| Author | Post |
|---|
Jude Bresnan
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 04:59 pm |
|
| THIS WORK HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE AUTHOR. Last edited on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 05:21 am by Jude Bresnan
|
Jude Bresnan
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 08:55 pm |
|
| Thanks for the advice. I have now posted a BIO and what kind of criticism I am looking for. Thanks again!
|
spiny norman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 11:18 pm |
|
i read both parts yesterday & have thinking about them since.
i must admit i was bored by the first scene. i'm not sure if you want the audience to be in limbo about the situation on purpose or not. i don't really understand the situation at all. at first i thought it was an american army sort of thing but then there's a russian (or some sort of foreigner). is this in the future? is it the u.n.? is their situation supposed to be an exercise in futility? i didn't really care for any of the characters so i'm not really "rooting" for any of them. i've seen the "people get petty & childish when they're confined to a small space & are bored" thing before. there's the danger that when characters are in a boring situation, they can become boring themselves. there just didn't seem to be anything compelling at stake, nothing driving the play forward. are they running out of supplies? will they do anything to go home? i didn't get any sense of urgency. it seems if they just hang on for a couple of months, they can go home.
the only think i found interesting was the absence of the captain. where is he? will he come back? has something happened to him? the suggestion of a threat perked things up a bit.
the gambling bit wasn't really interesting b/c there didn't seem to be anything at stake. no one was in danger of losing anything important if they lost. perhaps it could be a comic bit if it was reworked.
when we find out that they're looking for land mines, that helped but i'm still not sure what land mines are doing in the coldest part of the earth or why they're looking for them.
the second act ups the stakes a little - now we know there might be a revolt so that's interesting.
i might be prejudiced about this whole piece as a couple of weeks ago, i watched a movie with a similar set-up - john carpenter's movie "the thing" - a group of men in the arctic suddenly discover that there is an alien creature among them so all their petty squabbles suddenly become heightened under the pressure of a life & death struggle to find out which of them is still human & which is an alien. this reminded me of that so i'm probably comparing your scenes to that unfairly. but anyway, them's my thoughts. hope they help.
|
Edd
Moderator
| Joined: | Sat Jun 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Denver, Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 12:01 am |
|
Jude,
Plays of ideas are wonderful things, but difficult for the most seasoned of writers. Why? One reason is that one can get caught up in the juggling of ideas or philosophies, as you suggested you were doing--all at the expense of developing believable characters. Without believable characters we may have what appears to be a play, but is a prime example for when a play isn't a play. I'm of the school what says write about what you know, at least in the beginning.
Keep writing! Stick with it and you'll have a wonderful career ahead.
Laughter, bravos and fabulous lighting.
~Edd
|
Jude Bresnan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
| So.........it sucks?
|
spiny norman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:30 am |
|
of course not. it just needs more work. you write something only once, you rewrite it a hundred times!
plot-wise - it needs to be a bit more urgent - why should we keep reading/watching this story? is what is happening, what might happen, interesting? (how long have they been there? how long must they stay there? what is happening to their loved ones while they're away? is the person in charge crazy? making them do futile things? do they have to get rid of him to escape? to survive? is there something outside that is threatening them?)
character-wise - try not to see them as "standing for" a particular idea but make them more well-rounded & interesting. make us like them, root for them, or hate them, wish them ill. what is at stake for each character & the group as a whole? what does each want? what are they willing to do to get it?
concentrate on moving your audience - giving them a reason to watch & care, giving them the info they need. sometimes, after working on something a long time, you've revised so much that things you remember from other drafts you think are in the most recent version & they're not so a fresh reader doesn't "get" things that the author, who is deeply involved with the work, takes for granted. does that make sense? in other words, you think something is clear to the reader when it isn't b/c it was clear in another version.
what is it you want to communicate to others thru this play? what do you passionately need to tell us?
|
Jude Bresnan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 02:22 am |
|
| thanks for your advice. How should I rework the craps piece, precisely?
|
spiny norman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 01:54 am |
|
if you want it to be a tension bit then you could have it explained that the "winner" or "loser" has to do it to the captain (or whatever) - something nasty. or the "winner" wins something really important from the loser (family photos, extra turn off-duty etc)
if you want it to be a comic bit, i hate to admit that i know this but i think there was an episode of the original "star trek" where kirk made up a card game as it was being played (i forget why but i blush to further admit i think it was the one where the enterprise finds a planet where society is based on 1930's gangster society). not that i recommend watching that episode but that's sort of what you might do - have the character keep making up different rules depending on what is thrown (perhaps letting the ignorant character win a couple of throws & then having the rules go against him).
"you got a three and a two, that's a squm-zit, that means i get three of your chips and you take back two." "now, see i got a two and a four, that's daquiri! so i get four more rolls." or whatever.
and the other soldier who is just watching could try to help the losing player by injecting his own rules. "no, don't you remember, when the other player is wearing both shoes while you roll two threes, he wins the whole pot?"
you might also have the character running the game set down the worth of all the different "chips" they're using - each bandaid is worth 1 and the gauze pads are worth five bandaids & this bottle of rubbing alcohol is worth 10 gauze pads etc.
Last edited on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 02:09 am by spiny norman
|
Jude Bresnan
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 06:18 pm |
|
All of you who replied should read the new version. It is 100 times better. I hope.
-Jude
|
Current time is 12:09 am | |
|
