Roger Ebert, Variety, and a Four-Letter Word
By Martha Steketee
Theatre and film criticism is much on my mind today. I've been mulling news of layoffs of major reviewers at major papers and news outlets, and PDC's own "In Conversation" series and its current focus on some of the city's theatre critics. I recently transcribed several of the wonderful conversations Tom and I held several months ago, so my sense of the articulate and intelligent set of critical voices Philly's theatre arts community has been refreshed. What makes them tick, where they came from, why they love criticism, why they love theatre. Why they do what they do.
So news of recent layoffs at Variety and elsewhere that hit the blogosphere today led me, through clickable links, to some thoughts that seem worth sharing. These thoughts offer some insight perahps on why the trained critical mind is important, and what we all gain from the products of that mind.
Robert Ebert in his blog from some time ago wrote a post "Critic is a four-letter word" (September 18, 2008). These words were directed at movie criticism, yet apply to all arts criticism in my mind. [for full blog entry see: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/critic_is_a_fourletter_word.html]
- "I believe a good critic is a teacher. He doesn't have the answers, but he can be an example of the process of finding your own answers. H can notice things, explain them, place them in any number of contexts, ponder why some "work" and others never could. He can urge you toward older movies to expand your context for newer ones. He can examine how movies touch upon individual lives, and can be healing, or damaging. He can defend them, and regard them as important in the face of those who are "jsut looking for a good time." He can argue that you will have a better time at a better movie. We are all allotted an unknown but finite number of hours of consciousness. Maybe a critic can help you spend them more meaningfully."
Ebert in his March 9, 2010 blog post ("Variety: This thumb's for you") offered his thoughts on the firing of Variety's chief film critic Todd McCarthy and chief theatre critic David Rooney. [for full blog entry see: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/03/variety_this_thumbs_for_you.html] Ebert's discussion is personal (he has known the film critic McCarthy for many years) and professional and reflects on the state of the profession.
- "Todd McCarthy is not a man Variety should have lightly dismissed. He is the longest-serving and best-known member of the paper's staff, and if they made such a drastic decision, we are invited to wonder if Variety itself will long survive." He goes on, "Variety used to cover everything. ... Well, those days are over with. The glory days of the famous Variety critics are finished.... About Todd McCarthy I am not very worried. He's one of a kind. I can think of no better candidate as the director of a major film festival. Or as a professor, or of course as a film critic. What I lament is the carelessness with which his 31 years of dedication were discarded. Oh, the paper cites its reasons. 'It's economic reality,' Variety President Neil Stiles said of the move. Some 'downsizing' is necessary cost-cutting. Some symbolizes the abandonment of a mission. If Variety no longer requires its chief film critic, it no longer requires me as a reader."
Arts criticism is in a quandary and if nothing else it will serve this current transformation for all of us to watch carefully, ask many questions, and vote with our subscription dollars. I have not yet dropped a print subscription based on staffing decisions but this too may come.
Comments:
Call for actors
By Aaron Van Gossen
Hello all-
I'm not sure where to post this so hopefully someone can help me out. I'm writing a play for my thesis project at St. Joseph's University. I would like to do a staged reading as the completion of my project and I need actors. I will need 4 men and 2 women. 3 of the men and 1 of the women in their early to mid 30's, 1 woman in her late 20's and 1 man in his 60's. I can't promise pay but I will feed you during rehearsal. On that note I need people who can commit to at least one rehearsal in late April and the reading will be in early May, dates TBD.
Anyone who's interested or knows someone who might be interested please e-mail me at visigoth71@hotmail.com
Thanks so much.
Comments:
Richard Kotulski said on 2010-03-07:
Aaron,
This would have gone out as an email notification to a large portion of the PDC Email Club--anybody who is signed up to receive notices of new blog posts...
In the future, however, you should probably use the Email Club directly to send this out since there's a list specificially of actors who are interested in working with PDC playwrights. From the Member area click on Communicate and then click on Send PDCmail. From there you can choose which Email Club list you want to send the info to--including the actor list.
Break a leg!
“Serendipitous Acts of Fate and Community”: A report of an event, a publication, a state of the state, and a call to action.
By Martha Steketee
On Tuesday, February 16, 2010, in the historic Plays & Players main stage theatre space, the Philadelphia New Play Initiative and Philadelphia playwrights and other theatre professionals welcomed Todd London, one of the authors of the December 2009 TDF publication Outrageous Fortune: The Life and Times of the New American Play. These initial reflections are offered as a starting point for my own synthesis of this event and this report. My own professional perspective is as a reader for several literary departments in large theatres in several American cities, and as dramaturg on productions, readings, and informal arrangements with playwrights and their new works. My love for new work is personal and deep. From the report and the presentation I wanted truth and I wanted some hope. And I believe I received a bit of both.
This multi-year study report has now engendered pages of press on theatre websites including those dedicated to playwrights, dramaturgs, new play development, and theatre criticism generally. Whether this initial splash of attention will yield an enduring interest, debate, analysis remains to be seen. This snowy Philadelphia evening the themes and findings were front and center at Plays & Players. London appeared in Philadelphia as part of a multi-month whistle stop tour of similar theatre community conversations about the report. The study presents and analyzes survey and interview and focus group results/findings/themes from the perspectives of established playwrights and from the theatre institutions that produce and that don’t produce their work. In London’s words in Philadelphia: this study on new play development “wanted to find out where the blockage was”.
I will let the report speak for itself with some quotations. In general these comments are the words of others, the study participants, who responded to surveys and participated in interviews and group discussions. Hopefully these snippets will lure you into reading the report as a whole.
[reflections on producing and the profession]
[on playwrights and income]
[on the “emerging playwright” label]
[on the need to see a play on its feet .. not a finding really an evocative statement of the playwright's need to support development ]
[on production’s changing role in the evolution of a new play]
[on getting through the season planning decision making process]
I purchased the book as soon as press began appearing in theater blogs and discussion lists and Facebook status updates, and have been consuming it in bits and pieces since. When I compared notes with several folks at the Philly event, they reported the same slow wade into the work. London noted this attribute of the report’s content and structure -- report is intended to acknowledge the dense reality, this perspective divide, these institutional barriers. The report is intended also to agitate and to provoke conversations about the experience of new play development for theatres, for playwrights, for literary managers and artistic directors. The writing is clear and inviting – it’s the content that challenges. It gives voice to our individual concerns and calls us out on our biases and misconceptions of process and fellow professionals. The findings of the report can be boiled down to simple long understood lessons such as organizations (and theatre literary departments and artistic directors) and individuals (playwrights) have different perspectives and needs. And the findings of the report can be as complex as the nature of art itself and its essential social role.
It took me a cross country plane flight to dig into this publication in earnest. My advice is to take an hour, close off other distractions, get yourself a nice beverage of your choice, and dig in. The findings are timely, the conversation is important, and the lessons are essential to what we all care about: the life and times of the new American play. Jump in.
For TDF’s own press release with summary findings: http://www.tdf.org/TDF_NewsDetailsPage.aspx?id=88
For information on how to order the published report http://www.tdf.org/tdf_servicepage.aspx?id=3&%20do
Comments:
Richard Kotulski said on 2010-03-01:
I particularly liked the comment about "Emerging" playwrights...
Seriously, though, I think this book is an incredibly important thing for all the playwright members of PDC to be talking about, and especially for the leadership of PDC to be talking about.
The problems that are talked about in this book aren't just going to magically go away on their own. It's going to take serious thought and dedicated action to circumvent these problems or to find solutions.
We need to be a part of that. And we need to be devious and creative in our thinking to do it.
Call for scripts: Secret Room Theatre's Dirty Laundry
By Alex Dremann
Dear Philadelphia Area Playwrights-
On the heels of the wildly successful "4Play", Secret Room Theatre is looking for four more 10 minute plays to complete our 2010 Fringe show "Dirty Laundry". Plays can be any topic, genre or style but should somehow tie in, at least loosely, with whatever "dirty laundry" might mean to you. Musicals are encouraged!
LENGTH:
8-12 minutes (about 10 pages in standard play format)
SUBMISSION FORMAT:
Electronic submissions only (.pdf, .doc, or .rtf)
Make sure full author contact info with email, snail mail address, and phone number appear on the title page of the script.
RESTRICTIONS:
Playwrights should currently reside in the greater Philadelphia tri-state area.
Minimal set and production requirements.
Due to sight-lines, plays that need to be staged low to the ground will have a disadvantage.
Limit 2 submissions per playwright.
SUBMIT TO:
alex@secretroomtheatre.com
DEADLINE:
4/15/2010
This is your opportunity to have your work showcased in the Philly Fringe Festival with a collaborative theatre group that specializes in the development of new theater in Philadelphia. "4Play" is being produced for Secret Room Theatre by John D'Alonzo (Lure, Mad Cow the Musical, 13 Lemonade Ave), Todd Holtsberry (4X4, Lure, Run Zola Run, Full Frontal), Alex Dremann (SKITSoid, 13 Lemonade Ave) and Elle McComsey (SKITSoid, Flip the Script).
Comments:
Reactions To Terry Teachout's "America's Favorite Plays"
By Thomas Tirney
I have several reactions to Terry Teachout’s illuminating piece “America’s Favorite Plays” (Wall Street Journal, 01/09/10). My first is how it blasts conventional wisdom among theater cognoscenti; namely that American theaters nationwide are rather conservative in putting on new work. Although, I hear that complaint less in Philadelphia than in other cities, the view that our theaters consistently ignore new playwrights is a notion that passes for thought among “theater people.”
Speaking as a playwright, I can only say “Huzzah!” This really is an encouraging thing to hear and makes one think that the odds aren’t so long, after all.
Second, Teachout’s list of the 11 most-performed-plays in the last decade contains mostly quality writing which says a great deal about the intelligence and the sophistication of our general theater audience. Americans ain’t afraid of subtle, difficult, or challenging material—they simply want it to be good. Compared to movies and other forms of entertainment, theater cannot offer the soporific of over-the-top-special effects or a perpetual bombardment of stimuli. The stage can only offer a story. And if the players tell it well then isn’t it reassuring t that such a medium can still compete with movies, television, the Internet, and hand-held games?
I’m not so sanguine about other observations made from Teachout’s article. Two items come to mind: a) heavily produced plays have limited casts and b) the dearth of black and Latino authors in the 76 most frequently staged plays.
As Mr. Teachout writes,
“The lesson is clear: If you want to write a smart, serious play that has a halfway decent chance
of getting produced, keep the cast as small as possible.”
One might rephrase the sentence thusly: “…keep the cost as small as possible.” Cast impacts cost and often in a way that precludes a production from making money or reaching break-even. Theaters have to watch the bottom line as much as publicly traded companies. But I wonder…how much does cast size impact a show’s profitability? Is it the prime determinant? Is there a cut-off and if so, what is it? Are there ways to ameliorate this? These questions are worthy of pursuit. I’m sure our members would like to know.
Lastly, one can only look at the number of minority writers in Teachout’s list with dismay. While it bears mentioning that a full third of the 76 most frequently performed plays in the prior 10 years were penned by women, the lack of representation by black and Latino writers remains a concern. That raises a number of questions too—most significantly…why? And then…what can be done about it?
For my own part, I would like to see more diversity in PDC’s membership. I’m acutely galled that the PDC cannot attract more black authors in a city whose population is 43% African-American. Speaking as the Center's Board Chair, there is work to do there…
Comments:
Richard Kotulski said on 2010-02-13:
You're absolutely right when you talk about keeping costs low. Sometimes theatres that would absolutely love to do a show are prevented from producing it because the cast is too large. Paying actors is incredibly expensive. The average LORT regional theatre pays about $10,000 for each actor it hires. If your cast size is 3, that's $30,000. If you cast size is 12 then it's $120,000--and that's just the cost of paying actors. Once you factor in training all those cats for your show, the gallons of blood, and the rotating, expanding set that's required to fulfill the vision of your show and you're looking at production costs of half a million dollars. There are very few theatres out there that do not care about these costs.
This is one of the big reasons that small cast plays are so popular. The most produced show last year was Peter Sinn Nachtrieb's Boom. It was a three character play.
Food for thought....
Writing Anonymous Theatre
By Valdemar Zialcita
Below is an overview. Comments and suggestions are welcome, especially from the writers who had been involved this year, along with any audience members. We aim to revise our approach to this concept, then create another brand-new play for Anonymous Theatre again next year.
As many of you know, this year was the first in which we staged an original play for Anonymous Theatre, a play written, appropriately enough, anonymously. That is to say that the play was first drafted by a group of playwrights, each contributing a section of the play, each working with the full draft of the play up to the point where they were to pick up the story thread and continue writing, and each writing without knopwledge of the identities of their fellow writers. Thanks to Greg Romero for suggesting that we take on this experiment, as well as to Richard Kotulski, the Godfather of AT, for seconding and encouraging the idea.
I served as the dramaturg. Once it was agreed that we, the playwrights of PDC, would create this year's play, it was I who suggested we adopt Tennessee Williams as our model and muse. I suggested Williams because I figured that he offered us such a distinctive voice that it would be easier for a diverse range of playwrights to adapt to that style, and thereby harmonize with each other.
It was also I who chose and approached individual playwrights to seek their contributions to the work. Four considerations, beyond the reciprocated interest of the writers I approached, directed my recruitment efforts:
. 1) I personally enjoyed the writing of the playwright in question.
. 2) I believed the writer had sufficient knowledge of the work of Tennessee Williams that they could somehow adapt to his style and spirit.
. 3) I believed the writer would be comfortable working within the unusual boundaries and challenges of this experiment.
. 4) I wanted to recruit from both longstanding members and those who had joined PDC more recently.
The writing process actually began last winter, after the new year. I believed that, under ideal circumstances, four months should have been enough time to create a first draft, allow time for one or two rewrites, then deliver a sufficiently polished script to a director for casting purposes, even allowing time to tweak the script after casting had been completed. The aim was to be able to begin "rehearsal" of the play no later than June 1st, aiming for a performance date that had not yet been determined, but that could take place at any time in July.
Individual playwrights were instructed to write within a flexible envelope: around ten pages, more if they felt so inspired, fewer if that was their inclination, writing within a timeframe of about a week, longer if they needed, shorter if they could manage. Writers were informed that they should follow the style and/or spirit of Tennessee Williams. They were asked to contribute anywhere from one to four new characters within the section they were writing, in the interest of distributing actor entrances throughout the eventual performance. Finally, writers were asked not to reveal their participation in AT, leaving that revelation to the end of the performance.
====
Now that Anonymous Theatre 2009 is behind us, I can tell you that we've learned a great deal about what to anticipate for the future. Without going into great detail, I can cite several lessons learned.
=> Four months proved to be a tight timeframe for creating a script this way.
=> It was more difficult than anticipated for the writers, working within these constraints, to create a first draft that could conceivably hold together as if it was one work.
=> Although we felt comfortable in principle with the notion that the play didn't need to be good as long as it was fun, we ultimately couldn't help worrying about the overall quality of the script.
The script went through three rewrites instead of the anticipated one or two, with the final version showing significant changes compared to the first draft. Serious cuts were made, perfectly good lines and characters were rewritten or eliminated, and the writing process extended through the month of June almost to July. Fortunately, this year's director, Dan Student, good-naturedly rose to the added challenge of the time crunch we placed on him.
The feedback we've received from audience members has been mostly positive, and we did raise funds that will support PDC programming in many important ways. That said, if anyone reading this overview can offer constructive feedback, either as a comment here or in an e-mail to me or to Richard, it would be much appreciated. Any questions are welcome as well.
Wally Zialcita
executive director, PDC
Comments:
Do I speak Shakespeare?
By Bill Hollenbach
Do I speak Shakespeare? That is the question? Well, yeah, I do. Of course, I'm one of the geeks that McWhorter assumes can decipher the bard on several fronts. But I'm not alone. And it doesn't matter. The high school student who opens herself up to the sound, the feel, the experience of Hamlet, et al doesn't need to parse every word. Indeed shouldn't try to. Nevertheless, the language isn't nearly as impenetrable as McWhorter makes out.. Poloniius' advice to Laertes is plain enough IF we don't struggle with it from his academic "I gotta know it all" perspective. The point about good acting and directing isn't that each word becomes immediately clear, but that the gist of the dramatic moment is felt -- intuited -- by us. That deep penetration through the beauty of Shakepseare's language is what makes it work.
McWhorter misses the real problem with Shakespeare. Like the world, the bard is too much with us. At least ten of those plays should never see the inside of a theatre. What is good can be brilliant. Or very good. Or just good. But what is bad is very, very bad. I assure you. I saw a production of Pericles at the New Globe in London a couple of years ago -- brilliantly staged, but so abysmal as a drama -- that it made one long for the fruit vendors outside the gates of the original Globe. And the fault was Shakespeare's. If I were John Webster, I'd have been pissed. Isn't she Duchess of Malfi still?
Perform the good plays. Perform them well. We will come. And enjoy them.
And Richard, which side of the coin has your image stamped on it?
Comments:
Do You Speak Shakespeare?
By Richard Kotulski
I'm posting this for comment... I have some rather strong feelings about it, which I'll post later...
-Richard
The Real Shakespearean Tragedy
It's been 400-plus years. Is it time to translate the Bard into understandable English?
By John McWhorter
It's a Thursday evening and you've gotten home early to eat a quick dinner with your spouse before driving downtown for a night of theatre. A friend has given you tickets for King Lear. Freshly showered and nicely dressed, you slip on your coats, have a nice twilight drive, park, glide into the theatre and take your seats. The lights dim, the audience quiets down, you squeeze your partner's hand, and up goes the curtain.
The actors playing the Earls of Kent and Gloucester and Gloucester's son Edmund stride on in vigorous conversation, and you savor the finery of the costumes, the rich voices of the performers, the beauty of the set. And ah, the language, the language. We churls bumble around butchering the language with our Billy and mes and hopefullys and Who did I see?s, but here at last is the language at its most sublime. We have to remember to thank Maria for the tickets.
What a difference 20 minutes can make. Lear has made his first appearance and exited, and now his three daughters are discussing him.
Goneril advises that:
The best and soundest of his time hath been but rash; then must we look to receive from his age, not alone the imperfections of long-engraffed condition, but therewithal the unruly waywardness that infirm and choleric years bring with them.
Regan replies:
Such unconstant starts are we like to have from him as this of Kent's banishment.
Goneril continues:
There is further compliment of leave-taking between France and him. Pray you, let's hit together.
Isn't it great to be here at the theatre enjoying some of the mightiest drama civilization has to offer? Yet it has been a long day. It's going to take some concentration to follow this, well, to be sure, gorgeous and profound, but, if we may, rather dense language. It seems like we get thrown little curveballs every second line. What does engraffed mean? How about therewithal? Well, forget it—the line has passed. "Starts are we like to have from him as this of Kent's banishment"? Oh, she means "starts" like shocks, with the banishment being an example, I guess. "There is further compliment of leave-taking"? What compliment? What are they all going to "hit" together? And this is only three ordinary lines. Shakespeare!
We all esteem Shakespeare, but how many of us actually dig him? In 1955, Alfred Harbage beautifully captured the mood of most audiences at Shakespeare performances as "reverently unreceptive," "gratified that they have come, and gratified that they now may go." One is not supposed to say such things in polite company, but it is an open secret in America that frankly, for most people Shakespeare is boring. I, for one, as an avid theatre fan, will openly admit that while I have enjoyed the occasional Shakespeare performance and film, most of them have been among the dreariest, most exhausting evenings of my life.
It may be an overstatement to say that every member of a Shakespearean audience is wishing they had brought a magazine. But most of the people who truly get the same spontaneous pleasure and stimulation from Shakespeare that they would from a performance of a play by Edward Albee, Tennessee Williams or David Mamet are members of certain small subsets of the general population: people of letters (literature professors, English teachers, writers and Shakespeare buffs) and "theatre people" (actors, directors, producers, dramaturgs and playwrights). For the rest, the language of Shakespeare remains lovely in snippets, but downright tiresome as the vehicle of an evening-length presentation.
In response to this, many argue that Shakespeare's language merely requires well-honed acting technique.
While it is true that inflection and gesture can clarify some of the blurry points in a Shakespearean passage, what emphasis, flick of the head or swoop of the arm could indicate to us what Goneril's "further compliment of leave-taking" means? No amount of raised eyebrows, bell-jingling or trained pigeons could coax, for instance, "The cod-piece that will house / Before the head has any, / The head and he shall louse; / So beggars marry many" any further from the Hungarian that it is to us today, and I have graciously giggled along with many an audience in utter bafflement at such witticisms from Shakespearean Fools.
It is true that Shakespeare's comedies are in general somewhat less of a chore than the tragedies. This, however, is in spite of the language, not because of it. Because comedy lends itself to boffo physical pratfalls, outrageous costumes, funny voices and stock situations, an evening of Twelfth Night or The Comedy of Errors is usually easier on the derrière than one at Julius Caesar or Henry V. However, a great deal of the language remains equally distant to us, and even the comedies would be infinitely richer experiences if we had more than a vague understanding of what the characters were actually saying while climbing all over each other and popping out from behind doors.
The common consensus seems to be that what makes Shakespearean language so challenging is that the language is highly "literary" or "poetic," and that understanding the plays is simply a matter of putting forth a certain "effort." Shakespearean language is indeed poetry, but it is not this which bars us from more than a surface comprehension of so much of the dialogue in any Shakespearean play. Many of our best playwrights, such as Eugene O'Neill, David Mamet, Tony Kushner and August Wilson, put prose poetry in the mouths of their characters, and yet we do not leave performances of Long Day's Journey into Night, Glengarry Glen Ross or Joe Turner's Come and Gone glassy-eyed and exhausted.
Some might be uncomfortable with an implication that the most challenge that should be expected of an audience is the language of the aforementioned playwrights, since after all, Shakespeare presents us with the extra processing load of unfamiliar vocabulary and sentence structure. But stage poetry can challenge us without being as dimly meaningful as Shakespearean language so often is to us. A fine example is David Hirson's La Bête (see American Theatre, June '91), set in 17th-century France and composed entirely in elegant, overeducated verse. Two-and-a-half hours of this certainly requires a close attention which Neil Simon does not—there is a challenge to be risen to here. Yet it is utterly delightful because the effort pays off in complete comprehension.
No, froufrou words and syntax, and the artificiality of meter, are not in themselves what makes Shakespeare such an approximate experience for most of us. The problem with Shakespeare for modern audiences is that English since Shakespeare's time has changed not only in terms of a few exotic vocabulary items, but in the very meaning of thousands of basic words and in scores of fundamental sentence structures. For this reason, we are faced with a language which, while clearly recognizable as the English we speak, is different to an extent which makes partial comprehension a challenge, and anything approaching full comprehension utterly impossible for even the educated theatregoer who doesn't happen to be a trained expert in Shakespearean language.
No one today would assign their students Beowulf in Old English—it is hopelessly obvious that Old English is a different language to us. On the other hand, the English of William Congreve's comedy The Way of the World in 1700 presents us no serious challenge, and is easily enjoyable even full of food after a long day. The English of the late 1500s, on the other hand, lies at a point between Beowulf and Congreve, which presents us with a tricky question. Language change is a gradual process with no discrete boundaries—there are no trumpet fanfares or ending credits in the sky as Old English passes into Middle English, as Middle English passes into Shakespeare's English, or as Shakespeare's English passes into ours. Thus our question is: How far back on a language's timeline can we consider the language to be the one modern audiences speak? At what point do we concede that substantial comprehension across the centuries has become too much of a
challenge to expect of anyone but specialists?
Many readers may feel I am exaggerating the difficulty of Shakespearean language. However, I respectfully submit that Shakespeare lovers of all kinds, including actors and those supposing that Shakespeare simply requires a bit of extra concentration, miss much, much more of Shakespeare's very basic meanings than they have ever suspected, far beyond the most obvious head-scratchers.
In October 1898, Mark H. Liddell's essay "Botching Shakespeare" made a similar point similar to mine—that English has changed so deeply since Shakespeare's time that today we are incapable of catching much more than the basic gist of a great deal of his writing, although the similarity of the forms of the words to ours tricks us into thinking otherwise.
Liddell took as an example Polonius's farewell to Laertes in Hamlet, which begins:
And these few precepts in thy memory
Look thou character.
We might take this as, "And as for these few precepts in thy memory, look, you rascal you!", conveying a gruff paternal affection for Laertes. Actually, however, look used to be an interjection roughly equivalent to "see that you do it well." And character—if he isn't telling Laertes that he's full of the dickens, then what other definition of character might he mean? We might guess that this means something like "to assess the worth of" or "to evaluate." But this isn't even close—to Shakespeare, character here meant "to write"! This meaning has long fallen by the wayside, just as thousands of other English words' earlier meanings have. Thus "And these few precepts in thy memory / Look thou character" means "See that you write these things in your memory." Good acting might convey that look is an interjection, but no matter how charismatic and fine-tuned the performance, thou character is beyond comprehension to any but the two or three people who
happen to have recently read an annotated edition of the play (and bothered to make their way through the notes).
Polonius tells his son to "Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but being in / Bear't, that the opposed may beware of thee." We assume he is saying "Avoid getting into arguments, but once you're in one, endure it." In fact, bear't meant "make sure that"—in other words, Polonius is not giving the rather oblique advice that the best thing to do in a argument is to "cope," but to make sure to do it well.
"Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgement." Turn the other cheek? No—to take a man's censure meant "to evaluate." Polonius is advising his son to view people with insight but refrain from moralizing.
"The French are of a most select and generous chief"? Another blob we have to let go by with a guess. Chief here is a fossilized remnant of sheaf, a case of arrows—which doesn't really help us unless we are told in footnotes that sheaf was used idiomatically to mean "quality" or "rank," as in "gentlemen of the best sheaf."
And finally we get to the famous line, "Neither a borrower or a lender be." Have you ever wondered why the following line is less famous—the reasons why one shouldn't borrow or lend? "For loan oft loses both itself and friend / And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry." So the reason one shouldn't borrow is because it interferes with the raising of livestock? Actually, husbandry meant "thrift" at the time. It does not anymore, because the language is always changing.
Polonius's speech is by no means extraordinary in terms of pitfalls like these. Indeed, almost any page of Shakespeare is as far from our modern language as this one. So shouldn't one simply read a Shakespeare play beforehand in order to prepare oneself to take in the language spoken? The fact is that one cannot simply "read" this speech without constant reference to annotations. How realistic or even charitable is it to expect that anyone but specialists, theatre folk and buffs will have the patience to read more than a prescribed dose of Shakespeare under these conditions? And ultimately a play is written to be performed, not read, and certainly not deciphered. A play that cannot communicate effectively to the listener in spoken form is no longer a play, and thus no longer lives.
The tragedy of this is that the foremost writer in the English language, the most precious legacy of the English-speaking world, is little more than a symbol in our actual thinking lives, for the simple reason that we cannot understand what the man is saying. Shakespeare is not a drag because we are lazy, because we are poorly educated, or because he wrote in poetic language. Shakespeare is a drag because he wrote in a language which, as a natural consequence of the mighty eternal process of language change, 500 years later we effectively no longer speak.
Is there anything we might do about this? I submit that here as we enter the Shakespearean canon's sixth century in existence, Shakespeare begin to be performed in translations into modern English readily comprehensible to the modern spectator. Make no mistake—I do not mean the utilitarian running translations which younger students are (blissfully) often provided in textbooks. The translations ought to be richly considered, executed by artists of the highest caliber well-steeped in the language of Shakespeare's era, thus equipped to channel the Bard to the modern listener with the passion, respect and care which is his due. (Kent Richmond, a professor at California State University—Long Beach, has been quietly doing just this with his Shakespeare Translation Project.)
"But translated Shakespeare wouldn't be Shakespeare!" one might object. To which the answer is, to an extent, yes. However, we would never complain a translation of Beowulf "isn't Beowulf"—of course it isn't, in the strict sense, but we know that without translation, we would not have access to Beowulf at all.
I predict that if theatre companies began presenting Shakespeare in elegant modern translations, a great many people would at first scorn such productions on the grounds that Shakespeare had been "cheapened" or "defiled," and that it was a symptom of the cultural backwardness of our society and our declining educational standards. However, especially if they were included in season ticket packages, audiences would begin to attend performances of Shakespeare in translation. Younger critics would gradually join the bandwagon.
Pretty soon the almighty dollar would determine the flow of events—Shakespeare in the original would play to critical huzzahs but half-empty houses, while people would be lining up around the block to see Shakespeare in English the way Russians do to see an Uncle Vanya.
Then would come the critical juncture: A whole generation would grow up having only experienced Shakespeare in the English they speak, and what a generation they would be! This generation would be the vanguard of an American public who truly loved Shakespeare, who cherished Lear and Olivia and Polonius and Falstaff and Lady Macbeth and Cassius and Richard III as living, breathing icons like Henry Higgins, Blanche DuBois, Big Daddy, George and Martha and Willy Loman, rather than as hallowed but waxen figurines like the signers of the Constitution frozen in a gloomy painting.
No longer would producers have to trick Shakespeare up in increasingly desperate, semi-motivated changes of setting to attract audiences—A Midsummer Night's Dream in colonial Brazil, Romeo and Juliet shouted over rock music in a 90-minute MTV video, Two Gentlemen of Verona on motorcycles, Twelfth Night at a 7-Eleven. Producers do this to "make Shakespeare relevant to modern audiences," but the very assumption here that the public needs to be reminded of this relevance is telling, especially since the assumption is so sadly accurate. A more effective way to make Shakespeare relevant to us is simply to present it in the English we speak.
Indeed, the irony today is that the Russians, the French and other people in foreign countries possess Shakespeare to a much greater extent than we do, for the simple reason that unlike us, they get to enjoy Shakespeare in the language they speak. Shakespeare is translated into rich, poetic varieties of these languages, to be sure, but since it is the rich, poetic modern varieties of the languages, the typical spectator in Paris, Moscow or Berlin can attend a production of Hamlet and enjoy a play rather than an exercise. In Japan, new editions of Shakespeare in Japanese are regularly best-sellers—utterly unimaginable here, since, like the Japanese, we prefer to experience literature in the language we speak, and a new edition of original Shakespeare no longer fits this definition. In an illuminating twist on this, one friend of mine—and a very cultured, literate one at that—has told me that the first time they truly understood more than the gist of
what was going on in a Shakespeare play was when they saw one in French!
The glory of Shakespeare's original language is manifest. We must preserve it for posterity. However, we must not err in equating the preservation of the language with the preservation of the art. Perhaps such an equation would be the ideal—Shakespeare through the ages in his exact words. In a universe where language never changed, such an equation would be unobjectionable. In the world we live in, however, this equation is allowing blind faith to deprive the public of a monumental treasure.
We must reject the polite relationship the English-speaking public now has with Shakespeare in favor of more intimate, charged one which both the public and the plays deserve. To ask a population to rise to the challenge of taking literature to heart in a language they do not speak is as unreasonable as it is futile. The challenge we must rise to is to shed our fear of language change and give Shakespeare his due—restoration to the English-speaking world.
John McWhorter is a linguist and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His books include Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue and Word on the Street, from which this piece is excerpted.
Comments:
Dialogue drills on Twitter
By Liam Castellan
Hello, all. Collaborative Artist (and past member) Liam here. My playwriting professor when I attended Northwestern is twittering dialogue exercises. I enjoyed her classes very much, and I thought I'd repost her Facebook note here in case you were interested in following her on Twitter or checking out her book:
"My book TALK THE TALK: A DIALOGUE WORKSHOP FOR SCRIPTWRITERS will be published next March by Michael Wiese Productions. As a promotional project for the book, I've started doing ten-line dialogue drills on twitter. Here are some examples of recent tweets:
- A vampire at the dentist. Write 10 lines.
- At a salon: a snobbish hairdresser and an anxious client. The haircut isn't going well. Write 10 lines.
- What is the strangest object in your home? Two characters discover it. Write 10 lines.
This is the "drop and give me 10" method of writing exercises. If you're a screenwriter or playwright, you can have these quick, easy dialogue drills sent at random times so that you can practice your craft anywhere any time. Tweets are broadcast under the user name takthetalk10.
http://twitter.com/TalkThe
Please pass this on to anyone who might enjoy the challenge of spontaneous dialogue drills. And if you want more info on the book, you can check out the web page at
http://www.peninkent.com/p
It's also available for pre-order on amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/s/re
Thanks! Happy writing!
- Penny Penniston"
Comments:
What Playwrights Do Wrong
By Richard Kotulski
I've received a few submissions from playwrights in the last couple of days that have prompted me to really want to broadcast some of the things that playwrights do wrong in the submission process.
There's a lot to cover.
First of all, always always always, ask yourself this simple question: is the work that this theatre produces like the work that I write?
If the answer is NO or I DON'T KNOW then you shouldn't submit. Look at a theatre's production history. Do you know all the plays that they've done in the last three years? If not, you should find them and read them before submitting to the theatre. If the theatre is a local theatre for you you should go and see plays at that theatre.
You should never say in your query letter, "I don't know if this play is right for you guys or not" or "I looked at what you guys do and I'm not sure if this play is right for you or not." That's essentially saying to whomever works at the theatre: I'm not going to bother to find out if this play is right for you because that would take too much of MY TIME, but I'm happy to waste your time. This is very disrespectful.
Secondly, if a theatre has a submission policy you should follow it. If you don't follow it then it's a pretty clear demonstration that you haven't done your homework and that you really don't know what you're doing. Again, this tells the theatre's literary office that you're not interested in doing any of the work yourself but you're happy to waste their time.
Thirdly, be patient. Most literary offices have to read between 300 and 600 plays per year in addition to queries. If the average length of each play is 100 pages then this is between 30,000 and 60,000 pages of material a year. This is on top of whatever else the theatre has them doing. Sometimes its grantwriting. Sometimes its casting. Somestimes it's serving as a production dramaturg. The bottom line is that these are busy people who have to do a lot or work. You should be patient and respectful.
Fourth, and this is related to patience, don't harass the literary office. Some playwrights call every couple of months to check up on whether you've read their play or not. This is maybe okay. Some playwrights call once a week. The squeaky wheel does not necessarily get the grease, sometimes it just pisses people off.
Fifth, if you really want to understand how plays get chosen to be produced then work in a literary office. Volunteer to be a reader for a local theatre. Literary Managers and Dramaturgs aren't the enemy. They've gotten into this business because they love theatre and they love working with playwrights. Walk a mile in their shoes for a bit and see if you're still willing to complain about them.
Sixth, if somebody sends you an explanation for why they don't think your play is right for the theatre DO NOT WRITE THEM BACK ACCUSING THEM OF BEING RUDE OR ARROGANT. Even if they are rude and arrogant it doesn't matter--and some literary managers are both. They have the power, you don't. If you do this and they were intending to be rude or arrogant then they're probably just going to tell you to FUCK OFF--which is what you deserve--or they're not going to respond to you at all. Or you'll go on their list of PEOPLE WHOSE CAREERS THEY WILL TRY TO RUIN AT ALL COSTS. Maybe you might even ask yourself the question, is there a reason this person is behaving this way toward me? Did I listen to suggestions 1-5 above? This may take a level of introspection you aren't comfortable with, and perhaps you should consult a mental health professional to help with that. The bottom line is don't do this.
Seventh, many plays that get produced everywhere happen because of a personal connection between the playwright and the staff of the theatre. Have you ever actually met the literary staff of the theatre you are submitting to? If not, offer to take them out for coffee. Some people will be too busy, but others will make the time and you can learn about the theatre that way and begin to grow your personal connections to the theatre.
Those are the main things. Some of these may seem totally obvious.
Maybe I'm coming across as RUDE and ARROGANT--which I am.
But listening to these simple things is going to get you more respect from the gatekeepers to production.
-RWK
Comments:
Jonathan Dorf said on 2009-08-27:
This is dead on, Richard. I'm constantly amazed by how many playwrights simply don't understand the business and hurt their own careers, either by committing many of the sins you've mentioned in your blog or by not taking advantage of opportunities to promote their work. It's not enough enough to write a good play.
By the way, another great strategy for getting into a theatre is through a director who has worked there and already has a relationship with their artistic staff.
Jon
Casting call for "The Invisible Play"
By Alex Dremann
Hi PDC-
Philadelphia Theatre Workshop is producing my play "The Invisible Play" this fall and auditions are coming up. It's a romantic comedy that takes place in a publishing company and will be directed by Bill Felty. The show is Barrymore eligible and runs from November 21st to December 13th in the Walnut Street Studio 5. Right now auditions are scheduled for August 23 & 24. Here's what we're looking for:
WOMEN:
RAMONA: Arboriculturist. 30's. Blunt but weak. Skinny-frumpy with stringy hair and glasses. Wears ill-fitting unfashionable jeans and no make-up.
FRAN: Assistant editor. 31. Pretty but disheveled. Not body perfect. Annoyingly smart.
CARMEN: Assistant editor. Late 20's/early 30's. Sassy, neurotic. 8 months pregnant but gives no indication she even notices the fact.
NANCY: VP of Editorial Department. 41. Callous but fair. Lanky, beautiful and nattily dressed.
CASS*: Assistant editor. 62. Crotchety. Never seen.
KITTY*: Romance book author. 60's. Loopy but serious about it.
* CASS & KITTY are played by the same actress.
MEN:
COLIN: Assistant editor. 34. Rumpled. Nondescript. Never leaves his cubicle.
TIM: Assistant editor. 26. Extremely handsome and overconfident.
LAWRENCE: I.T. 30's. Voice only. Meek and unconfident.
Here's the official casting call from Philadelphia Theatre Workshop:
We are seeking headshots and resumes for our first production of the 2009-2010 season: "The :nv:s:ble Play". Rehearsals begin October 18th, Opening is November 21st, Closing is December 13th. Need 5 women (20s-60s) and 3 men (20s-30s). PLEASE MAIL A HARD COPY of your headshot/resume to: Philadelphia Theatre Workshop, P.O. Box 17590, Philadelphia, PA 19105. DO NOT send your materials electronically. Auditions will occur in late August. We will call you for an individual audition slot before then. Primarily seeking non-equity actors but can employ AEA actors under Special Appearance Contract. Read more about the play and our company on this site. Thanks for your interest in working with us.
For more info: www.philadelphiatheatreworkshop.org
Please feel free to forward this email to your acting friends!
Thanks,
-Alex Dremann
Comments:
Call for 10 minute plays from Secret Room Theatre
By Alex Dremann
Dear Philadelphia Area Playwrights-
Secret Room Theatre is looking for two more plays to complete our fringe show "4Play".
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR:
Plays can be any topic or genre but should somehow tie in (at least loosely) with whatever "4Play" or "foreplay" might mean to you.
LENGTH:
Up to 15 minutes (approximately 10-15 pages standard play format).
RESTRICTIONS:
Playwrights should currently reside in the greater Philadelphia area.
Plays should not have any previous productions in the Philadelphia area.
SUBMIT TO:
alex@secretroomtheatre.com
FORMAT:
Electronic submissions only (.pdf, .doc, or .rtf)
Make sure full author contact info with (including email and phone #) appear on the title page of the script.
DEADLINE:
4/15/2009
This is your opportunity to have your work showcased in the Philly Fringe Festival with a collaborative group of theater professionals who specialize in the development of new theater in Philadelphia.
"4Play" is being produced for Secret Room Theatre by John D'Alonzo (Lure, Mad Cow, 13 Lemonade Ave), Todd Holtsberry (4X4, Lure, Run Zola Run, Full Frontal), Robin Rodriguez (4X4) and Alex Dremann (SKITSoid, 13 Lemonade Ave).
Comments:
Call for 10 minute plays from Secret Room Theatre
By Alex Dremann
Dear Philadelphia Area Playwrights-
Secret Room Theatre is looking for two more plays to complete our fringe show "4Play".
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR:
Plays can be any topic or genre but should somehow tie in (at least loosely) with whatever "4Play" or "foreplay" might mean to you.
LENGTH:
Up to 15 minutes (approximately 10-15 pages standard play format).
RESTRICTIONS:
Playwrights should currently reside in the greater Philadelphia area.
Plays should not have any previous productions in the Philadelphia area.
SUBMIT TO:
alex@secretroomtheatre.com
FORMAT:
Electronic submissions only (.pdf, .doc, or .rtf)
Make sure full author contact info with (including email and phone #) appear on the title page of the script.
DEADLINE:
4/15/2009
This is your opportunity to have your work showcased in the Philly Fringe Festival with a collaborative group of theater professionals who specialize in the development of new theater in Philadelphia.
"4Play" is being produced for Secret Room Theatre by John D'Alonzo (Lure, Mad Cow, 13 Lemonade Ave), Todd Holtsberry (4X4, Lure, Run Zola Run, Full Frontal), Robin Rodriguez (4X4) and Alex Dremann (SKITSoid, 13 Lemonade Ave).
Comments:
Make Sure Your Voice Is Heard
By Jacqueline Goldfinger
NPI is interested in hearing what you have to say before creating classes and new programs. Complete this short three question survey by Tuesday to make sure your voice is heard. (Thanks to the ten writers who have already completed the survey!) While I know everyone is busy, if we don't show that there is an interest in classes then they won't be created. We need to let NPI know what we need, so they can support us.
Please forward your answers to the following three questions to my email account (jacquelinegoldfinger@yahoo.com). I’ll compile and forward the results to NPI to help inform their decisions.
Also, please forward this survey to local playwright friends.
(1) Which of these classes are you interested in?
A. Creating Ensemble Generated Work
B. Writing Solo Plays
C. Writing Plays Based on Newspaper/Real Life Stories
D. Writing Memoir Plays
E. Writing Adaptations
F. Text Analysis (reading and discussing plays, and why they work)
G. Writing Short Plays
H. Other: ________________
(2) How much would you pay for a class?
A. $1-$25
B. $1-$50
C. $1-$75
D. $1-$100
E. $1-$125
F. $1-$150
G. $1-$200
H. Other: ________________
(3) What's your preferred length for a class?
A. 1 day (weekend)
B. 2 days (weekend)
C. 3 days (long weekend)
D. Once a week for a month
E. Once a week for 6 weeks
F. Once a week for 8 weeks
G. Twice a week for a month
H. Twice a week for 6 weeks
I. Twice a week for 8 weeks
J. Once a month for 6 months
K. Other: ________________
Thank you for your time!
Best,
Jackie
Comments:
Make Sure Your Voice Is Heard
By Jacqueline Goldfinger
NPI is interested in hearing what you have to say before creating classes and new programs. Complete this short three question survey by Tuesday to make sure your voice is heard. (Thanks to the ten writers who have already completed the survey!) While I know everyone is busy, if we don't show that there is an interest in classes then they won't be created. We need to let NPI know what we need, so they can support us.
Please forward your answers to the following three questions to my email account (jacquelinegoldfinger@yahoo.com). I’ll compile and forward the results to NPI to help inform their decisions.
Also, please forward this survey to local playwright friends.
(1) Which of these classes are you interested in?
A. Creating Ensemble Generated Work
B. Writing Solo Plays
C. Writing Plays Based on Newspaper/Real Life Stories
D. Writing Memoir Plays
E. Writing Adaptations
F. Text Analysis (reading and discussing plays, and why they work)
G. Writing Short Plays
H. Other: ________________
(2) How much would you pay for a class?
A. $1-$25
B. $1-$50
C. $1-$75
D. $1-$100
E. $1-$125
F. $1-$150
G. $1-$200
H. Other: ________________
(3) What's your preferred length for a class?
A. 1 day (weekend)
B. 2 days (weekend)
C. 3 days (long weekend)
D. Once a week for a month
E. Once a week for 6 weeks
F. Once a week for 8 weeks
G. Twice a week for a month
H. Twice a week for 6 weeks
I. Twice a week for 8 weeks
J. Once a month for 6 months
K. Other: ________________
Thank you for your time!
Best,
Jackie
Comments:
What classes do YOU want to take?
By Jacqueline Goldfinger
Hello Fabulous Philly Playwrights!
At the New Play Initiative weekend in February we discussed the possibility of creating classes focused on specific topics.
If you're interested in classes, please forward your answers to the following three questions to my email account (jacquelinegoldfinger@yahoo.com). I’ll compile and forward the results to NPI.
(1) Which of these classes are you interested in?
A. Creating Ensemble Generated Work
B. Writing Solo Plays
C. Writing Plays Based on Newspaper/Real Life Stories
D. Writing Memoir Plays
E. Writing Adaptations
F. Text Analysis (reading and discussing plays, and why they work)
G. Writing Short Plays
H. Other: ________________
(2) How much would you pay for a class?
A. $1-$25
B. $1-$50
C. $1-$75
D. $1-$100
E. $1-$125
F. $1-$150
G. $1-$200
H. Other: ________________
(3) What's your preferred length for a class?
A. 1 day (weekend)
B. 2 days (weekend)
C. 3 days (long weekend)
D. Once a week for a month
E. Once a week for 6 weeks
F. Once a week for 8 weeks
G. Twice a week for a month
H. Twice a week for 6 weeks
I. Twice a week for 8 weeks
J. Once a month for 6 months
K. Other: ________________
Thank you for your time!
Best,
Jackie
Comments:
Politics In Playwrighting
By Thomas Tirney
I am responding to two comments made by two titans in contemporary theater. The first was made by Eve Ensler in a Downstage Center interview conducted by the American Theater Wing in October 2006. The second was made by Paula Vogel last weekend during a far-ranging conversation involving her work and her views. Here are the statements:
"I am very, very, very concerned about the state of the world; and I want people to wake up; and I want people to be informed; and I want people to take part in transforming the political landscape...if more people don't stand up and speak out and examine what people are doing, I don't think we're going to be hear much longer. I think there is a real luxury in doing just cultural work." --Eve Ensler
"I don't think theater is too liberal. Somebody said there are no conservative plays but I think theater in the last 20 or 30 years has een very conservative. Is it just me?" --Paula Vogel
Both of these declarations pre-suppose not only a given ideology on the part of the playwright but also an imposition of that ideology onto their art. Undoubtedly in the case of these playwrights, political expression has aided their success. But I wonder about the utility of a decided political bent in one's art as well as the notion of ideology subordinating a theatrical narrative.
In its broadest form, politics can be indistinguishable from philosophy: the rights of man, justice, power, war. As one narrows the application of politics to such items as abortion, the Bush pinata, or liberalism vs. conservatism, the evocation of politics can come across as didactic (at best) and preachy (at worst). It's hard to believe that a wonky piece featuring health care policy as a central theme can be relevant past its debut. Although to be fair, the world may need a serious and entertaining work about people who can't afford health insurance in America. Maybe...
What I am really getting at--and what bothered me about Vogel's and Ensler's comments--is this:
1. Why do playwrights think the audience is unfamiliar about the issues they care about or political issues in general?
2. How does a play transcend the genre of agitprop if one of the goals of the play is to persuade?
To be sure, I don't care what a playwright's politics are or even what the play's evident politics are. I do care deeply about a playwright's respect for the audience and the engagement of that audience through the art. It seems contemptuous that an audience needs to "wake up" or "stand up"--as if they're helpless, hopeless, or plain lazy. It speaks volumes about how manifestly more informed and enlightened the artist is and how ignorant the huddling masses are in the plush theater seats.
And Paula Vogel's assumption that a vastly liberal industry has been performing conservative stuff for decades (against their own wishes?) seems particularly inept; a misreading of her peers and an entire generation of theater. It seems to me these highly talented and successful women are talking to themselves. Or simply to those likeminded enough not to harsh on their views. The voices they hear reverberating around their art are their own, amplified by the perfect acoustics of that bubble. There is no dialogue there.
For my own part, I do love a good play. And I find a play that just happens to have politics in it vastly superior to a play about politics.
Comments:
Walter Vail said on 2009-02-24:
I liked what Paula said, and I felt she was referring to choices of material made by most established (regional?) theatres--they seem to choose a lot of plays that have been done many times and are familiar to audiences. Whether these plays are political, radical, or conservative --and they seem to be some of each--they are attractive to ticket buyers. Being established material, established by frequent production, the plays chosen become conservative choices--so Tartuffe was radical for Moliere in his day, but today Tartuffe is a conservative choice. But maybe Moliere had a special aversion for religious hypocrites like Tartuffe. Maybe it's all about the playwright and personal experience. On that point--I liked what was said during the panel on development--that development wasn't so much about the play as about the playwright. I think Paul said that--something like--"It's all about YOU, the writer." That's the way I heard it, anyway--I could be mis-quoting. I believe it is all about the playwright--that the play comes from some deep well of individual experience. If it resonates with an audience, its because they have had the same or the very similar experience. Fugard experienced apartheid--so did his characters and his original audience. American audiences, because of our long history of racism, also identify deeply with the South African experience--so we might call Fugard's plays political--but really, they are deeply personal on Fugard's part--so it is all about the writer. Walt Vail
Richard Kotulski said on 2009-02-20:
Tom,
Thanks for getting this conversation started. I think it's an important one.
For me the two questions that you ask are tied together in a very important way.
Playwriting, and theatre generally, is collective storytelling. It is a community experience. With theatre a group of people get together and agree to become a part of a collective story for however long it takes to tell that story.
As long as that story is compelling, as long as the characters hold my interest and I invest something in their struggle, then the playwright is doing their job. Whatever the playwright's message it must be told in this manner or it will not be effective storytelling.
There are plays out there with strong political messages. Whether or not they transcend agitprop or not depends greatly on whether or not they hold to this principle or not.
You gave the specific example of health-care policy. I can think of a play that comments on just such an issue--Margaret Edson's play Wit.
Right now The WIlma is about to produce a play called Scorched. It is the powerful story of two children trying to unravel the mystery of their mother's life. It is also a meditation on war and violence.
Do I think that an audience doesn't necessarily know there are problems with health care or war and violence? No. I think pretty much anybody who has CNN can figure out that the world is plagued by these problems. But especially in an age when the images or death and violence flood us or the problems with our societies seem too monstrous for any one of us to tackle there is something to be said for walking into a theatre and agreeing to be part of a community that listens to a story together. If that story provokes us to "wake up" and re-examine how we think about the world around us or to "stand up" and do something because we have been deeply touched by that story then the playwright has succeeded in accomplishing both of the tasks that you questioned.
After all, isn't that the reason that the Greeks began theatre? Wasn't each and every one of their plays a meditation on the politics of how we get along together as a group? Didn't Chekhov say that it was the job of theatre--not to answer the questions--but to ask them?
For me, every play that forces me to leave asking questions has succeeded and it can only do that if it is first a very good story.
-Richard
Valdemar Zialcita said on 2009-02-20:
Thanks for that post, Tom.
I don't know that I would read that quote from Eve Ensler the way that you did, but I didn't hear it in its larger context. I also read Paula Vogel's statement a bit differently, so perhaps I should simply respond directly to the questions you raise.
1. If I am speaking of "the audience" in an ideal sense of the word -- the way, for example, I might speak of "We the People" -- then I don't see any need to determine in advance to what degree that Audience is unfamiliar with the issues that move me. My job, both as a playwright and as a citizen, is to tell and show the truth as I know it, to make my case with all due urgency and diligence, and to do so using my art in whatever uniquely wonderful way I can muster. My job presupposes that what I need to say needs to be heard, and every time I speak out, I am being a good citizen.
2. I see plays making political points all the time. One need not stop at Vogel's How I Learned to Drive, or Ensler's The Vagina Monologues (neither of which I would call agitprop, in any case), or the current InterAct offering, The Rant. Political persuasion is happening on American stages everywhere, all the time, so you have many models from which to choose. Do you have an open slot among your political muses? F*ing fill it! Choose Shakespeare! Choose a good zombie play (zombies, it turns out, are political). Choose the model that persuades you.
I do see a problem, and this is where my own feelings may converge with those of Paula Vogel, not to mention Bertolt Brecht. For all the good, politically persuasive plays that one can find out there, are they actually making much of a difference? If not, why not? If not, what are we going to do about it?
Droznin Movement Workshop in New York
By Cherie Roberts
Dear PDC Members,
I wanted to take the opportunity to let you know about the continuation of my endeavor to start a movement school based on the training I received in Moscow. If you or anyone you know may be interested, please see the information below. We're very excited about the development of this training method, and hope to see y'all there!
After the overwhelmingly positive response from our last workshop in November, my partner Vern and I have decided to continue the Droznin movement workshops on a regular basis – and the next one is coming up!! The next workshop will take place on February 21st and February 22nd at Ripley-Grier Studios in New York City. The cost is $65 prior to February 12th, and $75 thereafter for the two-day intensive. We require a $35 deposit when you register, and the balance by the day of the workshop. We also have a brand new website at www.drozninmovementschool.com, where you can register and pay via paypal, and also check out more information, photos, etc. To register, please fill out the registration form on the website and return it to the payment address on the form with your deposit/payment.
Please mark your calendars and make reservations now, as space is limited! We hope to see you there.
I hope you are all having a fantastic new year!
Best,
Cherie
Comments:
In Response to Richard's Post
By Katharine Gray
Hey y'all: Katie G here. This is my first time bloggin' on the website, hooray!
I got all fired up and wrote this to the Broad Street Review in response to Richard K's recent message about the intersection of free speech and professional courtesy (not to mention creativity). Anyone who missed the deal, here's the link:
http://www.broadstreetreview.com/index.php/main/article/free_speech_vs_creativity_at_the_wilma/
I'd encourage everyone to communicate their own response to the BSR, even if they land on the opposite side of the issue. But for anyone who's interested, this is what I sent 'em:
As both a playwright and a music critic, my first thought is that if Mr. Rutter was, as Mr. Rottenberg suggests, unaware of the "in-progress" nature of this event, he simply didn't do his job. A critic is a representative of his publication, and as such is responsible for the same due diligence as any reporter. And any reporter with even a cursory understanding of the play development process should have understood that readings are NOT for review unless explicitly advertised as a ticketed concert event. I find it implausible that the evening unfolded without a single moderator uttering the words "work in progress"? But even pretending that no one, not a soul, mentioned "W.I.P.", is it not made obvious by the actors carrying their scripts in hand? By the solicitation of feedback at the conclusion? When have these conventions *not* equaled "This Isn't Done Yet"? A review suggests that what you are evaluating has been declared ready for public consumption by the creator. If I was a baker trying out a new recipe for my shop, I might well seek the opinion of a Craig LaBan or an Adam Erace-- might give them a sample from the experimental batch and ask, "What do you think?" But I would NOT expect them to turn around and write a public review of that beta-test cookie. Such a review would not only be highly unfair, but pure misrepresentation. Inviting feedback from an audience, in person, is NOT the same as asking said audience to put that feedback in an international data bank, accessible to anyone with a browser. Any critic with even modest aspirations of legitimacy should know the difference. Perhaps Mr. Rutter is just an old head who isn't quite used to this "online" jazz yet, but the instant you publish something on an unencrypted web page, it's a matter of public record. That's tantamount to publishing in newsprint with a byline, which I think is more clearly understood as a no-no for readings. Toby Zinman might have been at that reading, but I'll bet you $100 she didn't put a review in the Inquirer. Thank you for removing the post, Mr. Rottenberg. I only hope you come to understand that the crux of the issue is *NOT* simply whether or not reviewing a W.I.P. is a "pointless exercise". Rather, it is a matter of proper representation, professional courtesy and respect.
Comments:
In Response to Richard's Post
By Katharine Gray
Hey y'all: Katie G here. This is my first time bloggin' on the website, hooray!
I got all fired up and wrote this to the Broad Street Review in response to Richard K's recent message about the intersection of free speech and professional courtesy (not to mention creativity). Anyone who missed the deal, here's the link:
http://www.broadstreetreview.com/index.php/main/article/free_speech_vs_creativity_at_the_wilma/
I'd encourage everyone to communicate their own response to the BSR, even if they land on the opposite side of the issue. But for anyone who's interested, this is what I sent 'em:
As both a playwright and a music critic, my first thought is that if Mr. Rutter was, as Mr. Rottenberg suggests, unaware of the "in-progress" nature of this event, he simply didn't do his job. A critic is a representative of his publication, and as such is responsible for the same due diligence as any reporter. And any reporter with even a cursory understanding of the play development process should have understood that readings are NOT for review unless explicitly advertised as a ticketed concert event. I find it implausible that the evening unfolded without a single moderator uttering the words "work in progress"? But even pretending that no one, not a soul, mentioned "W.I.P.", is it not made obvious by the actors carrying their scripts in hand? By the solicitation of feedback at the conclusion? When have these conventions *not* equaled "This Isn't Done Yet"? A review suggests that what you are evaluating has been declared ready for public consumption by the creator. If I was a baker trying out a new recipe for my shop, I might well seek the opinion of a Craig LaBan or an Adam Erace-- might give them a sample from the experimental batch and ask, "What do you think?" But I would NOT expect them to turn around and write a public review of that beta-test cookie. Such a review would not only be highly unfair, but pure misrepresentation. Inviting feedback from an audience, in person, is NOT the same as asking said audience to put that feedback in an international data bank, accessible to anyone with a browser. Any critic with even modest aspirations of legitimacy should know the difference. Perhaps Mr. Rutter is just an old head who isn't quite used to this "online" jazz yet, but the instant you publish something on an unencrypted web page, it's a matter of public record. That's tantamount to publishing in newsprint with a byline, which I think is more clearly understood as a no-no for readings. Toby Zinman might have been at that reading, but I'll bet you $100 she didn't put a review in the Inquirer. Thank you for removing the post, Mr. Rottenberg. I only hope you come to understand that the crux of the issue is *NOT* simply whether or not reviewing a W.I.P. is a "pointless exercise". Rather, it is a matter of proper representation, professional courtesy and respect.
Comments:
9 principles of play writing used by Paula Diehl
By paula diehl
At present, these principles apply to my own play writing.
A play must be based in reality .
The basics of this reality are what actually happens or is said; this may not be truth as each of us understands it.
One such reality shapes a character in his home environment.
That reality may swallow him or deny him normal access to the world outside his home.
Some things better left unsaid in a home reality should be made visible in the stage space.
A reality like the one in a home will certainly exist away from home; this may confuse temporarily.
A character torn between these two realities may have to deny one of them.
Traumas originating in the home can resolve there or outside.
A character can return in the end to a difficult home reality, one which may itself have changed; the character himself may
have changed.
Comments:
Walter Vail said on 2009-01-16:
I think there's often a hidden reality behind a playwright's choice of material. Possibly the choice of story is what T.S. Eliot called the "objective correlative." The challenge is to discover WHY a playwright chooses to write--I wrote HATTIE'S DRESS when I saw a newspaper story about a college boy who drowned trying to save an Amish woman from being pulled out to sea by an undertow at the New Jersey seashore--he rescued the woman, was lost in the attempt, and she died of exposure a day later. "Greater love hath no person than to lay down life for a stranger." That idea crossed my mind. But in the process of writing, I discovered that I, myself was in mourning--that this terribly sad story had triggered my own emotions on an entirely different, personal matter. My emotional state was the reality--but that is very difficult to deal with in writing directly--so, find a story that you must tell, and "show" it in a play. I agree with Paula, of course--she's absolutely right that a reality must be the foundation of a play--the problem for me is how to discover that reality. Walt Vail
Prinderella & the Since
By Pat McGeever
My "Prinderella and the Since," a Spoonerized version of the old classic, will play at the Epilogue Theatre in Indianapolis this weekend and next.
Comments:
9 Assumptions about Writing Plays
By Greg Romero
Dear PDC Colleagues,
I posted the following up on my personal blog and it's received a wonderful response from fellow artists. I figured I'd share with you as well. I've re-posted the information below, but feel free to view the original.
Rock on:
..........................
To end the year 2008, I'm posting an in-class assignment I gave myself and my UArts students. In response to Jose Rivera's "36 Assumptions about Writing Plays", each of us came up with nine of our own. I offer mine (and would love to know yours):
1. The play must be impossible to exist in any other form.
2. The play must make us all experience pain in some kind of satisfying, delightful, intense and memorable way.
3. It should have an elephant in it.
4. People who see it should revisit the play in their dreams.
5. If it creates anything less than a riot (internally or externally) the play is a failure.
6. Every play should risk everything.
7. It should be written free of embarrassment, but instead, a proclaiming of everything the writer is ashamed of loving deeply.
8. It is not a play if there is no death or birth.
9. The form of the play follows the content, which obeys the characters-- a chambered nautilus, ever expansive, working itself from the inside out.
.............................
ROMERO
Comments:
Donald Drake said on 2009-01-03:
Greg’s and Brian’s “assumptions about playwriting” are interesting checklists, but they are best used after the first draft of the play has been written -- to see if your play is achieving all that it should. Thinking about these criteria during the writing or worst yet, during conception, can lead to terminal writer’s block.
The checklist I use is far less specific and intimidating to me.
You must create characters the audience will care about. The audience doesn’t have to like all of them, but it can’t be indifferent to what happens to them.
The play must be a compelling yarn that leads to a satisfying or disturbing climax. I know plays with beginnings, middles and ends are currently out of favor, but I am convinced that good story telling will once again be revived as it has been so many times in the past.
Ideally the play should engage the audience both emotionally and intellectually so that people leave the theater with new insight about the people and the world about them. They should leave the theater talking about the play, not bitching about the high price of tickets or the long wait to get their car.
Brian Grace-Duff said on 2009-01-01:
- What is written is only a blueprint. What is rehearsed are only materials. The actual play is built live in the audience's mind from these things.
- There is one True form to every play, discover it or walk away.
- The process is self-guided but must contain unimaginable discovery, otherwise it is only an exercise in being clever.
- Economy of language is everything.
- Style is dictated by the story, and must enfold the language used into every aspect of the script.
- Everything is a clue.
- Something dear must be sacrificed to give a script life.
- Discomfort is a sign of growth.
- Comedy cannot be planned, it can only be discovered in the moment.
In Philadelphia, Grants Nurture New Theater
By Valdemar Zialcita
From the New York Times
WHEN a local theater company asked the Independence Foundation for more operating money, the foundation’s president, Susan Sherman, responded with a provocation: “Let’s talk about what you really want to do — what are you dreaming?”
In fact, the founders of the Arden Theater Company did have a dream: to create a developmental pipeline for new work. The company had long produced world premieres but had fine-tuned them out of town, without Philadelphia artists and audiences.
Ms. Sherman changed that with $240,000 in grants over the last nine years, enabling the Independence Foundation New Play Showcase to pay for local workshops, readings and extra rehearsal time for 17 works.
The showcase “created a community around the creation of new work,” said Terrence J. Nolen, the Arden’s producing artistic director. In recent years, grants from the Independence Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and other foundations have helped make Philadelphia increasingly receptive to new plays and emerging artists.
more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/giving/11PHILLY.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
Comments:
Charging Bias by Theaters, Female Playwrights to Hold Meeting
By Valdemar Zialcita
See the New York Times, 10/24/08:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/theater/25women.html
"Frustrated by what they describe as difficulty in getting their work produced, enough female playwrights to make a standing-room-only crowd are planning to attend a town hall meeting on Monday night to air their grievances with representatives of New York’s leading Off Broadway and nonprofit theaters."
Comments:
Mellon Foundation Gives Millions to Help Playwrights
By Valdemar Zialcita
See the New York Times, 10/20/08:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/theater/21mell.html?scp=1&sq=Mellon%20playwrights&st=cse
"[T]he Andrew W. Mellon Foundation recently awarded nearly $10 million to playwriting organizations and theaters in the hopes of getting more fresh voices before an audience. Although Mellon has regularly contributed to theaters around the country for years, the recent grants are a result of a three-year study into the particular problems new plays encounter, said Diane E. Ragsdale, the foundation’s program officer for theater and dance. It turns out that developing plays is not the problem. Producing them is."
Comments:
"the terrible girls" in Azuka's Spotlight Series
By Jacqueline Goldfinger
Azuka Theatre is producing a staged reading of my one-act play, the terrible girls, for their Spotlight Series. It is directed by Allison Heishman and features Kristy Chouiniere, Mandy Schoonover, and Zura Young. We are using this reading as developmental tool to help expand the play into a full-length piece. We hope you'll join us and offer your thoughts.
READING INFO:
Tuesday, October 14
7p.m.
Free, No RSVP Required
Plays and Players, Third Floor
1714 Delancey Street
(between Spruce and Pine and 17th and 18th)
Philadelphia, PA
http://www.jacquelinegoldfinger.com
http://www.azukatheatre.org/
PLAY INFO:
the terrible girls is a wicked dark comedy of friendship, obsession, and Southern sensibilities. Two women battle for the love of one man, while the third guards his terrible secret. “It’s a wild mix of fearless comedy and Southern Gothic horror,” says Kristina Meeks, Founder, San Diego Playwrights Collective.
It premiered at the 2007 New York International Fringe Festival:
"Three Stars." -Time Out, NY
"All the smokiness of a Southern Gothic Drama." -Backstage
"Suspenseful and provocative...a refreshing new story admirably written...What makes this play different than a mundane portrait of the modern South is its mythic quality. the terrible girls forces us to reflect on the duality of human nature and witness how deceit, desire, and obsession can lead to transgression." -NYTheatre.com
___________________________________
Visit me online:
http://www.jacquelinegoldfinger.com
___________________________________
Comments:
A new Board of Directors
By Valdemar Zialcita
As was announced late on Sunday night, PDC now has a new Board of Directors. With twenty members and collaborative artists in attendance and 18 people casting votes, the membership elected the following persons to the Board. Congratulations!:
- Pauline Borkon
- Donald Drake
- Deena Gerson
- Brian Grace-Duff
- Richard Kotulski
- Greg Romero
- Tom Tirney
- Walt Vail
In addition to the election of a new Board, Sunday's meeting provided the members with an unplanned opportunity for longtime and new members to engage in a candid dialogue with and about each other, feeling out the differences among us as well as our common ground. Hopefully that discussion will simply be the first of many as we move forward into an important year, one in which we will be creating, through the efforts of our Board, a Strategic Plan.
So here we are, two days out from the Annual Meeting. Any thoughts? Any questions? Any grievances? Air them here, in PDC's blog, a communications tool that may serve us better in the months to come ....
Wally
Director of PDC and Collaborative Artist
Comments:
Azuka Theatre's Kid Simple
By Richard Kotulski
I wanted to give a strong plug for Azuka Theatre's production of Jordan Harrison's play Kid Simple.
It is an extremely imaginative play by a very talented young playwright who has just started to burst out on the national scene in the last couple of years.
Billed as "a radio play in the flesh" this play experiments with a combination of different kinds of theatrical styles in very intriguing and effective ways. Seeing it was inspiring, and I highly recommend it.
You can learn more at: www.azukatheatre.org/
Comments:
Valdemar Zialcita said on 2008-09-06:
This sounds great. I should find a way, somehow, to see it.
Come se PDC Presents "4X4"!
By Todd Holtsberry
Hello PDCers,
Don't forget to see "4X4"...opening this Sunday (9/7/08) at 3:30 pm!
See you there...
Todd
P.S. I know this wasn't really a "true" blog entry...
Comments:
Valdemar Zialcita said on 2008-09-06:
Wish I could attend your opening! But I'll catch you later in the week.
I'd like to begin a discussion on collaboration...
By Todd Holtsberry
I'd like to begin a discussion on what we feel about collaborations in our artistic endeavors. I'd like to see postings from writers, actors, directors, producers, techies, costumers, whoever...I'd like to hear things from your perspective. I'll start...
For the last 4 years, I've been putting up shows in the Philly Fringe. For my first show, "Full Frontal Nudity!...The Best of Primary Stages", I did almost everything myself, I picked the plays, did marketing, casting, fundraising, directing, producing, co-ordinated multi-media, acted, and did a million other things. I had a tech person, she was helpful, but that was only during show time, not all of the months of stuff that lead up to the show.
By the end of the run, I was satisfied, but very exhausted. All of my actors and writers received $35. My tech person received $70, and I, as the big cheese, received $39. Hey! That made me the second highest paid person involved with the show...
The second year, I began to realize the importance of collaboration when my good friend, John D'Alonzo, approached me about an idea he had for a show. He had a notebook full of tiny notes, with repeating themes and concepts. He needed a writer to help him bring his ideas to the stage. He had spoken to Alex Dremann about writing it, I suggested that we ask another PDC writer, Bob Kangas, to meet with us to discuss coming on board to help in the writing of this show as well. We met with him, he had an interest and some great ideas and said he'd like to co-write the shwo with Alex. Thus began the collaboration of this show...John and I as co-producers and co-directors, and Bob and Alex as co-writers.
The collaboration didn't end there...as things went on, we began assembling a team of actors, a band, a choreographer, lighting and sound designers, and Deb Seif as a sort of Dramaturg.
What happened, was a really cool developmental process that included a series of public readings, with feedback from PDC writers and others, discussions and discoveries during rehearsals, and a real unfolding of the show. All of this served to help Alex and Bob in their revisions. In the end, the play, and show turned out to be things that we were all very proud of.
I believe this is how collaboration should be...
What do you think?
What about your experiences and views on collaboration?
Todd
Comments:
Walter Vail said on 2008-09-22:
Personally, I find that I have to be alone to write. In order to show a story, I must find within me the personal connection with my characters, language, form, and meaning--without that expression of my own experience, knowledge, and emotion--without being fully involved in my writing, no play of mine will ever come to life. Yes, I have sat in playwriting workshops, and written stuff that came out well, but during those moments of writing, I am oblivious to the people around me. I don't have to be alone to be alone. Writing for me taps the depths of my being. But collaboration begins for me when I first need to hear my written words translated into spoken language by others. Circle or class begins to tell me where I am and where my work is going--it helps me identify the strenghts and weaknesses of my initial expression, my early drafts. Revision ALWAYS follows, ALWAYS. Then a rehearsed reading, in which actors and director go at least part way into the journey I have already taken--tells me more, helps me learn more of what I am expressing--and more revision always follows. When I feel sure of my material, then I look for the chance for a cast and director to fully explore the journey of my play. That is collaboration for me. There are other ways for other writers to collaborate, of course. To each his own. If sitting around and talking out an idea works for some people, great--do it! Just give me and playwrights like me credit for doing playwriting my way, and don't try to put your method on me. They tell me comedy writers love to work in groups--and they do write some very funny and insightful stuff. Walt Vail
Richard Wakefield Kotulski said on 2008-08-13:
In response to Pat's comment- it is certainly true that the actual movements on the stage are limited to a very small area and that this has the potential to decrease the audience's ability to focus on the piece...
So, doesn't it then become the duty of the playwright to challenge his or her self to tell a story that can be engaging to an audience in such a small space?
Isn't that sort of the point of this kind of constraint?
It would seem to me that being forced to think about the stage space differently and to fit something into this constraint would in fact force the playwright to consider aspects of production that they otherwise might not...
Food for thought...
Pat McGeever said on 2008-08-03:
Hi Todd, Best luck with 4x4 at Philly Fringe. I do have one observation about the format that occurred to me as an audience member rather than as a writer. It is that there is virtually no stage movement during a piece, and that this makes it more difficult for audience members to stay focussed on the piece. All the best, Pat
Nathan Vogel said on 2008-08-06:
Collaboration is a beautiful tool for theater. And the contention that arises when artists have different concepts of how a piece should look can be just as beautiful. With many minds crafting a project, a work emerges that surprises even the creators. Relationships, elements and contrasting themes appear that no one planned on. In any show, that's inevitable, but works that are collaborative are structured to make the most of that emergent effect. (That seems like a good metaphor for good governance, too. Structure that empowers conflict and collaboration alike to be productive.)
David Usner said on 2008-08-07:
As you may know I sit on the board of the Playwrights Foundation in San Francisco and we have run the Bay Area Playwrights Festival for 31 years. (500 scripts were submitted last year from around the country and six were chosen for the festival.) The Playwrights Foundation's purpose is to facilitate the development of playwrights. Last year we called our fundraiser 'Connecting the Dots' and this term has really been a source for me to speak about what we do. Playwrights typically write alone. The actual act is solitary. On the other end is being fully produced which has all the production elements that we have learned to expect in a performance. However there is a path or series of dots that could be in between. (I say 'could be' because a very well know playwright once said to me after I asked him about development of his Broadway play, "Development? I write and they perform it.") But ofter there is that series of dots and it requires other people... collaborators. That is what the Playwrights Foundation provides... the resource of those people (directors, dramaturges, actors, designer, etc.) American Heritage defines collaboration: "To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort." I found the word 'intellectual' to be very telling. We are not talking about showing up to operate a screw gun or to sit quietly until told what to do as an actor or to wait in silence for your next instruction. This says that there is an intellectual stake for the collaborators. Next, I think that my most enjoyment comes from being a part of a team of people in a creative process. It is one of the things that is distinct about theater. Thanks.
Staged Reading in Center City Philadelphia Tonight
By Jacqueline Goldfinger
The Cardboard Box Collaborative presents a staged reading of a new Southern Gothic play, "Slip/Shot," by PDC playwright Jackie Goldfinger on Sunday, August 3, 7p.m. at the Philadelphia Ethical Society (1906 Rittenhouse Sq, Philadelphia, PA 19103). Free - No RSVP Required. Join us afterwards at The Cafe at 2011 Walnut. For more information go to: http://www.cbctheatre.org/1.html or http://www.jacquelinegoldfinger.com.
Comments:
What's up with 4X4?
By Todd Holtsberry
So what the hell is up with 4X4 and the Philly Fringe? What's that guy Todd doing this year with his band of Merry Men (and Women)?
I'm here to tell you that things are going well. As you know, the show encompasses 4 new plays, written by 4 PDC writers, directed by 4 directors, all staged within different 4 foot by 4 foot spaces, none of them a true stage.
The writers for this are Brian-Grace Duff (The Opposite of Moths/Light Design), Greg Romero (Shovel), Robin Rodriguez (Crumbled Worlds), and Sam Toll (The Last Dance). The directors for this show are John D'Alonzo (The Last Dance), Natalie Diener (The Opposite of Moths), Todd Holtsberry (Crumbled Worlds), and Andrew J. Merkel (Shovel/Light Design). The Production Team is rounded out with Cherie A. Roberts (Production Manager/Actress), Jamie Grace-Duff (Costume Design), and Jessica Pfeffer (Sound Design). All of the writers and directors are also acting as producers for this show.
These plays were all selected from 3 script-in-hand performances at Primary Stages, using the 4X4 format. The show will be at Plays and Players Theatre, 1714 Delancey St, Phila., PA, in the Philly Fringe Fest. You can follow the links on this website for 4X4 to learn about show times and more (or look at the PDC events calendar for September).
4X4 is an evolution, but not a replacement, of Primary Stages, past Fringe Fest shows, and other theatrical influences on, and experiences of, Todd Holtsberry and his desire to be challenged theatrically...
Now that you have the lay of the land, and the "4X4 101", so to speak, what do you think of writing challenges and opportunities like this? Do you like them? Do you take advantage of them? What excites you about this? What makes you apathetic to it? Do they help you develop as a writer when you do participate? Do you like the live feedback of an audience versus the comments of a few writers in a writer's circle, or public reading?
In any event, this Philly Fringe Fest show "PDC Presents...4X4" is an exciting project for me and my collaborators and we are currently rehearsing and doing all that fun stuff that we have to do to get a show up. All the plays are selected, all of the directors are set. unfortunately we lossed the talents of Biz Wells but were lucky enough to gain the talents of Natalie Diener!. The venue is secured, the dates are set, press releases are out, initial funding has been secured, more funraising is in the process...don't worry you'll get the letter soon!), designs are being developed, revisions are being written, and...get this...NEW PLAYS BY PDC PLAYWRIGHTS ARE BEING DEVELOPED AND PRODUCED, IN EXPERIMENTAL AND CREATIVE WAYS, RIGHT HERE IN PHILADELPHIA!...Sorry I had to yell at you for the last part...I just wanted to make sure it was clear.
The whole evolution of this 4X4 thing is akin to what play writing should be in my mind. Primary Stages was/is a fun playground for writers, directors, actors, and the producer. To keep things fresh, Primary Stages spawned the 4X4 show and upcoming new PDC series. Things have become much more experimental as we figure out the "Dance of the Square". We've taken it to the next level by staging the plays in 4 different areas of a theater, none of them on a true stage. The writers have gotten feedback from other writers, audiences, directors, actors, and have made revisions, and improved their plays every step of the way...everybody has been challenged, and rewarded, in the process. It's kind of like the continual circularity of the writing process in my mind.
As artists and creative people, isn't this why we participate in the development of new plays in Philly? As writers, directors, actors, producers, designers, and whatever else needs to done in theater, don't we need to be involved? Don't we need to support opportunities however we can?
I think so. What about you?
Stay tuned for more blogging and updates from Todd on 4X4 soon...thanks for readin'...
Comments:
Todd Holtsberry said on 2008-08-02:
For the record, the word is "lost", not "lossed"...that's what happens when i type too fast and edit too little!
Bloomington (IN) Playwrights' Project
By Pat McGeever
This past weekend (for six hours on Saturday and six more Sunday) I was part of an interesting script development project that made me think maybe PDC could do something like it.
BPP invited playwrights with an Indiana connection to submit scripts for consideration for their Laura Shiner series, and out of the scripts submitted selected a couple handsful for development. They bring in their actors to do a rehearsed reading of each script, followed by an extended critique by the playwrights and actors present. The playwrights then revise their scripts and bring them back for a repeat of the process, in November. After that, there is a third iteration, in February. After that the writers have an additional couple of weeks for final changes, and they are submitted for consideration for production in a new-play festival at the end of the theater's season next spring.
So it's a very extended process, and ideal for a script that you think has potential but is still a long way from where it needs to be for production. That's the way I felt about my "Colleen and Kudzo" after its reading at Abbraccio's this spring, so I'm glad to be getting this opportunity. Maybe PDC could partner with a local theater to give Philly playwrights a similar opportunity.
Just a thought,
Pat
Comments:
Donald Drake said on 2008-07-15:
With the exception of the final production by a theater we could easily do this. To a certain extend we are with Writers Circle, Writers Table and Readings in Restaurants. But few of our members seem to want to take the same play through a series of revisions, though I think it would be a good thing to do.
Happy Endings?
By Brian Grace-Duff
sorry about the title, I couldn't resist myself. And maybe it got a few of you to read.
I have this issue with the end of my plays. I love them. What a problem, huh? Only it is a problem because when I write them, after I've found the characters and worked through the action, and just after I've crested the high point, I get a spark for what the ending will be. And that's when everything goes wrong. Up until that point, I've had an organic writing process, but suddenly I graft on this unnatural ending. Now, I have often found that it's the "right" ending, but it's always rushed.
Always.
I always have to go back and struggle and struggle to make it work. The whole process just seems overly complicated, even if I am happy with the result. Now, if I wanted to analyze it in an acedemic way, I'd suggest to myself that I have to work on the falling action of the story. And that's true. But how?
Does anyone else have this issue?
-BGD
Comments:
Walter Vail said on 2008-10-04:
Brian, I also have trouble with endings. Always. Endings are complex--I think they are a matter of discovering what the play or the story means, what it's really about. I think it takes time--moving away from the script and coming back to it fresh, after one's original intent has faded. Looking more objectively at the script, really seeing what's there and what isn't there. My play NEIGHBORS went through many incarnations over a period of fifteen years, before it finally became a script that suddenly had three productions by three companies--because it was finally in shape that appealed with immediacy to the different people who selected it. It was after a staged reading--one of many--at Swarthmore Players Club, and a discussion with the actors in that reading, that the motives of the antagonist couple in the play suddenly fell into place and told me how the ending scene should go. I think that when a writer gets onto a subject that is somehow vital to the writer--that one keeps doing the script over and over, in different forms and shapes--until the meaning of it finally jumps up and bites one. We all have a life story to tell, and in playwriting it takes many forms before we perfect it. O'Neill is a great example--some critics say his first play, Beyond The Horizon, contains all of the themes of his lifetime--and that finally, Long Day's Journey, imperfect as it is, realizes his story. Ibsen was obsessed with the idea of marrying for the wrong reasons, and that theme appears over and over in most of his "realistic" plays. So how can a young writer really know his or her own life story? Being a playwright is a matter of working that out, of discovering it bit by bit. Except, of course, for a genius--but did even Mozart really know his own story? Discovering what we are really wriiting about will finally tell us what the endings to our plays should be--thats the fascination of playwriting--that we are always learning, struggling to understand. So don't feel bad about endings that don't quite work, or that seem forced--all playwrights have this problem--some know it, some don't--just keep on trying to discover why you write plays, and what they want to mean. Walt Vail
Jacqueline Goldfinger said on 2008-07-15:
Many times I write backwards, i.e. I have an ending and I'm working towards it. So my process may not be helpful. But one of my writing professors at USC believes that, often, the ending you write is correct, and what needs to be reworked is everything that leads up to it. She thinks that you've had time to work through the story at the end, so often your original impulses (early in the writing process) while useful are often faulty because they have not been throughly thought out. I don't know if that's true, but it's one line of thinking on the process.
If you're writing in the "well-made play" structure then "The Dramatic Premise" exercise might be useful. Typically, you do this exercise either right before you start writing and keep refining it or after your first draft to help with a rewrite. All you have to do is fill in the blanks of the paragraph below. I've used it when teaching writing at UCSD, and it's often helpful to students.
______________________ (setting) ______________________ (title) is the story of ______________________ (main character) a ______________________ (what they do) who is ______________________ (physical goal/will) but ______________________ (antagonist) a ______________________ (what they do) keeps getting in the way by ______________________ (what they do/will). After ______________________, ______________________, and ______________________ (rising actions/complications), ______________________ (main character) finally ______________________ (dramatic outcome) and realizes that ______________________ (theme).
Again, this is definitely a "well-made play" model so you'd have to be writing that type of play. But if you know the end (the "dramatic outcome") you can fill that in first and work from there. It, basically, just gives some structure to the process of creating a dramatic narrative.
Ed Shockley said on 2008-06-12:
There is an exercise called, "Buoy." The author imagines early in the process a single action or phrase that is the climatic moment. He then pens either the ten lines that follow or the ten lines preceeding wherein the character does not want to say or do the climatic action. The buoy may not end up in the play but it inspires authors to think in terms of foreshadowed action and dynamic climax. When I have problems with endings it is invariably because the beginning was not sufficiently clear or layered.
Northern Writes: Take Two
By Pat McGeever
Last week PDC member Jacqueline Goldfinger blogged about her experience at Northern Writes, the new-play festival of Penobscot Theatre at
As Jackie pointed out, it’s best to submit pretty fully developed scripts to this festival, because the director and actors will produce the reading without further input needed from the playwright. Strictly speaking, the playwright need not even attend the reading, as artistic director Scott Levy records notes of post-play discussions and forwards them to the playwrights. But this year 17 of the 23 playwrights managed to be there in person. In my own case, the rigors of a 700-mile drive from Philly were more than offset by the opportunity to visit several sets of friends along the way, not to mention some of the delightful
Next year Northern Writes (no, it’s not a Chinese pronunciation) will take place a bit later, around the summer solstice, and the favorite(s) of the audiences may even get produced during the regular season. So start developing those scripts now, and check “submission opportunities” on the PDC website early next year.
Good luck!
Pat
Comments:
Blogging
By Brian Grace-Duff
A Challenge Written in the Form of a Two-Part Confession: This is a longer one, so stick with me. Confession 1: I'm one of those geeks who love blogs. I can't help myself. If there's a subject I'm even vaguely then I've probably subscribed to a couple of blogs. I check them three or four times a day and I post thoughts, suggestions and responses pretty regularly. I've come to think of myself as a "member" of an online community and I accept the strange mantle of embarrassment and exclusivity that goes along with that. Basically, I'm ok with being a geek; I've learned to love it. And here's the reason why: it's incredibly useful. If I have a problem with my motorcycle, someone knows how to fix it. If I want an opinion on some visual artwork, I get dozens in an afternoon. If I can't remember the name of an actor, the answer is found and confirmed without much effort. And if I want to be entertained, distracted or involved in something that's not what I'm dealing with immediately, it's only a click away. Confession 2: I'm a terrible blogger. Maybe I think there's an overt narcissism to publicly displaying private thoughts. Maybe I'm jealous of the people who can write so eloquently off the cuff. Maybe I think it's lazy to not look things up myself. I don't know, but I don't do it nearly enough. As a writer, this is particularly embarrassing to me. Especially as a playwright. My work is meant for the public. It's meant to be shared. It's meant to have other people challenge it and bring out the good and the bad. So what am I doing not participating in any form that allows me to better my craft and become more active in the public forum while discussing my passion? For me, I feel that I'm wasting my time. So here's the challenge folks: Become active in this online community. Ask questions. Discuss. Be off topic. Post snip-its, ideas and roadblocks you're encountering. Argue. Review. Look for advice and information. This is our online meeting house, let's make the most of it. Looking forward to hearing from you, -BGD
Comments:
Summer Play Festivals/Conferences
By Jacqueline Goldfinger
Summer Play Festivals
Summer is my favorite time in the theater season. During the summer, many theater companies shrug off classic plays and popular hits to focus on new works.
I was fortunate enough to be selected for two new play programs this summer; Northern Writes at Penobscot Theatre and Play Labs at Last Frontier. I was asked to blog a little bit about my experience, so here’s my two-cents.
Northern Writes is a two-week new play festival in Bangor, ME produced by the Penobscot Theatre at the historic Bangor Opera House. You simply submit your script, and Penobscot selects and produces the winning entries. This experience was exceptionally helpful because I had no input into the production of the staged reading. It gave me a sense of how my play would be interpreted when I’m not around. It taught me which aspects of my scripts are unclear, so I know what to clarify in the next draft. I would suggest submitting a play to this type of Festival – a Festival in which you are not involved in rehearsals – if you feel your script is at least 80% complete. If you have an early draft of a script, this is not the best type of Festival to submit to simply because you do not have the opportunity to work through the script with the actors and director. These festivals are best used to refine an already solid script.
However, there are summer opportunities focused on developing rather than refining a script. Play Labs at Last Frontier offers the opportunity to rehearse with the actors for a day before the staged reading. If you only have a rough draft of a script, or a short you’d like to turn into a full length, these events are perfect because you can rework the script throughout the rehearsal. Many of these types of events also offer post-reading professional critiques so you have a plethora of ideas to employ in the next draft.
If you have a brand new script that needs workshop time, I suggest attending the Sewanee Writers Conference. I attended last year and while they only offer stipends to select applicants, the Conference offers multiple opportunities to workshop your script with a group of fellow-playwrights. These workshops are led by professional playwrights who also serve as mentors and offer individual workshop sessions.
Here’s a short list of summer festivals and conferences to get you started. Some solicit plays specifically for their event (usually between November and March) while others select from plays submitted throughout the year to their company:
-Steppenwolf’s First Look
-Northern Writes New Play Festival
-PlayLabs, Last Frontier Theatre Conference
-Sewanee Writers Conference
-PlayPenn
-PlayShop (Begins in the spring and runs through early summer)
-Native Voices New Work Festival
-Resilience of the Spirit Festival
-Eugene O’Neill Theatre Conference
-Sundance Theatre Lab
-Hanger Theater Summer Lab
-Envision Retreat
There are also a number of Fringe Festivals with summer seasons. However, these Festivals usually require a producing company. I had a play at the New York International Fringe Festival last year and it was a great experience, however, just be aware, these productions are covered by professional reviewers so if you have a script in the early to mid-stages of development, the Fringe might not be the best place to showcase your work.
If you’d like to see a picture of Northern Writes or the New York Fringe, check out my website: www.jacquelinegoldfinger.com. Play Labs runs June 11-22, so I will be posting those photos at the end of the month.
BREAK A LEG!
Comments:
Jacqueline Goldfinger said on 2008-07-15:
RE: submitting to staged readings question
I think it's always great to submit to staged reading series and festivals when a play hasn't been produced, no matter how many readings it's had. Simply because these activities get your work seen. There aren't many opportunities to have work seen, and producers always say they're more interested in a play if they see it "on its feet" and it works. Of course, this doesn't mean you don't submit a play for full productions. It just means, get all of the juice you can out of reading series and festivals as well. Then once your work is being showcased, make sure to invite all of the artistic staffs from all of the theaters in the area. Best of luck!
Robin Rodriguez said on 2008-06-07:
First off, Jacqueline, congrats on getting into two new play programs this summer. Hope they go well. I don't know you or your work, but I look forward to seeing you, and it, soon. And thanks for the interesting post. I'm preparing to enter the workshop arena, so the idea of matching script to type of workshop is something to think about.
But I'm curious...once you have a play go through a festival like Northern Writes do you pretty much quit submitting to those venues and focus solely on full-production possibilities? Or do you find value in each additional opportuniy to see how someone handles your script without your input? And even if you don't find much value, do you feel obligated to keep building the resume of the play so it will look good to others?
Also, the process you suggest could easily take three years. Year one: hope to get in something catering to a new play. Year two: try for the middle ground. Year three: go for the almost complete version. I suspect most of us won't be quite so discriminating. I figure if I have something good enough to get into a Northern Writes, even if it's at a fairly new level, I'll go for it. Still, I will take to heart the idea that blanketing the earth with submissions isn't thebest approach.
And I certainly appreciate the list of festivals that you consider worthwhile. I wonder if there are others who have some different "favorite" submission sites they'd like to add?
(And to Brian, I'm not an active blogger but this is my modest response to your suggestion that we at PDC use this blog more.)
teresa rhebeck speaks
By vivian green
June 5
Here is Teresa Rhebeck's measure of a good play:
Music in the dialogue
Really good characters
Intellectual and psychological compulsions revealed in an intriguing way.
Cinch!
Vivian Green
Comments:
Ed Shockley said on 2008-06-05:
Playwrighting isn't brain surgery. We get to do it over until we get it right.
Tapping the Unknown and the Unconscious.
By paula diehl
It's about time that I contribute something to our Blog. The inspiration for what I'm going to write here did NOT come from personal experience, my usual fall back position. Instead, I moved out into the unknown as far as I personally was concerned. The first unknown was joining a group to write something according to another person's directions: namely, Bill Burrison. He told our small group to write a monologue about a person sentenced to death for murder. It took me three days before I accepted the assignment. The first day, I was violently against writing something like that. The second day the thought dominating me was that I couldn't possibly write about such subject matter. The third day I decided to try. By then, the assignment had become a challenge, which was so satisfying that I haven't wanted to change a single word in the result.
The second unknown was an unconscious one, occurring at the 'gym' experience from reading the Dionysus version by Sarah Ruhl. I believe I did not think at all 'about' what I was reading as I read and listened to the others in the group, although I figured it was the myth of the woman going to the underworld for whatever reason. Like Lot's wife, she'd been told not to look back. And of course she did. When I sat down to write 'whatever I wanted to,' I started without any idea in my mind. But the idea came in spite of that. It seems I knew what I wanted to say as I went along. The result was another version of Lot's wife's sorrowful fate. To make further writing unnecessary, I think the myths we've been hearing in many versions for centuries are a rich source for what is new, though from the old because Lot's wife's experience is repeated over and over again in many different ways. (This may be subjected to editing.)
Paula J. Diehl, May 26, 2008
Comments:
Eurydice
By Donald Drake
Eurydice, Sarah Ruhl's revisiting of the Orpheus legend currently playing at the Wilma, is one of the most beautifully staged plays I have ever seen. Using a deceptively simple though high-tech set, director Blanka Zizka created a wonderfully exciting evening of theater . Playwrights should see this play because it demonstrates the disturbingly important role that directing and production play in the success of a play. When I started writing plays I thought that the playwright accounted for 75 percent of the play and everyone else divied up the remaining 25 percent. As I began to get readings, showcases and productions, I relinquished increasingly larger portions of the pie. As of last week I was clinging to 50 percent , but after seeing Eurydice I am down to 40 percent. Sara Ruhl is considered one of the most important playwrights to come along in many years but I wonder if the play could have survived with a run-of- the- mill production. It does not have a conventional narrative arch and the development of characters is hardly traditional. In essence it is the type of play I would normally find lacking. In one striking moment in the play, Eurydice's father builds a house for his daughter in hell using string and balloons to represent the structure. It sounds silly, but on the stage it was a powerful statement about paternal love and dedication. I wonder if using the string with the balloons was the work of Ruhl or Zizka. The play runs to June 1 and I urge everyone to see it. It shows how important it is when writing plays to think creatively about how different moments can be staged more effectively since words are such a small part of drama. This is so important because it is unlikely that you will get a director as good as Blanka Zizka. So you will have to come up with the idea of building a house out of string and balloons on your own. (They were selling rush tickets at half price when I saw the play Saturday night. )
Comments:
joan segal said on 2008-05-27:
I agree that the play was spectacular, but would have liked to see more depth in the character of Eurydice. The other characters were fascinating. Orpheus seemed like the real thing, overwhelming.
Richard Kotulski said on 2008-05-26:
I think I can shed some light on the idea of the string room. Sarah's stage direction states:
The father creates a room out of string for Eurydice.
He makes four walls and a door out of string.
Time passes.
It takes time to build a room out of string.
This is all the hints that Sarah gives in her script as to the form and shape of the house itself, as well as what else might be going on during the time it takes for the Father to actually create the string room. It was the efforts of the Blanka, the set designer (Mimi Lien), the composer (Toby Twining), and Stephen Novelli (who played the Father) that gave that moment much more shape than is specified in Sarah's description.
The Art of the Two Character Play
By Richard Kotulski
Two character full-length plays are very hard to write.
You don't have the option of bringing in a third character into a scene to "mix things up". It's left to the two characters onstage to mix everything up themselves. And for some characters this can be a little like pulling teeth.
I worked on a play years ago that was about a married couple that was struggling with one partner's addiction to spending. The one character would order things through mail order catalogues and then be thrilled at receiving the little packages in the mail. They were like presents, he said. His wife wasn't please with this and a fight about money would ensue.
The problem with this was that the characters had only one thing to argue about: money. Or, at least, it was the only thing they ever did argue about. With so many two-character dramas there wasn't enough action to drive the story forward. The stakes weren't high enough for the characters and they didn't do a whole lot over the course of the play.
It was a good idea for a play, but it collapsed under the weight of the characters inaction and constant unchanging bickering.
I see this time and again with two character dramas.
However, I recently had opportunity to see the New City Stages production of William Mastrosimone's play The Woolgatherer at the Walnut Independence 5 and this particular two character drama was both riveting and full of action.
The play, set in South Philadelphia, centers on the unlikely relationship of two very unusual characters, Rose and Cliff. Each of them has their idiosyncrasies and ticks and each has fascinating stories to tell. The characters each make concrete actions that they are invested in and each action they take drives the action of the play forward by acting like a fire under the other character.
If you intend to write a two character drama it's always good to see excellent examples of other works of that variety that are successful in their dramaturgy. This play is certainly one.
Comments:
Donald Drake said on 2008-05-26:
One of my most successful plays -- a one-act romantic comedy produced by the Wilma -- was a two-character play. Called Words, it was about a Russian engineer, who speaks no English, meeting an American student, who speaks no Russian, in a snowbound eastern European airport. From the perspective of the audience, they were both speaking English, of course. You're right, Richard, about how important it is in two-character plays for the stakes to be high. In Words, the two young people are desperate to understand each other. The idealistic revolutionary American student in anxious to know about Russia and the Russian is anxious to know about the U.S. and the language problem creates an amusing situation. Of course, they fall in love, and when they do suddenly there is no misunderatnding. They are communicating with no difficulty at all.
Equity Staged Reading Guidelines....
By Richard Kotulski
A couple people have asked about the use of Actors Equity Association (the professional union of Actors and Stage Managers) members for Staged Readings and other developmental workshops with PDC. Below are the general rules governing the use of Equity members in staged readings with LORT theatres. I was told once by somebody at Equity, though I don't remember who and it was some time ago and they may have changed their minds, that these guidelines would apply generally to non-LORTs as well.
Equity Actors (“Actors”) may participate in Stage Readings under the following guidelines:
1) Rehearsal hours are limited to a maximum of 15 hours (20 hours for musicals) for rehearsals and
actual Reading(s), such times to be at the Actor’s convenience. If the total hours for the rehearsal(s)
and Reading(s) extend beyond the specified number of hours previously listed, then each Equity
Actor is to receive a stipend of $100.00 in addition to basic transportation reimbursement. In no
event shall the total hours for the rehearsal(s) and Reading(s) be more than 29 hours.
2) Maximum of three (3) Readings. All Readings and rehearsals must be within a 14-day period.
3) No sets, props, wigs, make-up, or costumes.
4) No advertising or reviews.
5) No admission charged or donations solicited; cannot be offered as a “subscriber bonus.”
6) No solicitation for or of backers.
7) For invited audiences only. (If Programs are provided, the names of all AEA members in the
production are to be designated by an asterisk (*) with the indication that Actors and Stage
Managers so designated are members of Equity.)
8) Book in hand, no memorization, only minimum staging with no choreography permitted.
9) Actors must be reimbursed at no less than their actual expenses as submitted by Actor.
10) No Non-Resident Aliens may be used under the terms of these Guidelines.
11) No televising, broadcasting, visual and/or sound recording, motion picture filming or videotaping, in
whole or in part.
12) Theatre agrees to actively solicit ethnic minorities, women and actors with disabilities (consistent
with the Americans with Disabilities Act) for the current Reading and for all future Readings.
13) All rehearsal and presentation spaces must be wheelchair accessible.
14) The Stage Reading Guidelines must be posted at all rehearsals and presentations.
15) The Actor is hereby notified that participating in a Stage Reading Guidelines Presentation is not
considered employment with reference to the Rehearsal Rules in either the Production Contract,
Rule 58(E) or the Off-Broadway Contract, Rule 54(K), both of which are entitled Attendance at.
16) The Theatre agrees that, for the Actor, the stage reading must be a project for which the Actor truly
volunteers.
17) There may be only one use of the Stage Reading Guidelines per project within a six-month
period without the express written permission of Equity.
Comments:
Lee Pucklis said on 2008-04-16:
Thanks Richard. FYI: keep in mind there is an Equity Stage Reading Guidelines application and an Equity Staged Reading Guidelines application. Each is different regarding stipend, rehearsal rules, movement on stage, line memorization, etc. If interested, simply go to the Actors Equity website --it's all there. I had a great time working with the NYC/Philadelphia Equity rep (a former Philly stage manager)making arrangements on the Equity Stage Reading Guidelines application when I produced WHAT I HEARD ABOUT IRAQ with an ace Equity cast. Believe me, Equity actors are available to work in these circumstances as long as there is a good/great/wonderful (subjective) script. LP
Greg Romero said on 2008-04-15:
Thanks for posting, Richard.
Notice Regarding Heuer Publishing
By Richard Kotulski
This was posted in the e-newsletter of the Dramatists Guild of America.
NOTICE REGARDING HEUER PUBLISHING
The Business Affairs Department has recently been asked to review the Heuer Publishing contract. In a typical publishing agreement, a publisher receives a 10% commission for licensing stock performances (i.e., non-1st Class professional) and 20% for licensing amateur performances. Some smaller publishers have been known to take commissions of as much as 25%-50% in certain niche amateur markets. However, Heuer Publishing currently requests a 60% commission for ALL stage performances, including professional productions, as well as all movie/television licenses, and other licenses it may negotiate. This is entirely unprecedented in the marketplace. The Guild, therefore, will exclude Heuer from print Resource Directories and email updates and, effectively immediately, will remove it from the online Resource Directory.
Comments:
Richard Kotulski said on 2008-08-28:
And I just received their 2008-2009 catalog in the mail here at The Wilma. I'm not impressed with what I find, which is probably what happens when you scare off the really successful playwrights from your publishing company by completely exploiting people...
Valdemar Zialcita said on 2008-04-10:
Wow. Just wow.
Blackwell Playhouse Fails To Pay Royalties
By Richard Kotulski
This is taken from the e-newsletter of the Dramatists Guild of America....
Blackwell PLAYHOUSE FAILS TO PAY ROYALTIES
A Guild member has reported that the Blackwell Playhouse (a community theater located in Marietta, GA) has breached an agreement to pay her royalties. The author delivered documentation to the Guild in this matter, including an email from the Blackwell Playhouse producer apologizing on December 27, 2007 for the late payment, and unilaterally setting a payment plan of three installments to be completed by February 15, 2008. As of today, that was the last correspondence received from Blackwell’s producer; no payment was ever tendered.
In this situation, the producer continually promised that a written agreement was “on its way,” though one never arrived. Therefore, we admonish all authors doing business with the Blackwell to be careful in their dealings and to require a signed agreement before granting it any performance rights. This nonpayment from the Blackwell can serve as a cautionary tale for all members either dealing with that specific theater or waiting for a promised contract from any producer: as opening night approaches in time, so does the author’s bargaining power wane. There should always be a written, signed agreement, well before rehearsals begin. Even the Guild’s “Form of Licensing Agreement,” available in the Members Lounge, will suffice in many instances.
Comments:
Is This A Laser I See Before Me?
By Richard Kotulski
A friend of mine, William S. Gregory, just ran across a blog posting by Andrew Haydon, a free-lance British theatre critic, who raised the question of why there isn't more theatre done of a Sci-Fi variety...
The blog post was published on The Guardian's website, and you can find it here:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/04/is_theatre_sci-fis_final_frontier.html
Generally it seems to Andrew, my friend, and myself that there isn't a lot of Sci-Fi Theatre--and what little that is done is usually either really bad or everybody assumes it's really bad and doesn't go.
Anybody think we should be doing more Sci-Fi here in Philly?
Comments:
PDC Resource Cited In "The Dramatist"
By Richard Kotulski
I just wanted to alert everybody that The Dramatist, the magazine of the Dramatist's Guild of America, listed a resource on our website in its current issue. The reference was regarding Richard Nelson's speech in April of 2007 to ART NY in which he talked about how demanding residuals from playwrights for World Premieres is taking advantage of playwrights.
This is great, except that it referred to a destination that has been moved. In order to fix this, and to make sure the resource is easier to find. I've added his speech as an "Article" in our Dramaturgy Section. It can now be found there, in addition to the blog.
Comments:
What Is Dramaturgy?
By Richard Kotulski
There's an excellent interview with former Wilma Theater dramaturg Nakissa Etemad on the blog of the Playwright's Foundation. She talks about what exactly a dramaturg does. Should be useful:
playwrightsfoundation.blogspot.com/2008/03/interview-with-top-dramaturg.html
Comments:
Paula Vogel Moves To New Haven
By Richard Kotulski
Some of you may have heard recently about Paula Vogel's recent appointment as the head of the Yale Playwriting Program. Paula had previously taught playwriting at Brown and many of her students have ascended to the forefront of the American theatre--Sarah Ruhl, Adam Bock, and Jordan Harrison, among many others.
Vogel's predecessor at Yale, Richard Nelson, has been a vocal proponent of the idea that playwrights don't need "help" in the sense of what that has come to mean in the New Play Development world--ie, that the job of writing a play is too big for the playwright and that they don't necessarily know what they're doing. Nelson, to the chagrin of many dramaturgs, refused to allow contact between playwrights and dramaturgs at Yale while playwrights were writing their plays.
The idea has been raised that Vogel's appointment to this position at Yale will somehow accomplish two things: 1) that Nelson's critiques of the new play development world will be squelched; and 2) that Vogel's appointment will cement a certain style of semi-experimental playwriting as the norm for playwriting in this country.
I'm curious what people's thoughts are about these issues...
Comments:
Greg Romero said on 2008-02-29:
Whoa.
This is really big news., thanks for posting, Richard. I have no idea what Nelson was like as a teacher, but I know these things:
1. I loved what he had to say about teaching (based on interviews I've read)
2. I loved Nelson's keynote address at the Laura Pels deal-- the big thing about playwright's needing/not needing help, etc. I loved this address so much that I posted the transcription of it on my blog.
3. I wrote to Nelson about this address and he responded with alot of graciousness.
I would love to know more about this whole deal, included how/why /under what terms Nelson left Yale. I'm also very curious to see what Vogel does and what happens with the program at Brown (I have a lot of friends who've gone through this program).
I imagine this news will hit the LMDA llist-serve soon.
Wow.
Robin Rodriguez said on 2008-02-29:
All I know about Nelson is his critique of new play development, but I liked what he said and hope he keeps saying it from wherever he ends up.
As to Vogel, can Richard, or anyone really, explain further what is meant by her "style of semi-experimental playwriting"? And is Yale really that much stronger than everyone else that her moving from Brown to Yale would cement it? I know nothing about these various academic programs and their standings. Do they rule the world, so to speak?
Greg Romero said on 2008-02-29:
Another interesting note about Nelson-- prior to taking over the position at Yale, he had never worked inside of the academy. I'm not saying this is a bad thing-- it is, in fact, possibly exactly what Yale needed. Vogel, on the other hand, has a long and celebrated history of pedagogy, though I don't know much about her personal teaching style.
Richard Kotulski said on 2008-03-04:
Just FYI, you can find the text of Richard Nelson's speech to ART/NY that Greg talked about on the PDC website. Wally posted it some months ago and it's a part of his pdc blog.
Valdemar Zialcita said on 2008-03-07:
FYI -- "his pdc blog" = this blog. Just open up the whole blog roll (see "click here" above), then scroll down to the bottom (i.e., first) post to read what Nelson had to say.
"Going Against the Flow"
By paula diehl
Thinking about "Going against the Flow" as a theme seemed so ordinary and (dare I say it?) banal that I almost gave up my desire to accept the challenge. However, I found other facets in the theme which inspired me. I may not be successful, but that's life. Paula
Comments:
SPARK Festival 2008
By Valdemar Zialcita
I'm switching from the mailing lists to the blog in order to facilitate discussion ...
First off, for those who are new to the Philadelphia theatre community, here is the Theatre Alliance's description of SPARK:
"The Spark program ignites dialogue and opportunities for small and developing theatre companies. The Theatre Alliance presents monthly meetings, January through June, on topics of importance to smaller theatre companies, including Marketing, Development, and Infrastructure, and hosts occasional social gatherings to encourage networking among the small theatre community. The Spark section of the Theatre Alliance website includes an archive of helpful materials from these meetings. The Theatre Alliance also produces the annual Spark Showcase Festival, an evening of short plays highlighting the work of Spark companies."
By my count, there have been three SPARK Festivals to date. Participation peaked early on at about twenty companies before dipping to the most recent ten. If anyone would like to share a rant or rave about the Festival, this blog should serve as a suitable vehicle.
#
Next I would like to bring Donald Drake's most recent e-mail over here:
"It would be nice if we could preserve one of the most rewarding
elements of our annual participation in the Spark Festival -- the marathon
play reading and voting for the play the PDC will present at the
festival. This will be more difficult to do with the new TAG regs. No one has
the stamina to sit through 10 to 20 one-act plays lasting up to 35
minutes each. But we could modify our selection system and still have the
marathon. What I propose is this. Let Wally's judging committee choose
the three most promising one-act plays and the four most promising
3-to-five minute plays and then present these plays at a marathon reading.
Members would then pick the two plays the PDC would send on to the
Spark."
I would like to preserve the marathon reading in a manageable way for this year. Reading every single 3-5 minute submission, without a preliminary sorting process, seems both the most practical and the most inclusive way to do so. Everybody who feels so inclined can be sure that something they wriote will be given a public hearing. As for reading a group of one-act finalists, I resist this approach, at least for this year, on two counts: 1) the preparation of one-act plays for readings is a more challenging and time-intensive process, one that I do not wish to undertake in the short time available to us; 2) I believe that there is an ongoing need for PDC to stave off artistic insularity, and bringing qualified outside perspectives to bear on our work will help answer that need.
Apologies for the font craziness above. I am still learning this interface.
Comments:
Robin Rodriguez said on 2008-02-27:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for the interesting post. In answer, let me start with the parts with which I agree. :)
I know and appreciate your passion for taking risks and not fearing failure, and I agree that we in PDC should each take a serious stab at writing a new play for the Spark. At worst it will be a chance to stretch our creativity; at best we might achieve something we'd never have dreamed we could do. I also agree that we should write every day (or close) and do so with boldness and verve.
That said, I don't think creativity is the only virtue needed for a good play or a good playwright. We could each make a list of attributes, but I would personally rank high something that I'll call, for lack of a better word, heart.
And for me, heart (and sometimes creativity) doesn't necessarily appear in the first or second drafts. I can easily write my characters around and around before I finally realize what their story is and, more importantly, what there is in it that I truly care about. And only then am I free enough to quit fighting the page and go for heart.
Now that's my process. It's slow and laborious. I've only been writing plays for 2-3 years and I'd love to move to a faster style. Perhaps occasionally writing under time pressure will help. Or not. I've read interviews with successful playwrights and it seems that the laborious 2-3 year put-it-down-take-it-up-again process is quite common.
So my next point is that even in maximizing creativity, speed is not the only virtue. Picking up an old play that had previously stumped me and looking at it from new angles to find a better way in can also stretch my creative muscles.
As to PDC's goal, I think ideally we should help each other with whatever each needs at any given point to do his/her best work. It won't be one thing for all. Writers are different from each other, and have different stages in their careers. It's like critiquing. Ideally you figure out what the writer is trying to do with a piece and tailor your comments to that.
As to the Spark, it means two things to me as a PDC member. It's a chance to maybe be produced without sending off a hundred submissions nationally or self-producing locally. And it's a chance for PDC to say to the theater community that we exist and that our members can write interesting, and hopefully superb, plays.
So I think the Spark is its own thing, and our approach to it doesn't have to line up perfectly with our more general goals. If the best play gets written in 3 and a half weeks, great! A fabulous experience in pushing the boundaries for the writer and what fun. But why is only tomorrow's play of value? Cannot the play I finished yesterday or six months ago represent the best I can do at this stage? Cannot it most contain my passion and heart...and yes, my highest level of creativity so far.
Tomorrow's play will be new, but that might be all it is. The reality for any of us is that it might be a while before we write something as good as what we wrote last month or last year. Which is not to say, quit trying. Just why devalue a play simply because it isn't birthed in the next three and a half weeks?
I don't myself have any old plays that fit the theme, but if Bob Castle does then I say fine. I'm sure he'll take a fresh look at it. He might even find that his brain cells get exercised as he rewrites with a greater sense of urgency. Creative pushes can come in many ways. And if Bob's old play is the best submitted, I will be proud to see it represent us. Because I think it actually would represent us. Bob's writing may have improved in a year but he has not, to my knowledge, morphed into a different person or writer. This play would still represent who he is as a writer and thus what members of PDC can produce.
Lastly we should remember that there's no guarantee either of PDC's submissions will be accepted by the Spark Committee. So why not put forth our best, and trust our members to also put forth what they consider both their best writing and their best representation of what they can do and what they want to say with their art?
Sorry for the lengthy post. It's a subject with many angles and if a consensus is reached different from my own view, I'm happy to go along.
Robin Rodriguez
Robert Castle said on 2008-02-27:
What qualifies as new material? Is producing "new material" intrinsically better than not-quite-new material? I don't think PDC would be showcasing a play if, say, that play was workshopped in the last year at our Saturday meetings. It would only mean that the play had been rewritten and refined. If the play had not seen any venue -- or had only been presented to the public at our R in R series -- what's wrong with offering it as a Sparks contestant?
Disclosure: I have a play that miraculously fits the Sparks theme. It is not two weeks or two months old, but maybe a year or year and a half. Neither has it been performed in public outside the Saturday workshop. It's old and new. I think it is worthy.
I am also not in love with creating something new on command. I have done it. I think I have proved to myself I can do it. But I do not want to do it very often. I don't find much virtue in doing it.
Greg Romero said on 2008-02-27:
Thanks, Wally, for facilitating the discussion re: Spark Fest.
I am encouraged by the conversation that has been "sparking" as it shows that our members are actively engaged in the organization. Good for us for all caring so much! I have been following the email exchanges closely and, as a newer member, these exchanges offer me questions about the mission of this group.
Namely:
Is PDC's mission to actively participate and inspire the continued generation of new writing (even at the risk of "failing")?
Or is PDC's function to serve as a producer/showcaser for "time-tested" material that's already written?
To me, as someone who is interested in continuing to write and in continuing to engage with the world as a writer, the first option seems much more desirable. The second option actually seems to me to fall outside the domain of an organization that seeks to create new work. I appreciate that Wally has chosen the SparkFest project as an opportunity to challenge all of us, as writers, to create a new play-- to put a new creation into the world. I feel we should embrace this challenge.
I am confused by the resistance to this challenge, but will offer my own encouragement in hopes that it might motivate us, as an organization, to embrace the challenge put before us and be willing to take some risks.
I wrote one of my plays, "Two Bubbles" in SIX HOURS during a 24-hour festival. The entire festival was a smash-- a fantastic, energetic explosion of new work, of excitement, of teamwork, of possibility. To this day, I stay in touch with a number of people I met and worked with during those 24 hours. The entire process and production was a huge reward for the risk we all took together.
So that was success number one.
And since that first production, this play has been produced multiple times, has been a finalist for the Heideman Award, and is soon to be published by Playscripts, Inc.
All of this from a play written in six hours.
I mention this because I hope it will dispel the suggestion that three weeks to write a new one-act play is an insourmountable goal. And also-- I want to put forth the bold suggestion that...maybe we SHOULD be attempting insourmountable goals. There is magic on the mountain top and there is wisdom and glory gained in the attempt to climb it.
And lastly, I offer these questions--
isn't it more fun to write a new play than to just submit something already written?
Isn't there more joy in creating something new, and in making some new discoveries, and in facing some new challenges, and in confronting some fears, than in simply handing over a piece you've already completed?
I ask that we think about these questions, and I ask that we trust Wally's leadership as, clearly, Wally has a vested interest in doing what's best for the organization. We're all on the same team here, but I want to be on the team that has the most fun. :)
My best to everyone, it is my pleasure to be part of this organization.
Sincerely,
Greg Romero
The Interminable Pursuit of All That Is Lofty & Beautiful
By Richard Kotulski
It's been six long years since the idea behind my play All That Is Lofty & Beautiful came to me. Six years since I dropped my friend, Eve, off at a dark, cloudy dive bar. Six years since she said goodbye to me wearing leather pants, her pupils dilated from cocaine, her hair a tangled rat's nest, and dark circles under her eyes that gave her the eerie look of the dying.
Eve was a brilliant student that I had met some years before in a poetry class. I thought she was the sexiest thing alive.
In her dilapidated condition I still thought she was beautiful.
So much promise. She much youthful vigor already depleted. So much sadness and misery surrounded her it was as if she walked around with a dark blue haze around her. The color of the long, cold dark of the north sea and the depths that had swallowed up countless souls before and now surrounded her.
I wanted to tell a story about her--and about all the people who I knew who were like her. I just didn't know how to do it.
I wrote my thesis on Chekhov and the tremendous power of his work to show us our own lives in a mirror--and I still think Uncle Vanya is one of the greatest plays ever written--but I started to grow somewhat disenchanted with using his approach to playwriting as my own. It felt a little like borrowing somebody's car. I never know where the windshield wipers are, or the hazard lights, and I hate automatics.
I had this story to tell, but I didn't know how to tell it. So I figured I'd sleep on it.
As it turned out I slept for quite some time. During that time I discovered drinking and rediscovered women. I had my heart broken and broke several hearts of my own. And my own life became a dissipated mess of barely remembered conversations in dive bars with cabbies, and cooks, and biology students. I think everybody should have the experience of stumbling around a city you don't know, walking unconscious, yelling at passing strangers and stray cats, unable to remember where it was you were supposed to go, why it is you're here, and why everybody is talking with a southern accent.
Clearly experiencing hell is the first step to writing about it. Or so I thought.
After a few such experiences, however, I couldn't really take anymore. It just couldn't be a way of life for me. But I had so many firsthand experiences to draw upon. Chekhov would be so proud.
So I tried to write.
Fourteen pages in one afternoon. Then nothing. Then more nothing. Then I decided to start over.
Twenty-two pages over three days. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Repeat.
No matter what I tried I couldn't get the people in my head to where they wanted to be on paper. It didn't matter what I tried or how I introduced them. I tried changing the names. I tried changing the order they came into the scene. I got rid of people altogether. I got rid of theatrical devices. I tried writing some more. Nothing.
The people in my head, it seemed to me, had cursed me.
Then, by happy circumstance, I picked up a copy of Four Plays by Jean Giraudoux. It's shameful to admit that I haven't read Giraudoux before, but I'm doing so anyway because admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.
His approach started to resonate with me and ideas began to pop into my head. What my naturalistic play needed stat was a dose of the supernatural. So, voila.
Now I'm well on my way, after six interminable years, and actually working on this damned play that has plagued me for so long. Wish me luck, or, um, broken legs.
Comments:
STATISTICS ON SUBMISSION FEES
By Donald Drake
There’s been a lot of talk about whether the PDC should publish on its website competitions that charge fees. Some of our members think playwrights shouldn’t even consider entering such contests.
Would refusing to enter these competitions substantially reduce our chances of winning prize money and getting readings, showcases and productions? Since 33.5 percent of festivals and contests now charge fees, the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
I base that statement on a review of the competitions listed in the 2008 Dramatists Guild Resource Directory, which I just received. A cursory look at the listings is encouraging. The directory lists 194 festivals and contests. This suggests that there are a lot of opportunities out there and we can be picky, but the number dwindles upon closer examination.
Because I am only interested in doing full-length dramas for adults and because I am not a woman, black, Hispanic, gay, currently enrolled in college, not under18 years old, not interested in writing abut Appalachia or the Jewish experience, not a resident of Maine, Ohio, Kansas, Maryland and a bunch of other states, for me that big 194 shrinks to 63. Two thirds of the competitions refuse to consider my work, sight unseen.
Now if I exclude competitions that charge fees, the number shrinks to 38. In effect I would be cutting my chances of getting a reading or production by 40 percent, which is significant.
The fees range from $5 to $40. Most of them are in the $10 to $15 range but 10 competitions charged more than $20 and one, the Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition, wants $40.
Some of the competitions are undoubtedly stacked in favor of well known playwrights. And I realize that by reviewing only competitions listed in the Guild’s resource directory, I am not including a lot of fly-by-night competitions and scams that do nothing but make money for the unscrupulous. But the review does provide some sense of what might be at risk here.
The cost of entering all of the competitions listed in the directory for which I qualify would be $313. This sum is dwarfed by what I spend on computer ink, paper, copying, manuscript covers, envelopes, postcards and postage. The fees are just another business expense and not unreasonable. A $313 investment almost doubles my chances of accomplishing the thing that is most important to me as a playwright, seeing my work performed in front of an audience.
I would be very unhappy if the Dramatists Guild or Insight for Playwrights reduced my chances of accomplishing that by refusing to list competitions that charge fees.
Comments:
Proposed Idea for Website
By Donald Drake
I propose a new and unique service that the PDC website could provide members -- the equivalent of a play- submission Zagat. PDC members would be asked to rate the theaters and theater groups that they have made submissions to. Organizations that have actually read the sunmissions would get a plus (+) rating. Organizations that have not responded after a year to the submission would get a minus (-). . And organzations that have sent back a form rejection would get a a question mark (?). Also included in the listing would be a space for palywrights to make comments. Playwrights would give a plus to theaters that have asked to read a full script, have produced the play or done a reading, or sent back a rejection letter indicating that the play has actually been read. If all of our members actively fed the "Submission Zagat," after a while we would have a very effective directory. The organizations would be listed alphabetically. I see it looking something like this:
INTERACT THEATER
++++
COMMENT: It took six months to get a reply but when Interact responded the rejection commented on the characters and plot, indicating areas where the play could be improved.
PHILADELPHIA THEATER COMPANY
- - -
COMMENT: I have made five submissions over the past five years and have yet to get a response.
COMMENT: I called up the literary manager and he said that unsolicited scripts are put at the bottom of the pile and they rarely get that far down in the submissions.
WALNUT STREET THEATER etc. etc.
The Zagat site would be set up in such a way that playwrights would fill out of the listings themselves.
Comments:
Valdemar Zialcita said on 2008-01-28:
Richard, thanks for the winking, nudging improvement top the listings. I can see the added value in what Donald is suggesting, and I just wonder, as Robin did, about the implementation.
Richard Kotulski said on 2008-01-21:
I think it would get more use if there were more opportunities listed on the website--and it's important to remember that ANYBODY can add an opportunity to the site with the simple form here:
http://www.pdc1.org/submissions/submissionadd.php
This means people just like you!
Robin Rodriguez said on 2008-01-21:
Thank you, Richard. This feature might not get used that often but having it available is a very big plus, I think.
Richard Kotulski said on 2008-01-21:
In response to popular demand I've created a new feature available on the pages of particular submissions. I'm calling it "Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge".
Essentially, the feature gives PDC members the ability to comment on particular submission opportunities that they have special knowledge about. The member identifies how exactly they know what they know, whether their overall impression of an opportunity is positive or negative, and gives them a field in which they can post specific comments about the opportunity.
Right now this is geared more toward particular deadlined opportunities (ie festivals, workshops, etc.) rather than regular theatre submissions. Regular submissions to theatres are a different can of worms and I'll have to give it some thought before tackling it...
Donald Drake said on 2008-01-21:
The Submission Zagat should be separate from the PDC submission list. Anyone who is thorough in sending out scripts will be using Insight for Playwrights and the Dramatists Sourcebook, which have far more contacts than we could ever list on our website. The way I see it being used is that the playwright will see an interesting listing in one of these sources and then will consult our Zagat to see if it's a theatre group that is likely to respond to the material submitted. I don.t know if this is possible but the PDC submission list could have a ink to the Zagat if the the theater in question has been reported on. I keep very complete records on theaters that do and do not respond to my submissions and would be willing to start the Zagat off if everyone wants to participate and Richard can set it up.
Robin Rodriguez said on 2008-01-21:
I'm all for more info being provided the playwright, so this idea of Don's is interesting. My question is implementation. How would this work in conjuncture with the previous threads' idea of having a comments section attached to entries on the submission calendar? Theoretically, having both could be useful, since some theaters have no deadline and might never show on the submission calendar. But we'd be creating a completely new section. Would it be crosschecked, so that entries on the submission calendar would indicate that further information is available in the theater section? Could be very complicated.
Richard...thoughts?
Submission Fees
By Donald Drake
If we are going to list submission possibilities, we should list all possibilities unless we know they are fraudulent. Our organization shouldn't be censoring opportunities. Playwrights can decide for themselves if they want to pay the fee. I have won a bunch of competitions with monetary prizes from theater groups that charge submission fees, including the O'Neill (though that was when Lloyd Richards was in charge, before the current leadership controlling the O'Neill.) I suspect that I have made more in prize money than I have paid out in submission fees. But more important, the opportunity to see my plays done by professional actors was priceless. As playwrights, our opportunities are so limited I hate to see any eliminated. I would find it offensive if large theaters like the Wilma or the Walnut had submission fees (they don't), but the small theaters we are most likely to be successful with are struggling and charging a fee may be the difference between looking at new scripts or taking material only from agents or trusted sources. When the PDC started First Mondays, we charged a $10 submission fee, which barely covered the cost of copying synopses and mailing costs to get scripts to our readers. As for protesting the submission-fee requirement, I don't think the refusal of playwright organizations to list theaters has any chance of being effective. Like it or not, we should consider submission fees a cost of doing business and let playwrights decide if they want to make the investment. I think a more effective way to protect ourselves from costly and useless submissions is to pool our knowledge about theatres on wonderful websites like this one. For instance, I would like to ask all people reading this msg. if they have ever submitted to the Philadelphia Theater Company and if they have ever gotten any response. I have made many submissions including a personal letter to the artistic director and heard nothing.
Comments:
Donald Drake said on 2008-01-20:
This feature that Richard is talking about setting up should invite members to provide positive and negative information about various venues. For instance, I would say that I have submitted several times to the Philadelphia Company and Arden and have never gotten a reply of any kind, whereas I have always gotten a response from the Walnut Street Theater and Interact. If everyone did that, we would begin to identify theaters here and elsewhere that are worth sending to or are a waste of time.
Richard Kotulski said on 2008-01-20:
Don seems to be in favor of the more information approach to the submission question. So I'm going to say that's another vote in favor of creating a feature by which those with special knowledge about an opportunity can make that information available to other pdc members.
Other thoughts?
Submission Fees...
By Richard Kotulski
PDC Member Jon Dorf recently wrote me to bring up an interesting quandry.
Recently, the Alliance of Los Angeles Playwrights, of which Jon is also a member, had voted to cease the promotion of contests, workshops, and other play submission opportunities that charge a submission fee. He suggested that the issue be discussed at PDC as well--and I think it's an excellent topic to raise on the new blog.
Personally, I think that submission fees are evil and that often times many theatres look at the fees as a way of making some quick cash without having to actually do anything. I mean, come on, do they really read all those scripts?
By the same token, however, there are numerous well respected theatres and festivals around the country who charge submission fees. Among these is Sundance Labs, the Seven Devils Festival, and the Bay Area Playwrights Festival (BAPF). The latter is sponsored, I believe by The Playwrights Foundation in San Francisco (and it should be noted that another PDC Member, Dave Usner, is on the board of the Playwrights Foundation).
I should probably also note that I did submit my play to BAPF this year--and I felt better about paying the $20 because they suggested that if you faced a financial hardship because of the $20 fee that they would waive it. At the time I could pay the $20, so I did, secure in the knowledge that some year I might not be able to and that they would hopefully have the decency to continue to offer that escape clause in the future.
Where does that leave us?
In creating the submission calendar for the PDC website I did not set up a system by which we discriminate against opportunities that charge a fee. I did this because I wanted the website to be as complete a resource as possible for playwrights all over the country--and I wanted that resource to be free. Anybody can add an opportunity, whether they are a member or not. And each listing allows the contributor to state whether or not there is a fee attached to the submission opportunity. I left it up to other users who feel differently about submission fees to make the determination of whether to submit.
But is this the right decision? Should I include a warning on opportunities that charge a fee--like cigarette packages in Europe--showing pictures of the damage to your finances if you pay, and the wonderful time that those theatre managers had in Bermuda with drinks paid for by those suckers who submit?
I would love some guidance with regard to this issue--and I will be happy to change the submission feature on the website according to consenus on this issue--if it's ever achieved.
I invite your thoughts and comments.
Comments:
Ed Shockley said on 2008-04-16:
Each contest is unique. A writer should research past winners and the company then make their decisions about fees based on career goals and an honest analysis of one's literary voice. There are innumerable theatres, for example, that will not produce any play that employs profanity. That means that THE DUTCHMAN by Amiri Baraka and NO PLACE TO BE SOMEBODY by Charles Gordone (winners of an Obie and Pultizer prize respectively) will not be considered because they are urban realism. The O'Neall Conference instituted a fee several years ago but is a reputable organization so there is no one rule. I do, however, advise against the approach called "shotgunning." Simply copying a script and sending it to a bunch of contests doesn't increase one's chances of winning anything. The bigger question, however, is what amount of resources should we devote to contests? I am lucky enough to earn a modest living from my writing and contests have proven useful primarily only during the early years trying to validate my ability or as a tool to break into closed markets. Most productions return far more financial rewards than most contests. Pursuing commissions, for example, allows me to compete with far fewer authors and with far more control of the engagement. (I wrote an article about this in the of PDC newsletter,FIRST DRAFT, and reproducted it in my book, NOTES FROM A PRACTICING AUTHOR)Personally I ignore play contests with fees since there are innumerable ones that are free and better odds campaigning directly with mulitple theatres.
Greg Romero said on 2008-01-29:
Richard,
Thanks so much for posting this. If anyone else is following the conversation going on through The Dramatists Guild, the DGA is similary unsure of which side of the fence to come down on regarding submission fees. In fact, Gary Garrision recently issued a survey to be filled out by member writers and, predictably, received some very mixed results. The results were mixed enough that the DGA couldn't quite take a measure of action, other than to insist that organizations requiring a fee be completely transparent in their fees listing AND (a more recent request) what the fees go towards.
The DGA has also recently taken action on fee-ed submission opportunities that have balked on their promises-- the Hinton Battle Theater Laboratory being the most recent example.
So, at the very least, the DGA is asking for transparency and is acting as a watch-dog on some of the more spurious listings.
I personally approve of these measures, though I actually wish the DGA would NOT list submissions with fees attached whatsoever.
For the past few years I have given up applying for any opportunity that charges a fee (I made an exception ONLY for Sundance Theater Lab and only because I was outvoted by my two collaborators) and I have been busy as hell.
I refuse to pay submission fees and it is my wish that everyone else do the same and that we all TELL these fee-charging producers to stop taking our money.
Robin Rodriguez said on 2008-01-16:
I like it, Richard. I think the closed shop possibility is the most worrisome because, lacking input from other people with experience, there's no way to know that, whereas a straightforward fee is something I can judge for myself. And even if they don't charge a fee, if they do other horrible crap, we want to know. Submitting takes time. I don't want to waste it on something I have absolutely no chance at.
In the past people have sometimes put opportunities on the old listserve and someone (usually Jon Dorf or David Usner) would point out problems with it. That was very helpful. So unless we take the stance that all fees are wrong (still a reasonable possibility) then we should work to offer the playwright full information.
Richard Kotulski said on 2008-01-16:
Well, I agree with Jon, and I agree with Wally, and I agree with Bob, and I agree with Robin--and you know how that makes me crazy.
In addition to putting a warning on listings which charge a fee there is another possibility that I had not yet mentioned. That is that for each opportunity I could add in a member comments section. If a member had inside knowledge about that particular opportunity--such as O'Neill being a closed shop, or such and such a festival only ever producing plays by lesbian midgets--then members could add their thoughts on particular festivals and those thoughts could be viewed by PDC Member playwrights. That would be yet another benefit available to members that might entice more members to join.
Any thoughts on this idea?
Robin Rodriguez said on 2008-01-16:
I can see both sides , but I lean towards Bob Castle's stance of letting the playwright decide, with maybe also using Wally's suggestion of an asterisk warning for new playwrights (harkening to Richard's joking offer to make it like a cigarette package.) I wonder if there's any consensus as to when a fee goes from being modest to being absurd. $20?
It's true that theaters are businesses, but my impression is that few are getting rich. I've just begun sending out work and have avoided paying fees, but I do look to see what they offer. I'm sending 10 minutes plays now so a fee seems ridiculous. But if it were a full length at a name place which also provides, say, several days of workshopping opportunity and they pay travel costs, etc. then I'd be more open. However if as Jon says, many of these opportunities are effectively closed shops, then that's tricky because there's no way for the playwright to know.
I think part of the question is: are we just protecting playwrights or making a protest? If I read Jon's comment correctly, ALAP informs fee-charging companies that they won't be listed and why. Would we also do that? It's a hassle, obviously, but if a decision to not list is meant to be a protest, then we have to. Otherwise, those who run a theater/festival might assume that any drop-off in submissions comes from poor marketing or a worsening economy that forces playwrights to take second and third jobs and cancel internet connections and beg on the street, leaving no time to write..but that things will be better by next year's submission date, so no change in policy is required.
Also, for me a fee is not the only barrier considered. I like being able to submit online. Having to mail several bound copies, with maybe an application and a letter and bio and who knows what other ridiculous stuff for a submission, also makes me much less likely to send in a play. Add up all that and it's as great a cost of time and resources as a modest fee.
Robert Castle said on 2008-01-16:
I would like to see any potential listing for play submission -- fee or no fee. In the past, I have paid my share of fees. Less so now. Most recently, I will pay the fee for the McClaren Festival (for comedies).
Have confidence that members of PDC can figure out for themselves what to do. The real problem is the hidden fee -- you submit and then the theatre/publisher asks for money to have one's work produced/published. In submitting books to publishers, I relied on a site called Editors and Preditors. I don't know whether there is the "theatre" equivalent.
Valdemar Zialcita said on 2008-01-14:
I wouldn't want to dismiss out of hand any possibility that a theatre might return sufficient value in exchange for a fee, but I think the burden of proof falls on the theatre. In the absence of that proof, should PDC list opportunities that charge fees? I would be comfortable with a flat-out no, if that was what the membership wanted (and it's not clear to me that that is the case). I would also be comfortable with a limited listing: the heading or title of the opportunity, the deadline date, possibly a web address, and an asterisk or some other code that allows us at-a-glance to recognize that this opportunity charges a fee and will require outside research for further information.
Richard Kotulski said on 2008-01-14:
I also didn't know this, but O'Neill is now charging $35 a pop for submissions--which seems frankly ridiculous. Would they also like a pint of my blood?
Jon Dorf said on 2008-01-14:
I'm actually not just a member of ALAP--I'm one of the co-chairs. We decided no longer to publicize opportunities with fees for several reasons, which we explained in our January newsletter. Running a theatre is a business, and it should not be left to the playwright to subsidize that business--especially when no other members of the creative team are asked to pay for the privilege of being considered. Also, as we will be pointing out to fee-charging companies that come our way from now on, very few professional playwrights submit when they have to pay, meaning that the quality of submissions will suffer. And the reality is that just because you submit a fee is no guarantee that your work will be seriously considered or even read carefully (or at all). For example, the prevailing wisdom on Sundance and the O'Neill, two "prestigious" fee-charging opportunities, is that those are largely closed shops, and many of their slots are spoken for before submissions even begin. At ALAP, we feel that by publicizing opportunities which force playwrights to pay to submit, one indirectly contributes to the fleecing of playwrights, most of whom are desperate for a production and will do anything, no matter how ill-advised, to obtain one. Part of being a service and support organization is to protect our members, particularly those who are least experienced, from groups that might take advantage of them. While PDC has changed somewhat in the years since Ed Shockley and I ran it, I would hope that service and support are still the cornerstone of its mission. Jon
Hello PDC People!
By Richard Kotulski
So, this is the first incarnation of the brand new PDC Blog. I'll be fixing and refining it over the next few days and weeks, as well as adding features that should be helpful to you all.
That's all the news that's fit to print right now, but check back soon for more fun stuff!
Comments:
Sidney T. Rifkin said on 2008-01-12:
Seems like a great new feature.
Valdemar Zialcita said on 2008-01-14:
Thanks, Richard.
Richard Nelson addresses ART/NY (April 9, 2007)
By Valdemar Zialcita
First I want to thank Laura Pels - a truly generous woman. Generous in both the obvious sense, and also always with her time, her energy, her enthusiasm, her humor. She and I have had a few meals together over the years, both here and in Paris, and Ive enjoyed every minute of them and always left inspired and encouraged. And I wish to thank A.R.T./New York for inviting me here tonight. I have to say I was surprised to be asked, but also very honored.
I am also very honored to be speaking to each and every one of you; I know I am in a room of people who care about theater, who love theater, many of you have and are devoting your lives to theater. And any lover of theater - must also be a lover of plays. And any lover of plays will, I am sure, recognize the unique place of the playwright in the making of theater. And it is this place that I wish to speak about.
By the way, I think this will be the first speech I have ever given; fifty-six years old, and Ive managed to escape giving a speech until now. I suppose I never thought it was my thing, I love hearing what I write spoken by others, not myself. But things change, we change.
I remember when I became a father for the first time. And suddenly I found within me an ability to fight for my child in ways that I could never have fought for myself.
A year and a half ago I began teaching young emerging talented playwrights at the Yale School of Drama. Tonight I want to talk about issues that are important to them - and to me, and I believe to all American playwrights. But mostly to them. And I suppose it is because of them, and because of the hundreds of playwrights whose work I now read each year, that I feel the need, the passion, but more importantly the responsibility to discuss the state of our profession with you tonight.
So much has happened to the profession of playwriting since I had my first professional production at the Mark Taper Forum Lab in 1975. And so much of what has happened has not been good for playwrights.
The profession of playwright, the role of the playwright in todays American theater, I believe, is under serious attack. Some who attack are simply greedy, some ignorant, some cant understand why theater isnt TV or film. But perhaps the greatest threat to the playwright in today s theater comes from not those greedy and ignorant, but rather from those who want to help.
Help. Playwrights are in need of help. This is now almost a maxim in our theater today. Unquestioned. A given. But where does this mindset - for that is what it is, a mindset - come from? Of course playwrights need things - money, productions, support, encouragement. So do actors, directors, designers, artistic directors. But THIS mindset is different, because what is meant here is: Playwrights are in need of help to write their plays. They are in need of help - to do their work. They cant do their work themselves.
How strange. What other profession is viewed in this way? What other person in the theater is viewed this way? Imagine hiring say a director with the assumption that he couldnt do his work himself. Now I am not saying by this that a director shouldnt listen to others, receive notes, be open to discussions, and so forth. Quite the opposite, for THIS is all part of what a director does. AND I am NOT saying a playwright shouldnt listen to notes, be open to discussions, and so forth - because THIS is what a playwright does. What I am saying is that the given mindset should not be that the playwright cannot be trusted to lead this process. Cannot be trusted to know how to work within the collaboration of theater.
Nor am I talking about mentoring, or educating young playwrights here. Im not talking about a classroom situation. Im talking about how our professional theater looks at playwrights and the playwrights play. About assumptions made and about the various specific solutions theaters THEN make based upon these false assumptions.
What is really being said to the playwright by all the help? From the playwrights perspective it is this: that the given now in the American theater is that what a playwright writes, no matter how much he or she works on it, rewrites it at his or her desk, the play will ALWAYS not be right. Will ALWAYS need help. In other words, writing a play is too big of a job for just the playwright to achieve. This, I believe, is now a prevalent attitude in the American theater. And this mindset is devastating.
Emily Mann told me the other day that in her 17 years running the McCarter Theater the greatest change has been - that now more and more plays are submitted that are obviously unfinished. That writers today recognize that if they wish to participate in a process that perhaps will lead to the production of their work, then this will require rewriting and revision guided and cajoled by others. So why finish anything?
I sit with young writers and hear how they now leave chunks of their plays purposely badly written - hoping that the help they receive will concentrate on these areas and not on others that they care about. Tricks, games that many a screenwriter has learned over time, but now finding their way into the writing of plays.
Now no doubt many of you are thinking - but the plays arent finished, they need help, and they do get better.
Again, I am not saying that a playwright should avoid and ignore comments and reactions to his work, quite the opposite. But I am saying that our mindset toward playwrights should be this: 1) the playwright knows what he is doing, 2) perhaps the playas presented is as it should be. So that the onus for change is not on the playwright but on others, on the theater. And the theater is there with a full array of tools to support the playwright as he or she attempts to improve upon his or her play. How to improve a play should be the domain of the writer, with the theater supplying potential tools, a reading say, or a workshop with clearly delineated goals. These are tools that should evolve out of a need, as opposed to being a given.
Now a culture of help breeds a culture of dependence and this is what, I believe, we now have in the American theater: the culture of readings and workshops, one unimaginable when I was a young playwright thirty years ago. A culture of development. And this culture, more than being an activity, a process - is a mindset. Having spent a great deal of time in classical theater, I have watched actors and directors approach classical plays that have massive contradictions and address those plays not as works to be fixed, but rather to be solved. So I am arguing for a theater where the mindset is not to fix new plays, but to solve them.
Now if it is assumed that all plays need to be helped along, then no playwright actually has it in his or her power to complete his or her play. Therefore, can it really be called his or her play? Ah - now we come to other trickier sides of this equation, where the help given writers also has strings. In the time Ive been given, Id like to look at just a few - there are many - examples of how this mindset has infiltrated our theater and what it is doing to my profession. So lets get specific.
And lets look at the actors, directors, even audiences who have been taught/re-educated by this culture to feel a responsibility to help the playwright write his or her play. Producers, literary managers, dramaturges who help with rules about what makes a good play, who help by mandating readings because they must be helpful. Lets look at managers who helpfully organize commissions so that the theater can encourage OR is the word enforce changes that are helpful to the play. There are contracts that demand remuneration for this help. There are foundations that allow their monies to be used in a developmental hell that breeds the loss of confidence and control that every playwright needs, must have, to succeed.
SO. Readings. Mandatory reading of plays for judgment or to give help. Be careful. This is dangerous, and has already caused great harm. A play with two people at a table having a conversation - this works in a reading, we get a good sense of what the writer is after. But what about 7 people in a room, moving about, talking to two, then three, unheard by a forth, and so on. This makes no sense in a reading. And so playwrights, practical people that we are, slowly - like a bad evolution - we stop writing in forms that dont work in readings. And again, slowly, our plays begin to look alike, dramaturgically similar. Of course a playwright can benefit from a reading, but one needs to be so very careful about why the play is being read, what hopefully is being gained. And, what is being lost. All those reading series out there - careful, careful, in the long run are they doing much more harm than good?
Workshops. What are they? What IS the role of an actor or a director in a workshop? To direct or act in a play requires, I believe, a strong element of confidence in the play; a belief that the answer to ones questions or confusions can be found - in the play. This is what a director or an actor does, this is their talent and how they explore. But if the playwright is encouraged to - no CELEBRATED -for rewriting during this process, then where does that put the actor, the director - not acting, not directing - but there - to help. Isnt this the wrong mindset for a director or actor to have? Is this the way they should be looking at a play? Couldnt their talents be put to better service trying to solve what the writer has written - as opposed to trying to help him fix it?
Audiences. By involving them in readings and discussions and god forbid workshops, we are apparently asking for their help with the play. But doesnt this confuse even warp the role of the audience? And in terms of new work doesnt this put an audiences focus overwhelmingly on does it work? as opposed to what is it about? or why was it written? or does it matter? Arent these the questions we want discussed? Arent these the questions that help generate the sort of substantive discussions we in the theater wish to have with an audience?
Rules for writing plays. My god. One hears young playwrights being told what a play must do, or how a play works. One hears writers being told that a characters journey isnt clear enough, or that the writer needs to determine a characters motivation. One hears how a play has to build in a certain way, or how the conflict isnt strong enough. These are terms that seem to suggest a deep understanding of what a play is and how it is put together, but in fact they tell us very little. Perhaps a particular play might be helped by one of these suggestions, but they (and other rules) are too generally prescribed. To see how silly this prescription is, one has only to ask: what is the clear motivation of Lear? The playwright doesnt write out of motivations but rather out of truth and reality, out of people and story and worlds he or she wishes or needs to create for us. These terms are perhaps useful to the critic, or the dramaturg in finding a way in for themselves to these plays; but such considerations are not how plays, good plays, great plays are made.
The word text. I may be crazy, but I think I just woke up one day and suddenly somehow people starting talking about the text instead of the play. How did this come about? Since when does a playwright only write words. Isnt that the hidden meaning of this? To make the playwright the word guy and leave the theater making to others? As if the writer was only a source from which words flowed that others made into plays.
As I tell my students endlessly - theater is the only artistic form that uses the entire live human being as its expression. Playwrights write people, not words. We write words to convey the people. To push us aside, to make us the text guy and not the play guy is a subtle but dangerous change in thinking and betrays a new mindset about the place of the playwright in the making of theater.
Step commissions. These are commissions - and this is pretty prevalent I believe - ?where the playwright is paid in say three stages. First when he agrees to the commission and signs the contract, 2nd payment when he submits the play, and 3rd payment when he submits the rewrite. Now what is wrong with this picture? What is the underlying assumption here? That the play the playwright submits will need to be rewritten and that the playwright will only do this rewrite only if he or she is paid for it.
Now as we all know the playwright still is the owner of the play, he or she owns the copyright. So - say you build a house and you own this house. And someone comes along and suggests that you add a window. Now if you agree and think this would improve your house a great deal you are going to add this window. However, suppose a guy comes along and says he thinks you should add a window and he will pay you to do so. To your own house! How bizarre. This guy must be thinking maybe you dont want to add a window and you need to be paid to do it. Well, that is very much what these step deals suggest - and once again insidiously we have the role of the playwright, or at least his judgment and understanding of his own play and what it needs doubted, questioned. In his mind hes thinking he is being paid to do what he doesnt necessarily want to do.
Heres one that will upset some of you. And the one that will take the longest to explain and discuss. The idea of participation. You should see my first year students faces when I explain what participation is. You mean, they say, that I give up a percentage of my play forever? Why? Because, I say, the theater has done your play. Why? They ask again. Because and I tell them the theaters will give you two reasons: they have enhanced the plays value by producing it in a important market and two, because the theaters have HELPED the writer with the writing of the play. Ah this HELP again, which may have been unwanted, now we have to pay for! How did this happen?
A little background that most of you know, Im sure. Participation has been around a long time in the commercial theater, but it is a fairly recent development, certainly as a pervasive practice, in the non-profit theater. And it just sort of happened. No real debate that I know of. Now who is to blame for this? Of course playwrights themselves need to accept a good bit of that blame, for not fighting this harder when it began to occur in non?profit contracts. But - and I would guess that those who now run the Dramatist Guild might even agree until very recently our Guild was pretty myopic, and saw theater only through the lens of Broadway where participation was a given. So there was no understanding of why it should be stopped in the non-profit theater. And so there was little if any serious debate or opposition. Only when Gregory Mosher and Bernie Gersten took over Lincoln Center and they refused to take any participation from new work was there even the glimmer of discussion. And certainly nothing like the praise that those two gentlemen deserved.
So it happened because no one fought it. The playwrights were too weak and disorganized to fight back and understand what was being done to them. So - I suppose its our fault. However, as we all know, thats not how the theater works, the serious theater works.
I remember an executive committee meeting many years ago at the Guthrie where I was working, when we were going over salary increases for the next season. When it came to the proposed raise for actors one new board member said, but I understand that there are always lots of actors who want to play each part. So why are we now going to pay actors more? We should pay them less and save that money. A few minutes later a couple of more experienced members of the board took this gentleman aside and explained. And what they explained is obvious to all of us in this room: we in the theater have a responsibility not just to our immediate bottom line, but to the future of our art and profession. You apply principles of hardnosed business to every element of the theater and you will destroy the theater. So yes, we playwrights did not protect or fight for ourselves. Yes, we should have. But that failure does not make us fair game.
We write our play, we own our play and we should continue to own our play - all of it, at least as long as we stay in the non-profit theater, which is a theater that raises its money often on claims of producing new writing.
Now only one argument about this has ever made sense to me: if a playwright has a huge hit, shouldnt some of that money come back to the theater and support other writers and other productions? And I have signed many contracts in England stating just this, that should I make a very large amount of money from the play during a given year, then a percentage is owed to the theater. That makes sense. That is responsible. But I have never seen an American theater contract with anything like that language. If theaters wont take it upon themselves to rectify this situation, if playwrights prove as a group too weak and unfocused, then I say lets turn to the funders themselves, the foundations and donors, and ask does this make sense to you, that healthy percentages of future incomes from plays presented in smallish theaters with small royalties, requiring months and months of work and involvement by the playwright - should these theaters now have a right to this? Should they now own part of the plays? And what signal does this send to the writer, especially the young ones?
These are a few - there are many more - specific examples of how this mindset toward the playwright has found its way into all reaches of the theater and therefore how difficult it will be to change.
Finally to conclude, as Im running out off time: EMPOWERMENT, that I suppose is what all this is about - allowing the playwright to feel that he or she owns the play, IN ALL MEANINGS OF THAT WORD. AND TO HAVE PRIDE IN THAT OWNERSHIP. Prescribing rules - this does the opposite. A culture with a mind set of help, does the same. The loss of a percentage of ones play - the same again. And so it is my hope and I believe my professions best hope to change this mindset and the culture based upon it. When I was asked to give this speech, I was told to speak about anything I wanted. I knew right away that this is what I wished to talk about with all of you. Because, it is my great belief and hope, that it will be from gatherings like these, gatherings of caring, dedicated theater professionals, lovers of theater, that we can change how we think, change the broken ways, and reinvigorate, even re-imagine our theater. Thank you.
Richard Nelson
Richard Nelsons plays include Conversations in Tusculum, Franks Home, How Shakespeare Won the West, Rodneys Wife, Frannys Way, Madame Melville, Goodnight Children Everywhere (Olivier Award, Best Play), The General from America, New England, Left, Mishas Party (with Alexander Gelman), Columbus and the Discovery of Japan, Two Shakespearean Actors (Tony Nomination, Best Play), Some Americans Abroad (Olivier Nomination, Best Comedy), Principia Scriptoriae. His musicals include James Joyces The Dead (with Shaun Davey, Tony Award for Best Book of a Musical), My Life with Albertine (with Ricky Ian Gordon), Paradise Lost (with Hal Prince and Ellen Fitzhugh). He has adapted and/or translated numerous classical and contemporary plays, including Chekhovs The Seagull, The Wood Demon, Three Sisters, Strindbergs Miss Julie, The Father, Goldonis Il Campiello, Beaumarchais The Marriage of Figaro, Pirandellos Enrico IV, Molieres Don Juan, Erdmans The Suicide, Fos Accidental Death of an Anarchist, and Jean-Claude Carrieres The Controversy of Valladolid. His work for film and television includes Ethan Frome (Miramax Films), Sensibility and Sense and The End of a Sentence (both American Playhouse). He has written numerous radio plays for the BBC. Mr. Nelson is an Honorary Associate Artist of the Royal Shakespeare Company, and a Professor (Adjunct) and Chair of the Department of Playwriting at The Yale School of Drama.
Comments: