, 2008 12:29 pm |
|
I can see all sides of the thing. I just have one opinion, across the board. Value the 'right' comments, and discard the rest. With life. With writing. Everyone thinks they know better, but it's yours. Keep it yours...the writing, and the life.
And...okay two...I've seen plays over-rehearsed, and I've seen plays over-written. Flat.
Paddy
|
Theatre Maven
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19th, 2008 03:00 pm |
|
Mr. Wells,
You are an inspiration. Thank you.
TM
|
in media res
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19th, 2008 04:02 pm |
|
I have enjoyed the discussion. But I have posted enough on this topic in the past, that I am not able to add anything new.
edd keep the article going. Love to see it in print. Yes, Albee gets it right.
Two things I will say. It all depends on who is doing the workshop and I do not mean the prominent name of a theatre or a director. I mean the actual person who is hands on. You are lucky if you get a good pairing with someone who wants to work on "your play" and not make it "our play." If the match is a good one, you will be fortunate. If they want to "say" something with your play, you are in the wrong hands. You "say" something with your play.
Most great novelists have great editors and they often last for life. Playwrights like Mamet and others have had long-term relationships with directors, as did Miller and Williams and August Wilson and many others. This is a blessing.
Essentially, I agree with paddy's summary.
best,
in media res
|
Current time is 05:18 am | |
|
