I love editing things. Looking at material and finding the holes, the plot flaws, the character inconsistencies, everything that is just - but not quite - there. I love making pages bleed... but I don't really like to make my own stuff bleed. I know there are scads of problems in my writing. Such and such character would never say something like that, or this plot point ruins the play, or "Wow Claire... grammar much?" So I really respect Peter Shaffer for going back and looking at his play. For one thing, it shows me how invested he is in the play. For another I think it really explains a lot about why the play is SO good. All this time and emotional energy is channeled through to a good play that has been so well thought of it can't be left alone. I like that. In high school I used to do a lot of revisions between competition. My district monologue was rarely what I presented at nationals (in fact... I don't think it ever was the same) and those I competed with who didn't change and revise and adapt never did well the second time around. There is always something to change. While my getting a medal or a special award at a high school history competition does not even come close to the awards and genius of Amadeus I feel that I (and again to a very very lesser extent) understand where Shaffer is coming from in thinking that, sure the thing did very well, but it can - slash MUST - improve. There is always something that can be better and sometimes you just have to fix it. If you put in all your efforts into researching and analyzing and writing your characters you become fixated with them. If I really invest myself into a play I tend to develop slightly split-personality disorders where I actually become my characters for awhile... not very healthy but very good for revising. Which actually makes me wonder just how far Shaffer went into the mind set of Salieri and Mozart. I mean... did he have Mozart days and then Salieri days where he just sat around thinking like them? Because I feel like, if he did, that would explain a lot about the play.
Going back to the idea of revision itself, I think that sometimes too much revision can be a bit of a bad thing. I respect and admire Shaffer's belief that the ending is just never quite right. This makes sense because such a monumental play HAS to have the perfect ending. But there is no such thing as perfection. So then what? Shaffer's answer seems to be writing and rewriting the ending... but I think he ended up straying from a good ending. Salieri putting on the mask himself is absolutely brilliant and I was really sad to see it go. Sure, it isn't historically accurate, but this is one case where I say, "Screw history." (and I very rarely say something like that). The scene where Mozart dictates the Confutatis to Salieri is one of my all time favourite scenes (despite the horror I experienced with that particular scene during Music Theory my freshman year) and it not being in the play almost broke my heart. Yes, yes, Shaffer was trying to make the play more dynamic and theatrical for the screen to really pop... but does theatre really have to shy away from that? I know that theatre can get away with a lot more then the screen can (and vice versa really) but I really love that scene and I really love the ending. I feel like there is more malice and depth there. That said, I love reading Shaffer's thought process as to why and how he reached his fifth and sixth versions. He knows these characters SO well. He can think with them, breath with them, and thus creates the ending he feels they would create for themselves. How he is able to actually do that... by which I mean more along the lines of how he can bring himself to change his ending knowing how wonderful it is, yet still needing it to be more... well it is simply astounding.
I guess the main points of all this gushing is that
A) Shaffer is the embodiment of those who walk the line between genius and insanity
B) Revision is very good, very hard, and can be taken too far... but that is ok-ish
C) Loving what you are working on is a blessing and a curse.
D) Did I mention how much I love this play?
E) The play is good, revision makes it amazing
21 April 2009
02 April 2009
Let's Try This Again... for Mellow is not Yellow.
I am trying something slightly different for my blog style today- I'm going short style. However what I really learned from all of these plays is that comedy needs to be intelligent and clever, otherwise it is really just not that funny. Also, as always, character Character CHARACTER! Boy are characters important.
So...
Aimee: I’m not really sure how I feel about this play. I suppose it has some interesting bits I can use- like a ten minute play can go pretty fast and doesn’t really have to make a whole lot of sense. Well, more like it doesn’t have to be about something necessarily feasible. There are some interesting ideas in this play but I am unsure exactly whether or not they are expressed in a way I can fully get behind. I mean- really? Plus I feel that maybe it is trying just a little too hard to put comedy and tragedy together and instead it just seems contrived.
Anything For You: Well, one thing is for sure. Sex is funny. Most of the time anyway- but definitely in the case of this play. For me what is really the best part of this play is the language. The discourse is rapid and clever. Repetition – like the “time bomb, tick tick” to be followed later with a “no. tick” is really funny. Subject-wise, not so much, but language-wise very very hilarious. But what really gets me about this play is how touching it is. I mean- I just feel for Gail. She is in such a dreadful situation and she just has to keep going. It is simply heart wrenching. I think this is the mark of good writing. You want to make an audience laugh through the tears. Funny and sad, but mostly real. I believe this play. Nothing about it seems outside the realms of possibility and the dialogue just solidifies its naturalness. I love that. I think really good writing is the kind that is believable. The situation doesn’t have to be but the characters do.
Duet for Bear and Dog: This play is utterly ridiculous and I love it. I love the strong characters and the way they speak. I have seen more than a few bears in my life and the brown ones really do seem like they would be worried about being carted off to walk tight ropes in tutus- and a lot of the dogs I know (especially the ones with dumb names, although I suppose Boris isn’t really a dumb name compared to something like Sunshine Bimbo) probably do think and talk like the dog. I suppose Homeward Bound really did make me ready for a play like this. Of course animals speak but we can’t understand them. But mostly it is just really cute- but also fascinating. Also, rhyme can be funny. As can cussing. The moment when She tells Dog to Sit, and Dog answers with “shit”- that is very clever and funny to me. I don’t feel like reality was lost with this play. Sure, we are watching a rather ridiculous intercourse between a dog and a bear (and a few silly humans) but they are still realistic, or natural. I feel for them. And the ending is still really beautiful. But mostly the key is that I respond to the characters. The play has believable characters, interesting plot, all the things I like in the plays I read and all the plays I would like to write.
The Philadelphia: Oh David Ives. I think what I love so much about his writing is the pace and rhythm of the dialogue. That and the popular culture references. I know some people are really against pop culture references in plays but I personally love them. There is so much scope in pop culture. I also find Ives excessively clever. He uses rhyme a lot in his plays and I think it just adds to the humour. It’s funny when things rhyme because you can feel smart and laugh. He doesn’t hit you over the head with “look it’s funny” he actually makes you think at the same time. I think writing needs to be clever and for comedy well thought out, fast paced, well-developed characters, and an interesting plot makes a huge difference.
Moral of my story:
Good characters + Interesting Plot + Naturalness + Occasional rhymes + Cleverness
= Good 10 Minute Play!
So...
Aimee: I’m not really sure how I feel about this play. I suppose it has some interesting bits I can use- like a ten minute play can go pretty fast and doesn’t really have to make a whole lot of sense. Well, more like it doesn’t have to be about something necessarily feasible. There are some interesting ideas in this play but I am unsure exactly whether or not they are expressed in a way I can fully get behind. I mean- really? Plus I feel that maybe it is trying just a little too hard to put comedy and tragedy together and instead it just seems contrived.
Anything For You: Well, one thing is for sure. Sex is funny. Most of the time anyway- but definitely in the case of this play. For me what is really the best part of this play is the language. The discourse is rapid and clever. Repetition – like the “time bomb, tick tick” to be followed later with a “no. tick” is really funny. Subject-wise, not so much, but language-wise very very hilarious. But what really gets me about this play is how touching it is. I mean- I just feel for Gail. She is in such a dreadful situation and she just has to keep going. It is simply heart wrenching. I think this is the mark of good writing. You want to make an audience laugh through the tears. Funny and sad, but mostly real. I believe this play. Nothing about it seems outside the realms of possibility and the dialogue just solidifies its naturalness. I love that. I think really good writing is the kind that is believable. The situation doesn’t have to be but the characters do.
Duet for Bear and Dog: This play is utterly ridiculous and I love it. I love the strong characters and the way they speak. I have seen more than a few bears in my life and the brown ones really do seem like they would be worried about being carted off to walk tight ropes in tutus- and a lot of the dogs I know (especially the ones with dumb names, although I suppose Boris isn’t really a dumb name compared to something like Sunshine Bimbo) probably do think and talk like the dog. I suppose Homeward Bound really did make me ready for a play like this. Of course animals speak but we can’t understand them. But mostly it is just really cute- but also fascinating. Also, rhyme can be funny. As can cussing. The moment when She tells Dog to Sit, and Dog answers with “shit”- that is very clever and funny to me. I don’t feel like reality was lost with this play. Sure, we are watching a rather ridiculous intercourse between a dog and a bear (and a few silly humans) but they are still realistic, or natural. I feel for them. And the ending is still really beautiful. But mostly the key is that I respond to the characters. The play has believable characters, interesting plot, all the things I like in the plays I read and all the plays I would like to write.
The Philadelphia: Oh David Ives. I think what I love so much about his writing is the pace and rhythm of the dialogue. That and the popular culture references. I know some people are really against pop culture references in plays but I personally love them. There is so much scope in pop culture. I also find Ives excessively clever. He uses rhyme a lot in his plays and I think it just adds to the humour. It’s funny when things rhyme because you can feel smart and laugh. He doesn’t hit you over the head with “look it’s funny” he actually makes you think at the same time. I think writing needs to be clever and for comedy well thought out, fast paced, well-developed characters, and an interesting plot makes a huge difference.
Moral of my story:
Good characters + Interesting Plot + Naturalness + Occasional rhymes + Cleverness
= Good 10 Minute Play!
Look Ma- I'm funny
I am trying something slightly different for my blog style today- I'm going short style. However what I really learned from all of these plays is that comedy needs to be intelligent and clever, otherwise it is really just not that funny. Also, as always, character Character CHARACTER! Boy are characters important.
So...
Aimee: I’m not really sure how I feel about this play. I suppose it has some interesting bits I can use- like a ten minute play can go pretty fast and doesn’t really have to make a whole lot of sense. Well, more like it doesn’t have to be about something necessarily feasible. There are some interesting ideas in this play but I am unsure exactly whether or not they are expressed in a way I can fully get behind. I mean- really? Plus I feel that maybe it is trying just a little too hard to put comedy and tragedy together and instead it just seems contrived.
Anything For You: Well, one thing is for sure. Sex is funny. Most of the time anyway- but definitely in the case of this play. For me what is really the best part of this play is the language. The discourse is rapid and clever. Repetition – like the “time bomb, tick tick” to be followed later with a “no. tick” is really funny. Subject-wise, not so much, but language-wise very very hilarious. But what really gets me about this play is how touching it is. I mean- I just feel for Gail. She is in such a dreadful situation and she just has to keep going. It is simply heart wrenching. I think this is the mark of good writing. You want to make an audience laugh through the tears. Funny and sad, but mostly real. I believe this play. Nothing about it seems outside the realms of possibility and the dialogue just solidifies its naturalness. I love that. I think really good writing is the kind that is believable. The situation doesn’t have to be but the characters do.
Duet for Bear and Dog: This play is utterly ridiculous and I love it. I love the strong characters and the way they speak. I have seen more than a few bears in my life and the brown ones really do seem like they would be worried about being carted off to walk tight ropes in tutus- and a lot of the dogs I know (especially the ones with dumb names, although I suppose Boris isn’t really a dumb name compared to something like Sunshine Bimbo) probably do think and talk like the dog. I suppose Homeward Bound really did make me ready for a play like this. Of course animals speak but we can’t understand them. But mostly it is just really cute- but also fascinating. Also, rhyme can be funny. As can cussing. The moment when She tells Dog to Sit, and Dog answers with “shit”- that is very clever and funny to me. I don’t feel like reality was lost with this play. Sure, we are watching a rather ridiculous intercourse between a dog and a bear (and a few silly humans) but they are still realistic, or natural. I feel for them. And the ending is still really beautiful. But mostly the key is that I respond to the characters. The play has believable characters, interesting plot, all the things I like in the plays I read and all the plays I would like to write.
The Philadelphia: Oh David Ives. I think what I love so much about his writing is the pace and rhythm of the dialogue. That and the popular culture references. I know some people are really against pop culture references in plays but I personally love them. There is so much scope in pop culture. I also find Ives excessively clever. He uses rhyme a lot in his plays and I think it just adds to the humour. It’s funny when things rhyme because you can feel smart and laugh. He doesn’t hit you over the head with “look it’s funny” he actually makes you think at the same time. I think writing needs to be clever and for comedy well thought out, fast paced, well-developed characters, and an interesting plot makes a huge difference.
Moral of my story:
Good characters + Interesting Plot + Naturalness + Occasional rhymes + Cleverness
= Good 10 Minute Play!
So...
Aimee: I’m not really sure how I feel about this play. I suppose it has some interesting bits I can use- like a ten minute play can go pretty fast and doesn’t really have to make a whole lot of sense. Well, more like it doesn’t have to be about something necessarily feasible. There are some interesting ideas in this play but I am unsure exactly whether or not they are expressed in a way I can fully get behind. I mean- really? Plus I feel that maybe it is trying just a little too hard to put comedy and tragedy together and instead it just seems contrived.
Anything For You: Well, one thing is for sure. Sex is funny. Most of the time anyway- but definitely in the case of this play. For me what is really the best part of this play is the language. The discourse is rapid and clever. Repetition – like the “time bomb, tick tick” to be followed later with a “no. tick” is really funny. Subject-wise, not so much, but language-wise very very hilarious. But what really gets me about this play is how touching it is. I mean- I just feel for Gail. She is in such a dreadful situation and she just has to keep going. It is simply heart wrenching. I think this is the mark of good writing. You want to make an audience laugh through the tears. Funny and sad, but mostly real. I believe this play. Nothing about it seems outside the realms of possibility and the dialogue just solidifies its naturalness. I love that. I think really good writing is the kind that is believable. The situation doesn’t have to be but the characters do.
Duet for Bear and Dog: This play is utterly ridiculous and I love it. I love the strong characters and the way they speak. I have seen more than a few bears in my life and the brown ones really do seem like they would be worried about being carted off to walk tight ropes in tutus- and a lot of the dogs I know (especially the ones with dumb names, although I suppose Boris isn’t really a dumb name compared to something like Sunshine Bimbo) probably do think and talk like the dog. I suppose Homeward Bound really did make me ready for a play like this. Of course animals speak but we can’t understand them. But mostly it is just really cute- but also fascinating. Also, rhyme can be funny. As can cussing. The moment when She tells Dog to Sit, and Dog answers with “shit”- that is very clever and funny to me. I don’t feel like reality was lost with this play. Sure, we are watching a rather ridiculous intercourse between a dog and a bear (and a few silly humans) but they are still realistic, or natural. I feel for them. And the ending is still really beautiful. But mostly the key is that I respond to the characters. The play has believable characters, interesting plot, all the things I like in the plays I read and all the plays I would like to write.
The Philadelphia: Oh David Ives. I think what I love so much about his writing is the pace and rhythm of the dialogue. That and the popular culture references. I know some people are really against pop culture references in plays but I personally love them. There is so much scope in pop culture. I also find Ives excessively clever. He uses rhyme a lot in his plays and I think it just adds to the humour. It’s funny when things rhyme because you can feel smart and laugh. He doesn’t hit you over the head with “look it’s funny” he actually makes you think at the same time. I think writing needs to be clever and for comedy well thought out, fast paced, well-developed characters, and an interesting plot makes a huge difference.
Moral of my story:
Good characters + Interesting Plot + Naturalness + Occasional rhymes + Cleverness
= Good 10 Minute Play!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)