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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
