As I previously mentioned, “Amadeus” was a play that I really enjoyed. I love historical fiction, 1) because it’s fascinating and 2) because it’s so difficult to pull off while simultaneously being original and true. I loved The Preface, otherwise known as the The Final Encounter by Peter Schaffer because he wrote honestly about his writing experience. It was fun to read because he was admitting/sharing his experiences revising- what we now have the joy of doing!
He began with stating his problem- that he needed a confrontation between the two men, but that they could not find an actual resolution. From there, Shaffer explained how he was going to go about revising. What I found as a kind of relief, was reading how many drafts Shaffer ‘designed,’ played out, and discarded! It was fascinating to me, and I’m sure that other people would agree- that many times the more drafts that we go through the more we feel like a failure along the way. It’s a frustrating experience, but while I was reading Shaffer’s ideas, various endings, and honest approaches it made me feel a lot better. I don’t know why exactly, I guess it just reminded me that revision is simply a necessary job and that it is hard for everyone!
Furthermore, it was an interesting approach for Shaffer to consider taking one of the many themes or characteristics from early on, not necessarily important, and allowing it to lead the ending.
Revision wise for my plays- Now, I’m actually kind of looking forward to it. One thing that I’ve learned about writing has been that, with whatever you write, given some time, new writing opportunities usually present themselves. Therefore I guess you could say that I’m looking forward to seeing if any new ideas are sparked when I try to revise my past works from the semester. I’m sure I’ll end up with pages like Shaffer, tons of different ideas and unused pages…
The only thing is that there are two plays/scenes that I wrote that I’m really unhappy with. These were my adaptation and character scripts. While I thought I had an interesting idea for each of them- neither seemed to pan out and there will be a lot of reworking/possibly even scratching involved in their revisions.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
ten minute plays- section II
BLOG-APRIL 2, 2009
I really don’t have that much to say about these readings. To be quite honest, while I still appreciated the idea of ten-minute plays and all that they accomplish in so little time, I thought these plays were really weird. The “Duet for Bear and Dog,” was my least favorite by far. Possibly, I just didn’t understand what the play was trying to tell me, but I think that I just honestly I just didn’t find the humor that entertaining. Furthermore, (and I’m sure on stage I would get a different impression) I had a hard time picturing the scene in my head.
“Aimee” was another play that when I read it I went ‘huh?’ However, while the premise of the play was odd, the writing was really interesting. On of the lines in particular made me appreciate the writing: “This is America. We do things differently here. You’ve got a perverse attachment to the decadent penchants of Old Europe, young lady. I’m tempted to classify her as an enemy.” This line is awesome because of the way it is spoken, its’ meaning, and the odd classification that it brings with it. I guess it also serves as a great example of the great writing. To me, this plays’ storyline was weak-but the silver lining was that I really enjoyed reading the writing itself.
The play that kept my interest relying on plot alone was “Anything for you.” This play, while slightly uncomfortable, was hilarious. While there weren’t any particular lines that I fell in love with, I found that in just a ten minute play, I was really attached to the characters by the end. “Oh Lynette and Gail!’ I would cry, ‘You two have got serious problems…yet, here I am laughing and worried about how you’re going to solve them!’
This play also helped me to find a balance with Tuesday’s plays. In Tuesday’s plays I had noticed some of the characters talking over each other- and I realized that that wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, in “Anything for you,” the characters did participate in the ‘call and response’ technique of speaking and it worked quite well. Overall I guess my point is that I appreciate being able to see both types in this ten-minute play category. Hopefully it will help me to decide how to write my characters in my own script.
I really don’t have that much to say about these readings. To be quite honest, while I still appreciated the idea of ten-minute plays and all that they accomplish in so little time, I thought these plays were really weird. The “Duet for Bear and Dog,” was my least favorite by far. Possibly, I just didn’t understand what the play was trying to tell me, but I think that I just honestly I just didn’t find the humor that entertaining. Furthermore, (and I’m sure on stage I would get a different impression) I had a hard time picturing the scene in my head.
“Aimee” was another play that when I read it I went ‘huh?’ However, while the premise of the play was odd, the writing was really interesting. On of the lines in particular made me appreciate the writing: “This is America. We do things differently here. You’ve got a perverse attachment to the decadent penchants of Old Europe, young lady. I’m tempted to classify her as an enemy.” This line is awesome because of the way it is spoken, its’ meaning, and the odd classification that it brings with it. I guess it also serves as a great example of the great writing. To me, this plays’ storyline was weak-but the silver lining was that I really enjoyed reading the writing itself.
The play that kept my interest relying on plot alone was “Anything for you.” This play, while slightly uncomfortable, was hilarious. While there weren’t any particular lines that I fell in love with, I found that in just a ten minute play, I was really attached to the characters by the end. “Oh Lynette and Gail!’ I would cry, ‘You two have got serious problems…yet, here I am laughing and worried about how you’re going to solve them!’
This play also helped me to find a balance with Tuesday’s plays. In Tuesday’s plays I had noticed some of the characters talking over each other- and I realized that that wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, in “Anything for you,” the characters did participate in the ‘call and response’ technique of speaking and it worked quite well. Overall I guess my point is that I appreciate being able to see both types in this ten-minute play category. Hopefully it will help me to decide how to write my characters in my own script.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
ten minute plays- section 1
Sorry this is late again- the internet at my house is terrible.
I think that out of all the readings that we’ve done, these have helped the most with my ideas regarding playwriting. For instance, I’ve had a lot trouble writing dialogue, and I think the reason for this is simply that I’m a very technical writer. It’s really difficult for me to go against the ‘call and response’ version of writing. Basically, it’s really hard for me to see/write a question, and have the fellow character ignore or disregard it. Ha. Actually, it’s probably coming partially from my personality too. If I were having a conversation and started asking question and the other person never responded, I would probably be annoyed and uncomfortable. It just feels rude and unnatural to me. I’ve realized that the problem with this is that it makes my dialogue forced and ‘manmade’- too unrealistic. We don’t talk technically, and our emotions are what drive our responses. These readings, “Bowl of Soup” in particular, really showed me that it is not only okay to have characters talk over each other, it ‘s a good thing! It actually makes the dialogue more humanized and accepted.
I suppose that I have always had trouble with the question ‘what is natural dialogue in real life’ and ‘what is natural dialogue on stage,’ and these readings helped me get one step further to answering that question.
I also really enjoyed the ending of “The Moonlight Rodeo.” The play itself was really interesting 1) because it dealt with such a heavy concept and 2) because it ends with the characters scratching their heads! I love that. I’ve never been sure if it’s okay to end with a question, or a lack of resolution so to speak, but I think that the author pulled it off nicely. In fact, I’m not sure I even really want to know the ending. Weird.
The idea of ten minute plays is terrifying because we’re supposed to do so much in so little time, but I guess I could say that the main thing I learned from reading these was that you don’t have to include everything. For me that’s not going to be easy, but I’m really going to try to rely more on hints than blunt statements from characters. Also, I’m going to try to write about one specific idea/thing. Seems like common sense looking at it now, but I know that I have trouble conveying my ideas and I’m sure a shorter play will only make it harder for me. We’ll see how it goes!
I think that out of all the readings that we’ve done, these have helped the most with my ideas regarding playwriting. For instance, I’ve had a lot trouble writing dialogue, and I think the reason for this is simply that I’m a very technical writer. It’s really difficult for me to go against the ‘call and response’ version of writing. Basically, it’s really hard for me to see/write a question, and have the fellow character ignore or disregard it. Ha. Actually, it’s probably coming partially from my personality too. If I were having a conversation and started asking question and the other person never responded, I would probably be annoyed and uncomfortable. It just feels rude and unnatural to me. I’ve realized that the problem with this is that it makes my dialogue forced and ‘manmade’- too unrealistic. We don’t talk technically, and our emotions are what drive our responses. These readings, “Bowl of Soup” in particular, really showed me that it is not only okay to have characters talk over each other, it ‘s a good thing! It actually makes the dialogue more humanized and accepted.
I suppose that I have always had trouble with the question ‘what is natural dialogue in real life’ and ‘what is natural dialogue on stage,’ and these readings helped me get one step further to answering that question.
I also really enjoyed the ending of “The Moonlight Rodeo.” The play itself was really interesting 1) because it dealt with such a heavy concept and 2) because it ends with the characters scratching their heads! I love that. I’ve never been sure if it’s okay to end with a question, or a lack of resolution so to speak, but I think that the author pulled it off nicely. In fact, I’m not sure I even really want to know the ending. Weird.
The idea of ten minute plays is terrifying because we’re supposed to do so much in so little time, but I guess I could say that the main thing I learned from reading these was that you don’t have to include everything. For me that’s not going to be easy, but I’m really going to try to rely more on hints than blunt statements from characters. Also, I’m going to try to write about one specific idea/thing. Seems like common sense looking at it now, but I know that I have trouble conveying my ideas and I’m sure a shorter play will only make it harder for me. We’ll see how it goes!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Uncle Vanya
It’s always interesting to read a play and see it performed in around the same time period. For me, it really allowed my observations to connect to each other. I really enjoyed the character dynamics within the play, and the spin that was put on each of the character’s ‘stereotypes.’ Astrov’s character was fascinating because he had the likable, yet scoundrel like quality. Waffles was awesome because he acknowledged his foolishness or past embarrassments, (a tool which I tend to forget as a creative writer.) Not one of the characters was the same, yet they all dealt with one common theme: desire.
The performance at UPS was fantastic, though I did have a problem with sitting on stage with them. I applaud them for their creativity and the idea, I’m just not sure that it really worked in their favor. I was personally kind of uncomfortable with the fact that I was crammed in such a small space and so close to the actors. One of them would sit down right in front of me, I would get used to it, then something else would happen and I would have to get used to sitting directly behind yet another character. I guess I was just really uncomfortable being able to see so much. The entire idea of putting the audience on stage begs the question, “Is it good that the audience can see so much?” Is it a good thing that I could see the actors’ makeup? I don’t think that this question has a definite answer. Just because I didn’t enjoy being on stage with Uncle Vanya, there was an instance when I was studying abroad in London, that I experienced the same type of thing. A Mid Summer Nights’ Dream: we sat in the middle of the scene! It also made me uncomfortable, but at the same type it made me get into it even more. I think that the overall answer is simply that it depends how involved you want the audience to feel. With A Mid Summer Nights’ Dream, it was awesome having fairies jump around us, but with Uncle Vanya, I felt like I was disturbing the stage and characters, having my view blocked, and seeing just too much.
The performance at UPS was fantastic, though I did have a problem with sitting on stage with them. I applaud them for their creativity and the idea, I’m just not sure that it really worked in their favor. I was personally kind of uncomfortable with the fact that I was crammed in such a small space and so close to the actors. One of them would sit down right in front of me, I would get used to it, then something else would happen and I would have to get used to sitting directly behind yet another character. I guess I was just really uncomfortable being able to see so much. The entire idea of putting the audience on stage begs the question, “Is it good that the audience can see so much?” Is it a good thing that I could see the actors’ makeup? I don’t think that this question has a definite answer. Just because I didn’t enjoy being on stage with Uncle Vanya, there was an instance when I was studying abroad in London, that I experienced the same type of thing. A Mid Summer Nights’ Dream: we sat in the middle of the scene! It also made me uncomfortable, but at the same type it made me get into it even more. I think that the overall answer is simply that it depends how involved you want the audience to feel. With A Mid Summer Nights’ Dream, it was awesome having fairies jump around us, but with Uncle Vanya, I felt like I was disturbing the stage and characters, having my view blocked, and seeing just too much.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
amadeus
damnit. so i just wrote my entire blog and something made it all delete!
okay, so i guess i will just rehash what i wrote. sorry about that.
although i was really dreading having to read this play, i was pleasantly surprised within 15 minutes of picking up the script. the more i read, the more i got into it.
what i loved most about the script was the multitude of themes it used and alluded to. not only did it use classic themes such as good vs. evil, but it also dealt with the theme of god-given talent vs. a lack of natural skill. these themes were used to humanize the characters Saleiri and Mozart. i was able to relate to both characters on a human level. for instance, poor Saleiri had to deal with the fact that he was never noticed, alongside Mozart who was known as a skilled artist, but who to Saleiri lacked the passion and motivation that Saleiri believed he had.
on a different note- i have a theory that there are absolutely no original ideas left in the world. as a creative writing major, i know that all stories are somehow recycled, somehow adapted (feel free to argue with me if you disagree...)what makes for a great story, a classic story, is the spin that is placed on it- the conspiracy, the questions that it begs. as Amadeus is based on a historical figure, the readers/audience are consistantly asking themselves, 'is this true? how much of it is true? ect.' I kept asking, 'how was Mozart's relationship with fellow artists? why did he die the way he did?' the key to a great story is shown by the questions that it leaves with the audience. Shaffer is a master!
okay, so i guess i will just rehash what i wrote. sorry about that.
although i was really dreading having to read this play, i was pleasantly surprised within 15 minutes of picking up the script. the more i read, the more i got into it.
what i loved most about the script was the multitude of themes it used and alluded to. not only did it use classic themes such as good vs. evil, but it also dealt with the theme of god-given talent vs. a lack of natural skill. these themes were used to humanize the characters Saleiri and Mozart. i was able to relate to both characters on a human level. for instance, poor Saleiri had to deal with the fact that he was never noticed, alongside Mozart who was known as a skilled artist, but who to Saleiri lacked the passion and motivation that Saleiri believed he had.
on a different note- i have a theory that there are absolutely no original ideas left in the world. as a creative writing major, i know that all stories are somehow recycled, somehow adapted (feel free to argue with me if you disagree...)what makes for a great story, a classic story, is the spin that is placed on it- the conspiracy, the questions that it begs. as Amadeus is based on a historical figure, the readers/audience are consistantly asking themselves, 'is this true? how much of it is true? ect.' I kept asking, 'how was Mozart's relationship with fellow artists? why did he die the way he did?' the key to a great story is shown by the questions that it leaves with the audience. Shaffer is a master!
Monday, February 23, 2009
Eurydice
I think what I really enjoyed about this play was the fact that it was so absurd. It reminded me of one of our first days in class- when we discussed Broadway musicals and how they were so crazy. Why are we okay with this? Because the absurdity throughout is used to transport us into another world. Eurydice is a play that accomplished that for me.
I loved how Eurydice’s character is so human- in an 'unreal' story. For me, the characterization was the best part- the diction throughout kept me in love with the relationship between her and the men in her life, influencing the choices that she makes. For instance, in scene 15 when Eurydice and her father are talking about when he was little- I got as in to his story and tune as much as she did. Their interactions were refreshing.
Orpheus and Eurydices' relationship is really interesting- and in the context it's pretty evident that they're speaking two different languages. Cool idea on the writer's behalf for two lovers.
I loved how Eurydice’s character is so human- in an 'unreal' story. For me, the characterization was the best part- the diction throughout kept me in love with the relationship between her and the men in her life, influencing the choices that she makes. For instance, in scene 15 when Eurydice and her father are talking about when he was little- I got as in to his story and tune as much as she did. Their interactions were refreshing.
Orpheus and Eurydices' relationship is really interesting- and in the context it's pretty evident that they're speaking two different languages. Cool idea on the writer's behalf for two lovers.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Dialogue
So, to be completely honest- I'm not really sure what I learned about playwriting from reading these dialogues. I guess as a newbie to plays in general, dialogue is the one part of a play that everybody knows about already.
However, I did notice a few things- one of which being how differently actors are required to speak off of lines written for them, compared to how we speak every day. Just in the scene from Importance of Being Earnest, the first line asks"do you allude me...?"
Not once in my life has it occurred to me to pose a question like that.
Furthermore, I think that the humor in these scenes is well thought out and planned. As the majority of these scenes are based off of life experiences, I did spend my time wondering if they HAD happened- how would we have actually spoken it? And- is it a good thing that we strive to change the way that we talk in front of an audience or does it open up a larger question of our society? Now I know that if we did speak 'normally' in front of an audience it would probably be dead dull- but why do we listen to each other then? We must be saying something of interest. I know that I'm beginning to get a little off topic, but while I was reading these were a few of the questions I was asking myself.
I have to admit that while I chose a scene from Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, a favorite of mine- I enjoyed reading Below the Waist the most- absolutely bizarre and entertaining. Maybe that's a secret to writing dialogues...
However, I did notice a few things- one of which being how differently actors are required to speak off of lines written for them, compared to how we speak every day. Just in the scene from Importance of Being Earnest, the first line asks"do you allude me...?"
Not once in my life has it occurred to me to pose a question like that.
Furthermore, I think that the humor in these scenes is well thought out and planned. As the majority of these scenes are based off of life experiences, I did spend my time wondering if they HAD happened- how would we have actually spoken it? And- is it a good thing that we strive to change the way that we talk in front of an audience or does it open up a larger question of our society? Now I know that if we did speak 'normally' in front of an audience it would probably be dead dull- but why do we listen to each other then? We must be saying something of interest. I know that I'm beginning to get a little off topic, but while I was reading these were a few of the questions I was asking myself.
I have to admit that while I chose a scene from Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, a favorite of mine- I enjoyed reading Below the Waist the most- absolutely bizarre and entertaining. Maybe that's a secret to writing dialogues...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
