Revision is a funny thing. I don't know how I feel about it in the end -- it can take so many different forms. Of course I do it, and I am not against it, but how much should one revise? Also, how should we approach it?
Somewhat ironically, my writing is similar to my revision, and there is a very fine line that houses the best balance of guidance and ability to revise my work. What I mean is, if I'm too guided in my writing, usually it's not as good as I'd like. But if I'm just given a prompt and maybe one or two other ideas that are left vague-ish, then I can turn out something a lot better. Go too far and have no limitations, however, and I get annoyed at taking so long to get started, and inevitably am not up to snuff. And it's the same with revision: if I have too clear an idea at first, there's no room to expand on it; I can add a few lines here or there and maybe a scene most likely just there for character development, but nothing that truly adds to or does that "double-duty" for the play at all. If I started out with a more vague idea, however, I have much more room to play. I can decide where something else should go or that some part needs more build-up, etc., etc.
But at that point, when do I say stop? How do I discern when I am adding good stuff to the play and when I'm going overboard or straying away from the point? I think knowing your characters sets this guideline. If you start out with an idea and then can put very concrete characters in it, the writing will be relatively easy. For the most part, I think this is what Peter Schaffer was able to do in Amadeus. And while he did run in to a problem with the ending, he was trying to find the best theatrical one -- he knew the characters very well and was trying to fit them into something he could see in the play as he went back and examined different themes that had surfaced that would most fit the characters in a climax.
But still, in terms of the real world, where do we cut ourselves off? I get kind of annoyed with people who say a work is never truly finished, or the only reason it's not changing any more is that they got tired of changing it. For the most part, I would say being published is the cut-off point: you're good enough to get through an editor and have people buy/produce/whatever your writing -- that means it's good.
In a case like Schaffer's with Amadeus, though, I don't know... I mean, it was good, yes. But he had a clear idea of where he wanted to go, just not exactly how to get there. And people were willing to workshop it, so...
Who knows. I've never published anything, so I can't say if I'd want to work on something that long, OR come back after ten or twenty years and work on it again. What I'm trying to say is that "flaws" you see later in a play are fine, but if you have a purpose, say, a "director's (well, author's) cut" -- a new ending, a theme to bring more light to, whatever -- then I think those twenty years are acceptable.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Characters
Please bear with me, this is going to be a little long, but I'll love you forever if you go through with it, I promise. (Also, since it's kinda hard to tell, some of the words in the first half-ish of the post are hyperlinked, just so you guys'll have context if you want it. Just a head's up to mouse-over the underlined words!)
----------
So, I've been drawing, in various incarnations of my current style, since sixth grade. This eventually led me to develop a whole cast of characters, and along with them, a bunch of sporadic ideas for stories. I've always wanted to do a sort of serialized online comic or something, where multiple story arcs take place, but I'm a bit torn, because I want them to all have an overarching through-line connecting the entire plot. I don't know how to connect all the dots, though, or even what order to do so. Of course, this might end with practice, but I don't know... I just don't feel motivated enough with a concrete story to want to sit down and iron stuff like that out. Of course, I'm putting myself in a catch-22, because I'd be more inclined to draw out a ton of ideas I have if I were a better artist.
Anyway, here goes with all their information:
Alex N. -- The first character I created, simply because I started drawing and he was the basic prototype design that came to me first. He has the typical anime eyes and black spiky hair. It kinda looks like Gohan’s as an adult. Later on, when I was starting to flesh out my characters a bit more, I decided I wanted his last name to start with N, so I settled on "Neerah," but I don't really like that name any more... He kind of represents motivation to me, since he was my first character. In terms of personality, I can’t really decide if he’s headstrong and silent, or nice and a bit of a pushover… I don’t know if I want to polarize him that badly, either. I just know he’s supposed to be dependable.
Dave Rash -- My second character. His hairstyle went through a redesign phase a couple years back, mostly because I had stopped drawing for a few months, taught myself how to draw ears, and then couldn’t draw his old hairstyle any more when I tried, so I decided to create something new for him. I’m a little afraid it looks too alike one of my other character’s hairstyles, though… (Seth's.) But yeah -- I couldn’t draw ears when I first started out, so I originally designed every character’s hair to be hiding their ears. In “canon,” if I can even consider myself having one, he’s a "best friend" figure, and also something to work toward; sort of a “perpetually one step ahead” kind of person, even in height, looks, charisma; all that. Kind of a mish-mash of a bunch of different real friends’ personalities. His hair’s red.
Me -- I was the third character I designed. “I” have probably gone through the most iteration, mainly just because I’ve grown in real life. I first started out with spiky hair similar to what Alex has now, then I drew myself with really weird spiky/shaggy/long hair, then I decided I wanted my character to look better and more mature, and developed this sort of dreadlock-looking style that was pretty cool, but eventually just settled on the most realistic style of all my characters, my normal long hair, which changed in length according to when I got my hair drastically cut. I’ve drawn it from chin length to somewhere around chest length. I’ve never been able to draw facial hair, though, which has really pissed me off. So, ever since the summer after sophomore year in high school all the way ‘til now, “Jesse” has never had a soul patch nor a goatee. :(
Eddie Catana -- My “alter-ego;” basically an “ideal self,” if you’re into social psychology. Always better than me at whatever I can do, and can do the things I can’t. At first, kind of developed/portrayed as introspective and brooding to seem cool, though if I were to write something, I don’t know how much I’d keep that. Also, I just thought his name sounded cool; I didn’t mean to base it off the sword. I sort of “transform” into him at times, a-la Yu-Gi-Oh (for the nerds out there). The connection’s linked, so I can do it at will (and he can go back inside, as it were), and we are aware of each other; it's basically the "two consciousnesses in one body" thing, but with different looks. Weird and doesn’t work, I know. Haha (I also have ideas for stories where we become physically separated, but that’s neither here nor there) He has a love interest in my love interest’s potentially alternate form. (I’ll get to that. ^^.'') He has lighter hair than me; kind of ash-sand blonde, and at first it was a really weird shape that I thought was cool, but then I made him more normal/mysterious/brooding (or maybe I just changed it), which led to dreadlocks.
Sara Kadi -- The second real person I based a character after. I tried to draw her in my style, and I created a character for her when I started drawing because she was one of my best friends, and I intended on having her as one of the main characters in my ill-fated comic. (Which you can actually see on my deviantART account… Though I won’t speak as to the horrible jokes and writing and art and stuff.) She’s since kind of fallen out of use because I don’t see her, like, at all any more… :(
Seth -- Arguably, the real first character I ever "created." I started drawing because I liked Dragon Ball Z, and was originally trying to draw Goku, but since I sucked, I could never get him to look right, so I eventually took it in my own way and decided to make him my own character. I want his last name to start with an A, I think, but at first I chose “Alia,” and I don’t like it, because it’s the name of a character in the later part of the Mega Man X series of video games. The funniest thing is, I always drew him as a Super Saiyan at first, so I kind of had to “reverse engineer” his looks, if you will, when I finally started drawing him consistently to decide what his normal state looked like. In “canon,” he’s a teacher, probably of history, just because. He’s sort of a watchful eye over the cast of kids (keep in mind I started planning all this thinking in the present, so it’s all high school, though I still think about stories mostly in the present, so if I were to start something, I would probably have a few characters living together in a house or something), and a mentor of sorts when it comes to fighting, slash somewhat of a father-figure. (You know it has to have action in it. Haha) Keeping in the same line as DBZ, I’ve drawn him (and most of my other characters) as Super Saiyans, and usually painstakingly differentiating their hair between the different forms (Literally, every single one: Super Saiyan, Ultra Super Saiyan, Ultra Super Saiyan 2, Super Saiyan 2, and Super Saiyan 3. I haven’t designed many of my characters as Super Saiyan 3, though, just because I want them all to be distinct, and it’s difficult to draw all that hair. Super Saiyan 4’s out, because it looks weird.), which I find kind of hilarious, but still really fun, even now. Eventually, I made up a plot device in my canon that would allow them to turn Super Saiyan without it actually being plagiarism. Sometimes, they get armor because of it, too. Cool stuff. Hahaha
Crystal Morrow -- Really, actually, kind of an enigma of a character to me. Supposed to be my “perfect girl,” I guess (again with psych), but I find different things I like in different girls, so I still don’t know exactly how she embodies that. I guess maybe because I don’t know everything about her? As ridiculous as that sounds, I think that’s the truest thing I’ve come up with in relation to her character in a while. In canon, she’s supposed to advent by “transformation” similar to Eddie through whoever my love interest is. At first it was more complicated, in that she was linked to Sara, but Sara didn’t know it, and Crystal couldn’t actually trigger the transformation, and also didn’t know how to change back. When I thought more about it, I was wondering how I could have Sara go missing and Crystal show up for extended periods of time (because they couldn’t control it) and have no one think anything of it. I never ended up getting that far into planning that, though. I also wanted to have some kind of love triangle thing (Except, more complicated. Heh) going between Jesse, Eddie, Sara, and Crystal -- Eddie and Crystal would be in some sort of “mutual attraction” kind of weird relationship-thing because they understand a little bit about what each other are, then Sara is in love with Eddie, and Jesse’s in love with Crystal, and maybe starts to develop something for Sara, and then it all gets weird. I hope you can tell all of that has no grounds in real life. :P After a while, Crystal migrated to whoever I was dating at the time. (Of whom I've drawn a few.) After that, though, I think Crystal just kinda went on to become her own thing… Though I still do view her as a sort of “transformation coming from someone.” Kinda. I dunno.
Also, I’m constantly aware of and nervous about people not liking or having preconceived notions about the name “Crystal.” On one hand, I know people in real life with the name Crystal, but on the other, it just sounds like such a typical stripper name… And while she’s supposed to be attractive, I don’t want to have that associated with her. She’s supposed to seem more mature than me, I think. Ehheh
As for her name, I wanted it to start with M, so I originally used “Marius,” but I meant for that to be sort of a placeholder, because while I liked the name, it was a borrowed one; a friend of mine has a character by that name. I was running through the cemetery in Piedmont one practice in high school, and I started making a habit of checking all the gravestones with “M” names, and eventually saw one I liked: Morrow. That’s stuck for a few years, but I’m still kind of looking for that perfect one that strikes me. At a place my (college) team does work-outs, there’s a baseball field named after some “Minnitti” person or something, and I considered using that for a while, but I don’t think I will.
Her looks have also gone through slight phases, mostly with her hair. It used to be short and squareish, because I couldn’t draw, then it started taking on more girlish form, and has continued to, because she’s supposed to be sexy, and I have gotten a little better at drawing longer hair. (I thought it was ironic that I like long hair on girls, but my trademark "sex symbol" character had shoulder-length or shorter hair.) A trademark of hers is the front of her hair (she kinda has long bangs, I guess) are white, with a tuft at the top also white, and then reddish-brown hair.
Mark -- Originally based off a high school teammate, just coz I was around him so much. His character was around the advent of the ears. Heh. He’s now kind of departed from Ceraldi’s real-life character, because I don’t really plan on using him in any story, unless I embark on the idea of a semi-autobiographical comic, but… *Shrugs* Who knows. Anyway, because of that, his character model has mostly fallen out of use, except for the random doodle here or there. Still remains as a sort of antagonistic character. Ehheh
I almost forgot, there was actually almost a completely separate Mark; one I tried to create with a completely ridiculous hairstyle a really long time ago, because I had been drawing the same few people for a while, and wanted to branch out to include someone new. I think I tried to make him very anime-inspired; he had green hair. He was kinda beefy. He was supposed to be Dave’s brother, I think. Ironically, once my drawing skills improved, I tried to draw him after a long time (I never used him for anything, really), and I couldn’t do it, mainly because his hair was too weird.
Drew Kessler -- I've drawn a few of my friends (and like I said before, my classmates), but none with enough frequency where I get to the point that I’m able to draw him consistently and can consider him somewhat of a “recurring” character. I don’t really know where he’d fit into my action-oriented plot, but I also have no idea how I’d carry just these same characters through my autobiographical story and make it make sense or be in any way biographical. When dreaming up connections I could make with my characters and how I would portray their relationships, I was toying with the idea of making Drew and Alex brothers; I thought they looked kinda similar.
----------
…Whew! I realized after writing all this out that I actually, believe it or not, left out a character or two... Oh, well. :/
Kinda sad that I only have two female characters, yeah? I could go off on all the random ideas I have, too, but I never seem to get anywhere with them.
Please give me any and all feedback! Tell me what you think!
----------
So, I've been drawing, in various incarnations of my current style, since sixth grade. This eventually led me to develop a whole cast of characters, and along with them, a bunch of sporadic ideas for stories. I've always wanted to do a sort of serialized online comic or something, where multiple story arcs take place, but I'm a bit torn, because I want them to all have an overarching through-line connecting the entire plot. I don't know how to connect all the dots, though, or even what order to do so. Of course, this might end with practice, but I don't know... I just don't feel motivated enough with a concrete story to want to sit down and iron stuff like that out. Of course, I'm putting myself in a catch-22, because I'd be more inclined to draw out a ton of ideas I have if I were a better artist.
Anyway, here goes with all their information:
Alex N. -- The first character I created, simply because I started drawing and he was the basic prototype design that came to me first. He has the typical anime eyes and black spiky hair. It kinda looks like Gohan’s as an adult. Later on, when I was starting to flesh out my characters a bit more, I decided I wanted his last name to start with N, so I settled on "Neerah," but I don't really like that name any more... He kind of represents motivation to me, since he was my first character. In terms of personality, I can’t really decide if he’s headstrong and silent, or nice and a bit of a pushover… I don’t know if I want to polarize him that badly, either. I just know he’s supposed to be dependable.
Dave Rash -- My second character. His hairstyle went through a redesign phase a couple years back, mostly because I had stopped drawing for a few months, taught myself how to draw ears, and then couldn’t draw his old hairstyle any more when I tried, so I decided to create something new for him. I’m a little afraid it looks too alike one of my other character’s hairstyles, though… (Seth's.) But yeah -- I couldn’t draw ears when I first started out, so I originally designed every character’s hair to be hiding their ears. In “canon,” if I can even consider myself having one, he’s a "best friend" figure, and also something to work toward; sort of a “perpetually one step ahead” kind of person, even in height, looks, charisma; all that. Kind of a mish-mash of a bunch of different real friends’ personalities. His hair’s red.
Me -- I was the third character I designed. “I” have probably gone through the most iteration, mainly just because I’ve grown in real life. I first started out with spiky hair similar to what Alex has now, then I drew myself with really weird spiky/shaggy/long hair, then I decided I wanted my character to look better and more mature, and developed this sort of dreadlock-looking style that was pretty cool, but eventually just settled on the most realistic style of all my characters, my normal long hair, which changed in length according to when I got my hair drastically cut. I’ve drawn it from chin length to somewhere around chest length. I’ve never been able to draw facial hair, though, which has really pissed me off. So, ever since the summer after sophomore year in high school all the way ‘til now, “Jesse” has never had a soul patch nor a goatee. :(
Eddie Catana -- My “alter-ego;” basically an “ideal self,” if you’re into social psychology. Always better than me at whatever I can do, and can do the things I can’t. At first, kind of developed/portrayed as introspective and brooding to seem cool, though if I were to write something, I don’t know how much I’d keep that. Also, I just thought his name sounded cool; I didn’t mean to base it off the sword. I sort of “transform” into him at times, a-la Yu-Gi-Oh (for the nerds out there). The connection’s linked, so I can do it at will (and he can go back inside, as it were), and we are aware of each other; it's basically the "two consciousnesses in one body" thing, but with different looks. Weird and doesn’t work, I know. Haha (I also have ideas for stories where we become physically separated, but that’s neither here nor there) He has a love interest in my love interest’s potentially alternate form. (I’ll get to that. ^^.'') He has lighter hair than me; kind of ash-sand blonde, and at first it was a really weird shape that I thought was cool, but then I made him more normal/mysterious/brooding (or maybe I just changed it), which led to dreadlocks.
Sara Kadi -- The second real person I based a character after. I tried to draw her in my style, and I created a character for her when I started drawing because she was one of my best friends, and I intended on having her as one of the main characters in my ill-fated comic. (Which you can actually see on my deviantART account… Though I won’t speak as to the horrible jokes and writing and art and stuff.) She’s since kind of fallen out of use because I don’t see her, like, at all any more… :(
Seth -- Arguably, the real first character I ever "created." I started drawing because I liked Dragon Ball Z, and was originally trying to draw Goku, but since I sucked, I could never get him to look right, so I eventually took it in my own way and decided to make him my own character. I want his last name to start with an A, I think, but at first I chose “Alia,” and I don’t like it, because it’s the name of a character in the later part of the Mega Man X series of video games. The funniest thing is, I always drew him as a Super Saiyan at first, so I kind of had to “reverse engineer” his looks, if you will, when I finally started drawing him consistently to decide what his normal state looked like. In “canon,” he’s a teacher, probably of history, just because. He’s sort of a watchful eye over the cast of kids (keep in mind I started planning all this thinking in the present, so it’s all high school, though I still think about stories mostly in the present, so if I were to start something, I would probably have a few characters living together in a house or something), and a mentor of sorts when it comes to fighting, slash somewhat of a father-figure. (You know it has to have action in it. Haha) Keeping in the same line as DBZ, I’ve drawn him (and most of my other characters) as Super Saiyans, and usually painstakingly differentiating their hair between the different forms (Literally, every single one: Super Saiyan, Ultra Super Saiyan, Ultra Super Saiyan 2, Super Saiyan 2, and Super Saiyan 3. I haven’t designed many of my characters as Super Saiyan 3, though, just because I want them all to be distinct, and it’s difficult to draw all that hair. Super Saiyan 4’s out, because it looks weird.), which I find kind of hilarious, but still really fun, even now. Eventually, I made up a plot device in my canon that would allow them to turn Super Saiyan without it actually being plagiarism. Sometimes, they get armor because of it, too. Cool stuff. Hahaha
Crystal Morrow -- Really, actually, kind of an enigma of a character to me. Supposed to be my “perfect girl,” I guess (again with psych), but I find different things I like in different girls, so I still don’t know exactly how she embodies that. I guess maybe because I don’t know everything about her? As ridiculous as that sounds, I think that’s the truest thing I’ve come up with in relation to her character in a while. In canon, she’s supposed to advent by “transformation” similar to Eddie through whoever my love interest is. At first it was more complicated, in that she was linked to Sara, but Sara didn’t know it, and Crystal couldn’t actually trigger the transformation, and also didn’t know how to change back. When I thought more about it, I was wondering how I could have Sara go missing and Crystal show up for extended periods of time (because they couldn’t control it) and have no one think anything of it. I never ended up getting that far into planning that, though. I also wanted to have some kind of love triangle thing (Except, more complicated. Heh) going between Jesse, Eddie, Sara, and Crystal -- Eddie and Crystal would be in some sort of “mutual attraction” kind of weird relationship-thing because they understand a little bit about what each other are, then Sara is in love with Eddie, and Jesse’s in love with Crystal, and maybe starts to develop something for Sara, and then it all gets weird. I hope you can tell all of that has no grounds in real life. :P After a while, Crystal migrated to whoever I was dating at the time. (Of whom I've drawn a few.) After that, though, I think Crystal just kinda went on to become her own thing… Though I still do view her as a sort of “transformation coming from someone.” Kinda. I dunno.
Also, I’m constantly aware of and nervous about people not liking or having preconceived notions about the name “Crystal.” On one hand, I know people in real life with the name Crystal, but on the other, it just sounds like such a typical stripper name… And while she’s supposed to be attractive, I don’t want to have that associated with her. She’s supposed to seem more mature than me, I think. Ehheh
As for her name, I wanted it to start with M, so I originally used “Marius,” but I meant for that to be sort of a placeholder, because while I liked the name, it was a borrowed one; a friend of mine has a character by that name. I was running through the cemetery in Piedmont one practice in high school, and I started making a habit of checking all the gravestones with “M” names, and eventually saw one I liked: Morrow. That’s stuck for a few years, but I’m still kind of looking for that perfect one that strikes me. At a place my (college) team does work-outs, there’s a baseball field named after some “Minnitti” person or something, and I considered using that for a while, but I don’t think I will.
Her looks have also gone through slight phases, mostly with her hair. It used to be short and squareish, because I couldn’t draw, then it started taking on more girlish form, and has continued to, because she’s supposed to be sexy, and I have gotten a little better at drawing longer hair. (I thought it was ironic that I like long hair on girls, but my trademark "sex symbol" character had shoulder-length or shorter hair.) A trademark of hers is the front of her hair (she kinda has long bangs, I guess) are white, with a tuft at the top also white, and then reddish-brown hair.
Mark -- Originally based off a high school teammate, just coz I was around him so much. His character was around the advent of the ears. Heh. He’s now kind of departed from Ceraldi’s real-life character, because I don’t really plan on using him in any story, unless I embark on the idea of a semi-autobiographical comic, but… *Shrugs* Who knows. Anyway, because of that, his character model has mostly fallen out of use, except for the random doodle here or there. Still remains as a sort of antagonistic character. Ehheh
I almost forgot, there was actually almost a completely separate Mark; one I tried to create with a completely ridiculous hairstyle a really long time ago, because I had been drawing the same few people for a while, and wanted to branch out to include someone new. I think I tried to make him very anime-inspired; he had green hair. He was kinda beefy. He was supposed to be Dave’s brother, I think. Ironically, once my drawing skills improved, I tried to draw him after a long time (I never used him for anything, really), and I couldn’t do it, mainly because his hair was too weird.
Drew Kessler -- I've drawn a few of my friends (and like I said before, my classmates), but none with enough frequency where I get to the point that I’m able to draw him consistently and can consider him somewhat of a “recurring” character. I don’t really know where he’d fit into my action-oriented plot, but I also have no idea how I’d carry just these same characters through my autobiographical story and make it make sense or be in any way biographical. When dreaming up connections I could make with my characters and how I would portray their relationships, I was toying with the idea of making Drew and Alex brothers; I thought they looked kinda similar.
----------
…Whew! I realized after writing all this out that I actually, believe it or not, left out a character or two... Oh, well. :/
Kinda sad that I only have two female characters, yeah? I could go off on all the random ideas I have, too, but I never seem to get anywhere with them.
Please give me any and all feedback! Tell me what you think!
I Really Don't Hate Everything...
Or, "The Uncle Vanya Review."
...Sort of.
I'm not quite sure where to start. I might start skipping ahead of myself or jump around a bit, so I'm sorry if this post is a little disjointed.
I just realized how kind of depressed I am about my favorite -- not "genre" of play, but style, I guess? The slice of life. Because, I mean, isn't that what Uncle Vanya, and for that matter, most other Chekhov plays are? The idea that the thing I enjoy writing most could vanish with all other contemporaneous slosh that's not applicable to any other time period scares me. But why has Chekhov survived so well, then? I mean, I still like things to happen in my plays. And sure, stuff happens in Uncle Vanya, but... not much. I guess I kind of felt like there wasn't a very good reason for much of anything to happen there. What spurred everyone to be so discontent all of a sudden? Why didn't everyone realize Yelena is hot right off the bat? At the very least, I want an interesting catalyst. That's the biggest realization I've come to strictly in terms of writing, but I (of course) have no idea how I want to (more like "would") implement something like that.
...I respect Chekhov, I just don't know if I like him. And that's because I can't relate to the characters' situations; the Russian bourgeois is kind of an outdated class, or, at least, topic. So what am I supposed to do with that? How can I make sure that doesn't happen to MY characters?
Now I'm afraid my characters are just stereotypes. If you would all be so kind, please go critique my main character ideas -- I'll post them up after this blog.
As far as this production went, I liked that it was in the round overall, but sometimes my focus was pulled in weird ways. That was worth it, though, since it's so much easier to pick up emotions from closer in. I still had an issue with the emotions as they related to pace, though, and this is definitely a tricky thing with Chekhov: to prevent it from being boring, it needs to be done at a fast pace. But there still has to be time for the audience to become emotionally invested! I felt like they were racing through to see how quickly they could finish rather than let the heavy moments lie and gain any sort of weight. Where I found that especially to the point of just kind of hokeyness was with all the crying. I don't care if the actors aren't actually doing it; I can't cry on command, but everyone cried for like three seconds and then was over with it.
It just kept me more distanced from the characters than I wanted to be, is all. But how do you know what do to with that? How do you fix that as a writer? Chekhov apparently wasn't worried, what with his, like, five stage directions over his entire career. But was that just a product of being involved in the whole process? At CSSSA, when I was first trying out playwriting, I had way too many stage directions in there. My teacher even designed certain extra requirements for me to get me to pull them back. While some helped me write better leading dialogue for the characters, I originally had the directions in because I actually pictured myself directing the play I was writing. And when it gets boiled down, is specificity a bad thing? I mean, directors throw stage directions out the window all the time, right? So what's wrong with putting them all in, just so they're completely clear on the original intent?
Isn't it kinda like what happened with Sarah Ruhl's "five emotions in a second and a half" stage direction? I want to capture a mood, a feeling.
I suppose Chekhov does, too, but does starting out just wanting to convey that through a relationship or a peek into these peoeple's lives accomplish that completely? If their statuses are all stripped from them, or if they were in a different setting, would it be as good a play (provided it still made sense)?
I don't necessarily ever want to be in a Chekhov play... but do I want to write like him?! Augh! I'm realizing I haven't really thought about my writing on a large scale pretty much at all. Who would people compare me to? Would it be a good or bad thing?
...I'm getting way too ahead of myself, aren't I. I haven't even written a complete full-length play yet, and I have no idea how to cohere all my ideas for any specific project.
Balls.
This isn't even a review! I barely talked about Vanya at all. Sorry. :P
In conclusion?
I got a new tablet for my birthday.
...Sort of.
I'm not quite sure where to start. I might start skipping ahead of myself or jump around a bit, so I'm sorry if this post is a little disjointed.
I just realized how kind of depressed I am about my favorite -- not "genre" of play, but style, I guess? The slice of life. Because, I mean, isn't that what Uncle Vanya, and for that matter, most other Chekhov plays are? The idea that the thing I enjoy writing most could vanish with all other contemporaneous slosh that's not applicable to any other time period scares me. But why has Chekhov survived so well, then? I mean, I still like things to happen in my plays. And sure, stuff happens in Uncle Vanya, but... not much. I guess I kind of felt like there wasn't a very good reason for much of anything to happen there. What spurred everyone to be so discontent all of a sudden? Why didn't everyone realize Yelena is hot right off the bat? At the very least, I want an interesting catalyst. That's the biggest realization I've come to strictly in terms of writing, but I (of course) have no idea how I want to (more like "would") implement something like that.
...I respect Chekhov, I just don't know if I like him. And that's because I can't relate to the characters' situations; the Russian bourgeois is kind of an outdated class, or, at least, topic. So what am I supposed to do with that? How can I make sure that doesn't happen to MY characters?
Now I'm afraid my characters are just stereotypes. If you would all be so kind, please go critique my main character ideas -- I'll post them up after this blog.
As far as this production went, I liked that it was in the round overall, but sometimes my focus was pulled in weird ways. That was worth it, though, since it's so much easier to pick up emotions from closer in. I still had an issue with the emotions as they related to pace, though, and this is definitely a tricky thing with Chekhov: to prevent it from being boring, it needs to be done at a fast pace. But there still has to be time for the audience to become emotionally invested! I felt like they were racing through to see how quickly they could finish rather than let the heavy moments lie and gain any sort of weight. Where I found that especially to the point of just kind of hokeyness was with all the crying. I don't care if the actors aren't actually doing it; I can't cry on command, but everyone cried for like three seconds and then was over with it.
It just kept me more distanced from the characters than I wanted to be, is all. But how do you know what do to with that? How do you fix that as a writer? Chekhov apparently wasn't worried, what with his, like, five stage directions over his entire career. But was that just a product of being involved in the whole process? At CSSSA, when I was first trying out playwriting, I had way too many stage directions in there. My teacher even designed certain extra requirements for me to get me to pull them back. While some helped me write better leading dialogue for the characters, I originally had the directions in because I actually pictured myself directing the play I was writing. And when it gets boiled down, is specificity a bad thing? I mean, directors throw stage directions out the window all the time, right? So what's wrong with putting them all in, just so they're completely clear on the original intent?
Isn't it kinda like what happened with Sarah Ruhl's "five emotions in a second and a half" stage direction? I want to capture a mood, a feeling.
I suppose Chekhov does, too, but does starting out just wanting to convey that through a relationship or a peek into these peoeple's lives accomplish that completely? If their statuses are all stripped from them, or if they were in a different setting, would it be as good a play (provided it still made sense)?
I don't necessarily ever want to be in a Chekhov play... but do I want to write like him?! Augh! I'm realizing I haven't really thought about my writing on a large scale pretty much at all. Who would people compare me to? Would it be a good or bad thing?
...I'm getting way too ahead of myself, aren't I. I haven't even written a complete full-length play yet, and I have no idea how to cohere all my ideas for any specific project.
Balls.
This isn't even a review! I barely talked about Vanya at all. Sorry. :P
In conclusion?
I got a new tablet for my birthday.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
ADAPTATION?!
Looking at Eurydice through the eyes of intention to adapt shows me glaringly how some things are just too far departed from the stage to be effective, or to really retain their original feeling or meaning. I dunno, it just doesn't seem to have enough substance. The story is so matter-of-fact in its telling; there's really no narrative at all.
I kinda feel like Sarah Ruhl is using Eurydice as a vessel for something that departs from the original feeling of the story, but at the same time, does have some pertinence. It's fun to explore other sides of lesser characters, but can we gather that the character(s) in question were really meant to be anything more than stock, or a representation of a single idea, and more or less forgotten about afterward? The idea she brings up, that her writing more about Eurydice was a way to have a conversation with her father, who died young, comes at a very weird time in my life... I am sympathetic to catharsis, but making something weirdly out of place (i.e. 1950's swimming outfits, just for starters) still irks me no matter what. >:/
I mean, essentially, there's no real basis for the main characters' interactions. Yes, we know they fell in love and were going to get married, and there was most likely a road that led down that path that had to be travelled, but I'm just looking for reasoning, you know?
Contemporary remakes or books adapted into movies tend to work because they're capturing the same feeling of something; they're going for the same audience and not really changing the "goal" or message of the piece. Maybe that's the inherently tricky thing in bringing a piece into a contemporary setting (or, remaking it, as it were) -- you have to be careful what happens to the message and the emotions, and the way the characters help portray that.
Maybe I'm too literalistic to adapt something old? (Maybe I need to find something old that I like first? :P)
An adaptation is supposed to have some different artistic merit. A remake is supposed to faithfully reproduce something with contemporary flair to appeal to a contemporary audience. I think Eurydice gets stuck between these two notions, and suffers from indecision on a "goal" for the piece.
Something else I attempted to play around with and still need work on is non-sequiturs. Seeing those in Eurydice reminds me of this, because it ruins the flow of conversation, and kind of, I am now realizing, detracts from what we're actually supposed to be paying attention to.
For one piece in particular I've revised so much to still have all these faults both makes me happy and frustrates me, because I definitely learned a lot from having not only new and different eyes on the piece, but good ones, but it also just makes me feel kinda helpless. Like, I've been concentrating on this (on and off) for so long, and thought I had it so air-tight... Only to find something that should have been obvious: it has my Kryptonite written all over it -- it's esoteric; of course I know what's going on, I've been developing and working with the characters for four years, for Chris'sakes, but that doesn't mean other people have, or give a crap, for that matter.
God dammit.
...Even though it doesn't fit the characters, I like the dialogue. Maybe that shows how mine has the potential to say absolutely nothing? Haha, I mean that in a purely "Seinfeldian" way, of course... They don't seem to be saying much, but are actually developing their characters consistently, and by doing so, have a through-line of plot woven in between them.
I think? Kind of? Right? Does that make any sense?
"I'll race you?"
*Sighs*
Okay, so picking up mid-way through: Usually, I write as though I plan on directing, which means lots of parentheses and italics. :P But I can be fairly general or just leading, and sometimes I challenge myself with how much I can leave out and/or leave to dialogue. But something like "He is affectionate, then solemn, then glad, then solemn, then amused, then solemn." What the hell? Even I'm not that bad -- c'mon, how is someone supposed to act that? Unless you're trying to be goofy, that would take... well, a while, okay? Right?
So, I think I'm totally insecure when it comes to playwriting, even though it's my favorite medium. I found that out at CSSSA, but I thought everyone's work was so much better or more creative than mine... Is that because I was always trying to "write what I know?" Because that doesn't work for me -- and it's taken me until this class to realize that, and the only REASON I realized it is because I was told. That really depresses me. I look back on all my stuff and I know it would only be any good at all or only work or make any sense if I made it as a movie. Most things I write are too impractical or grandiose for the stage. I hate that, and I don't know how to overcome it.
Just like this, actually:
Also, weird, random, seemingly throw-away lines completely change what we know Orpheus' and Eurydice's relationship to be, like when she and the Man are talking about Orpheus, and she says he's a famous musician, then changes the subject when he doesn't hear her. That makes it seem like she's uninterested or doesn't care. Is Ruhl (The author, remember her? I didn't -- I had to scroll up and look at what I typed.) trying to eff with our perception of Orpheus, is she trying to make him some sort of cuckold in a weird sense? Like, "Oh man, he cares about her so much, but then he looked back, that sucks! Oh, but she doesn't really care that much, so sucks to be him."
...I really don't think that was the original intention of the myth.
It seems like "intention" really needs to be focused on more. Yes: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WHAT YOU ARE WRITING? Are you trying to say something? Are you trying to make your writing pretty? Slice of life? Say you hate your parents? Trying to get some indie/artsy pretentious chick to notice you? WRITE WITH A PURPOSE. That, at the very least, gives some basic starting point that can lead somewhere.
AND! (Can you tell I'm reading this as I go along in the post? I'm sorry.) Tripping is somewhat -- *ahem* -- less elegant than tragically getting bitten by a snake. Ugh.
Also, this is somewhat of a personal aside of sorts, but creating characters out of inanimate objects. That means some poor soul has to BE those inanimate objects. A number of people in my high school acting class had to be trees. People don't want to go through that. Please. Put meaning into your characters, not randomness. I know she went on about the whole thing with the rocks crying and it was such a great emotion, but HINT! Rocks don't actually cry. But guess what, you're in luck! People cry. :P
I dunno. The idea of any kind of chorus in general now is fairly outdated, isn't it? It's almost contrived.
Now, see, the mood of the myth fits fantastically with a poem. It's definitely better told by Rainier Maria Rilke than it was in that part at the beginning of the packet from that anthology or whatever. That thing wasn't engaging at all. It just "told" us everything, which makes the reader spend a long time developing a mental image. The point of epic narrative is to paint an epic picture!
(Also, can I point out that there's a character named Hymen? I am amused.)
But yeah: "She fled, and in flying trod upon a snake in the grass, was bitten in the foot, and died."
...Oh, okay. WHY?!
I guess what I'm aching for in that particular instance in any way, shape, or form, which the poem delivers, is elegance.
But! We're not writing poems. We have plays to work with, and that means we have to find the elegance of the spoken word -- not unlike that particular vein of poetry.
Damn, that connection in itself was poetic. Haha
Seriously though, worrying about voice and cadence, character, and all that, then adding plot? Kind of makes me want to have a heart attack. I guess translating someone else's work on all that can be difficult, too; if not for transition of medium, for consistency of tone/emotion/character/etc.
But therein also lies the joy of playwriting -- woe is us. ;P
(P.S., I'm sorry this was so long, I know I got kinda sidetracked... I love you for reading all the way through!)
I kinda feel like Sarah Ruhl is using Eurydice as a vessel for something that departs from the original feeling of the story, but at the same time, does have some pertinence. It's fun to explore other sides of lesser characters, but can we gather that the character(s) in question were really meant to be anything more than stock, or a representation of a single idea, and more or less forgotten about afterward? The idea she brings up, that her writing more about Eurydice was a way to have a conversation with her father, who died young, comes at a very weird time in my life... I am sympathetic to catharsis, but making something weirdly out of place (i.e. 1950's swimming outfits, just for starters) still irks me no matter what. >:/
I mean, essentially, there's no real basis for the main characters' interactions. Yes, we know they fell in love and were going to get married, and there was most likely a road that led down that path that had to be travelled, but I'm just looking for reasoning, you know?
Contemporary remakes or books adapted into movies tend to work because they're capturing the same feeling of something; they're going for the same audience and not really changing the "goal" or message of the piece. Maybe that's the inherently tricky thing in bringing a piece into a contemporary setting (or, remaking it, as it were) -- you have to be careful what happens to the message and the emotions, and the way the characters help portray that.
Maybe I'm too literalistic to adapt something old? (Maybe I need to find something old that I like first? :P)
An adaptation is supposed to have some different artistic merit. A remake is supposed to faithfully reproduce something with contemporary flair to appeal to a contemporary audience. I think Eurydice gets stuck between these two notions, and suffers from indecision on a "goal" for the piece.
Something else I attempted to play around with and still need work on is non-sequiturs. Seeing those in Eurydice reminds me of this, because it ruins the flow of conversation, and kind of, I am now realizing, detracts from what we're actually supposed to be paying attention to.
For one piece in particular I've revised so much to still have all these faults both makes me happy and frustrates me, because I definitely learned a lot from having not only new and different eyes on the piece, but good ones, but it also just makes me feel kinda helpless. Like, I've been concentrating on this (on and off) for so long, and thought I had it so air-tight... Only to find something that should have been obvious: it has my Kryptonite written all over it -- it's esoteric; of course I know what's going on, I've been developing and working with the characters for four years, for Chris'sakes, but that doesn't mean other people have, or give a crap, for that matter.
God dammit.
...Even though it doesn't fit the characters, I like the dialogue. Maybe that shows how mine has the potential to say absolutely nothing? Haha, I mean that in a purely "Seinfeldian" way, of course... They don't seem to be saying much, but are actually developing their characters consistently, and by doing so, have a through-line of plot woven in between them.
I think? Kind of? Right? Does that make any sense?
"I'll race you?"
*Sighs*
Okay, so picking up mid-way through: Usually, I write as though I plan on directing, which means lots of parentheses and italics. :P But I can be fairly general or just leading, and sometimes I challenge myself with how much I can leave out and/or leave to dialogue. But something like "He is affectionate, then solemn, then glad, then solemn, then amused, then solemn." What the hell? Even I'm not that bad -- c'mon, how is someone supposed to act that? Unless you're trying to be goofy, that would take... well, a while, okay? Right?
So, I think I'm totally insecure when it comes to playwriting, even though it's my favorite medium. I found that out at CSSSA, but I thought everyone's work was so much better or more creative than mine... Is that because I was always trying to "write what I know?" Because that doesn't work for me -- and it's taken me until this class to realize that, and the only REASON I realized it is because I was told. That really depresses me. I look back on all my stuff and I know it would only be any good at all or only work or make any sense if I made it as a movie. Most things I write are too impractical or grandiose for the stage. I hate that, and I don't know how to overcome it.
Just like this, actually:
SCENE 6Aaaaare youuuu ssserious.
ORPHEUS, from the water pump.
ORPHEUS: Eurydice?
Eurydice!
SCENE 7...
Also, weird, random, seemingly throw-away lines completely change what we know Orpheus' and Eurydice's relationship to be, like when she and the Man are talking about Orpheus, and she says he's a famous musician, then changes the subject when he doesn't hear her. That makes it seem like she's uninterested or doesn't care. Is Ruhl (The author, remember her? I didn't -- I had to scroll up and look at what I typed.) trying to eff with our perception of Orpheus, is she trying to make him some sort of cuckold in a weird sense? Like, "Oh man, he cares about her so much, but then he looked back, that sucks! Oh, but she doesn't really care that much, so sucks to be him."
...I really don't think that was the original intention of the myth.
It seems like "intention" really needs to be focused on more. Yes: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WHAT YOU ARE WRITING? Are you trying to say something? Are you trying to make your writing pretty? Slice of life? Say you hate your parents? Trying to get some indie/artsy pretentious chick to notice you? WRITE WITH A PURPOSE. That, at the very least, gives some basic starting point that can lead somewhere.
AND! (Can you tell I'm reading this as I go along in the post? I'm sorry.) Tripping is somewhat -- *ahem* -- less elegant than tragically getting bitten by a snake. Ugh.
Also, this is somewhat of a personal aside of sorts, but creating characters out of inanimate objects. That means some poor soul has to BE those inanimate objects. A number of people in my high school acting class had to be trees. People don't want to go through that. Please. Put meaning into your characters, not randomness. I know she went on about the whole thing with the rocks crying and it was such a great emotion, but HINT! Rocks don't actually cry. But guess what, you're in luck! People cry. :P
I dunno. The idea of any kind of chorus in general now is fairly outdated, isn't it? It's almost contrived.
Now, see, the mood of the myth fits fantastically with a poem. It's definitely better told by Rainier Maria Rilke than it was in that part at the beginning of the packet from that anthology or whatever. That thing wasn't engaging at all. It just "told" us everything, which makes the reader spend a long time developing a mental image. The point of epic narrative is to paint an epic picture!
(Also, can I point out that there's a character named Hymen? I am amused.)
But yeah: "She fled, and in flying trod upon a snake in the grass, was bitten in the foot, and died."
...Oh, okay. WHY?!
I guess what I'm aching for in that particular instance in any way, shape, or form, which the poem delivers, is elegance.
But! We're not writing poems. We have plays to work with, and that means we have to find the elegance of the spoken word -- not unlike that particular vein of poetry.
Damn, that connection in itself was poetic. Haha
Seriously though, worrying about voice and cadence, character, and all that, then adding plot? Kind of makes me want to have a heart attack. I guess translating someone else's work on all that can be difficult, too; if not for transition of medium, for consistency of tone/emotion/character/etc.
But therein also lies the joy of playwriting -- woe is us. ;P
(P.S., I'm sorry this was so long, I know I got kinda sidetracked... I love you for reading all the way through!)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Talkin'
So, I like dialogue. Too much, I think. Haha
When I look back on the first (and, well, the only, for now) full-length play I tried to write, I realize that I was way too focused on the characters just being able to talk to each other and act natural that I kinda... forgot to really have anything substantial happen for, like, an entire act.
(I'm awesome, I know.)
I think I'll go through our dialogue selections piece by piece. This is probably a "digging my grave" warning, but I'm sorry if I offend anyone because I don't like the dialogue you chose. I assure you, it's not you; it's me.
Anyway:
Below the Waist, by Maura Campbell: Shows really good comedic elements, I thought sort of reminiscent of David Ives, in that "don't listen, just talk" sense. That kind of humor, if you keep the characters off in their own worlds, if done right, can be absolutely hilarious. It kinda limits you to just comedy or... Chekhov. (i.e., Cherry Orchard. Haha)
Boy Gets Girl, by Rebecca Gilman: I really liked this dialogue. It's the style or the feel from the characters I strive to achieve -- it's so natural and contemporary, which shows relationships and personality very well.
Closer, by Patrick Marber: So little can convey so much. Monologues, though useful, can sometimes be completely unnecessary, and are (as we discussed) kind of fading out of contemporary plays. This play shows you why that might be happening; the sparse dialogue makes every word that much more poignant and important. However, in my reading of it, I felt it definitely needed a complete context (like, reading it from beginning to end) or to be seen in performance to really understand it. Ehheh
It had great drama, though. It elicits a huge amount of empathy; it's easy to relate to.
Ohhh, David Ives. I love you. Philadelphia isn't one of my favorites, though. It's just weird, it doesn't go anywhere, and frankly, I don't find it quite as funny as most of his other stuff. Same as with that Doppelganger play or whatever.
A Streetcar Named Desire, by Tennessee Williams: I think this is where I go into "Jesse Mode." Not completely; I do like some of Williams' stuff (I put on almost the entirety of Sweet Bird of Youth for my giant Theater 210 project last semester), but this really just doesn't do it for me. I think I'd have to see it to appreciate it, if anything at all. The characters are very clear through the dialogue; they all have distinct voices, but that kinda seems to be the play's only draw for me.
Plaza Suite, by Neil Simon: Quick pacing is the best. A very well-rehearsed, witty scene just oozes ballerifficness. Also, I love sarcasm. ;P Seriously -- it lends itself to tons of emotion, and in this particular case, detail, as well. It's all about layers! This is definitely something you'd have to see a couple times or read and see it or what-have-you to get everything out of it.
(See? YES! I justified being a snarky a-hole!)
Much Ado: Haha, such a famous scene. I remember studying it in Intro to Shakespeare last year. :) (Which... isn't to say I really remember much about that particular discussion. Sorry, Laurie. ^^.'') Anyway, yeah -- very witty. Very literary. Meanings upon meanings and so many symbols/metaphors/etc. It reminds me I need to work on subtext. I'm really not very good at subtlety. I'm either normal/blunt, or so subtle that I may as well be writing my own esoteric inner-monologue. (Check the / writing / on / my deviantART account for proof of that. Heh)
The Beauty Queen of Leenane, by Martin McDonagh: Ehhh... The accent overtook it. The writing doesn't do anything for me.
The Importance of Being Earnest, by Oscar Wilde is soooooo pretentious and ridiculous.
Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet
http://beautifuloblivion.deviantart.com/art/hamlet-64721370
http://sana-sama.deviantart.com/art/Hamlet-42661699
http://tidah.deviantart.com/art/Hamlet-29265971 (SPOILER: Reads from right to left, like the nerdy Wasian that I am.)
----------
...I dunno, is anyone gonna be able to make any sort of comment in response to that? I'm sorry, you guys. XD
When I look back on the first (and, well, the only, for now) full-length play I tried to write, I realize that I was way too focused on the characters just being able to talk to each other and act natural that I kinda... forgot to really have anything substantial happen for, like, an entire act.
(I'm awesome, I know.)
I think I'll go through our dialogue selections piece by piece. This is probably a "digging my grave" warning, but I'm sorry if I offend anyone because I don't like the dialogue you chose. I assure you, it's not you; it's me.
Anyway:
Below the Waist, by Maura Campbell: Shows really good comedic elements, I thought sort of reminiscent of David Ives, in that "don't listen, just talk" sense. That kind of humor, if you keep the characters off in their own worlds, if done right, can be absolutely hilarious. It kinda limits you to just comedy or... Chekhov. (i.e., Cherry Orchard. Haha)
Boy Gets Girl, by Rebecca Gilman: I really liked this dialogue. It's the style or the feel from the characters I strive to achieve -- it's so natural and contemporary, which shows relationships and personality very well.
Closer, by Patrick Marber: So little can convey so much. Monologues, though useful, can sometimes be completely unnecessary, and are (as we discussed) kind of fading out of contemporary plays. This play shows you why that might be happening; the sparse dialogue makes every word that much more poignant and important. However, in my reading of it, I felt it definitely needed a complete context (like, reading it from beginning to end) or to be seen in performance to really understand it. Ehheh
It had great drama, though. It elicits a huge amount of empathy; it's easy to relate to.
Ohhh, David Ives. I love you. Philadelphia isn't one of my favorites, though. It's just weird, it doesn't go anywhere, and frankly, I don't find it quite as funny as most of his other stuff. Same as with that Doppelganger play or whatever.
A Streetcar Named Desire, by Tennessee Williams: I think this is where I go into "Jesse Mode." Not completely; I do like some of Williams' stuff (I put on almost the entirety of Sweet Bird of Youth for my giant Theater 210 project last semester), but this really just doesn't do it for me. I think I'd have to see it to appreciate it, if anything at all. The characters are very clear through the dialogue; they all have distinct voices, but that kinda seems to be the play's only draw for me.
Plaza Suite, by Neil Simon: Quick pacing is the best. A very well-rehearsed, witty scene just oozes ballerifficness. Also, I love sarcasm. ;P Seriously -- it lends itself to tons of emotion, and in this particular case, detail, as well. It's all about layers! This is definitely something you'd have to see a couple times or read and see it or what-have-you to get everything out of it.
(See? YES! I justified being a snarky a-hole!)
Much Ado: Haha, such a famous scene. I remember studying it in Intro to Shakespeare last year. :) (Which... isn't to say I really remember much about that particular discussion. Sorry, Laurie. ^^.'') Anyway, yeah -- very witty. Very literary. Meanings upon meanings and so many symbols/metaphors/etc. It reminds me I need to work on subtext. I'm really not very good at subtlety. I'm either normal/blunt, or so subtle that I may as well be writing my own esoteric inner-monologue. (Check the / writing / on / my deviantART account for proof of that. Heh)
The Beauty Queen of Leenane, by Martin McDonagh: Ehhh... The accent overtook it. The writing doesn't do anything for me.
The Importance of Being Earnest, by Oscar Wilde is soooooo pretentious and ridiculous.
Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet
http://beautifuloblivion.deviantart.com/art/hamlet-64721370
http://sana-sama.deviantart.com/art/Hamlet-42661699
http://tidah.deviantart.com/art/Hamlet-29265971 (SPOILER: Reads from right to left, like the nerdy Wasian that I am.)
----------
...I dunno, is anyone gonna be able to make any sort of comment in response to that? I'm sorry, you guys. XD
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
MONOLOGUES! (And Writing Them)
Reading each play was a bit of a weird experience for me. "Ironic" isn't quite the right word, but I think it's close to the kind of sense I got.
I read The New Orleans Monologues first, and it really showed me what I do in my own writing (or, what I did the last time I tried to write a play) -- too much character development. That's not to say that the plays had too much, it's just that's the major thing they're all really good at portraying. It seems like it's easier to get into a character when it's just a monologue rather than a play. (Uh-oh, now look at me, I'm already saying "just" a monologue...)
You know, sometimes, with a play, you can feel like you're really there. Or, at least, that you could have been. With the monologue-formatted story (Okay, it's time for me to hit "copy" on monologue so I don't keep having to re-type it.), you get a lot of emotion, and it can be powerful, but it doesn't feel like it quite... means as much? I guess what I'm trying to say is while monologues are nice, I'm trying to boil it down to that whole "show, don't tell" mantra -- all the monologues are doing is telling you. In that sense, it's almost better to read the plays than to see them, because then you can make sure you get the most out of the story (even if you lack some of the emotion that might be present in a performance), which is the overarching feeling I got out of The Laramie Project's excerpts.
Who knows; I might just think this way because I haven't seen either of the former performed ever.
And now, I get to show you how un-cultured I am. :P I've only seen The Vagina Monologues here, and I was going to say it ruined it for me (Still not a good performance, though. You can't cast EVERYONE. One monologue should not be split up between five people. I mean, people make memorizing easier by cutting down lines, but this is ridiculous; everyone only says, like, two sentences.), but after reading it, I really can honestly say I just don't want to read about puffy vaginas, I don't want to imagine that obnoxious Jewish Queens accent (because I always think of that woman on Seinfeld that always says "You gotta see the bay-bee!"), and I don't want to hear about a "connoisseur" of vaginas. Don't get me wrong, I like vaginas, but I don't need to, like...
...Never mind. All I'm saying is, sure, writing's fine, but to have something just for the sake of having it and trying to make people uncomfortable and then be all, "Oh, but it's so great! Embrace weirdness/yourself/vaginas/it's a social experiment!" and all that crap is just annoying.
But, okay, yeah, writing. I feel like I've been fairly critical, but I do have a lot of respect for monologues. They're hard as hell to write. I've only really ever written one that I've liked, and that was luck-of-the-moment inspiration. From an acting standpoint, though, they're not *that* tough, I just suck at memorization, so they're a bit difficult for me, at first. :P
And, these plays are not necessarily bad plays, by any means. They're good. I think I would like NOM, and be blown away by LP, if it were done right. I liked the consistent narrator in NOM, but the other characters seemed a bit out of place at times. LP was certainly more polished with all its' characters, but that could also be attributed to our copy of the former being a draft script.
So, what did we learn, kids? I liked the narration, I really like the character development (I'm a big fan of that, sometimes too big. Haha), monologues are indeed impressive and hard to write, but... Not my thing. I want dialogue to do all the work for me, yes, and all these plays gave me a really good window into natural language, but this format probably isn't for me.
ADDENDUM:
EDIT: I added annotations to the video. Heh
I read The New Orleans Monologues first, and it really showed me what I do in my own writing (or, what I did the last time I tried to write a play) -- too much character development. That's not to say that the plays had too much, it's just that's the major thing they're all really good at portraying. It seems like it's easier to get into a character when it's just a monologue rather than a play. (Uh-oh, now look at me, I'm already saying "just" a monologue...)
You know, sometimes, with a play, you can feel like you're really there. Or, at least, that you could have been. With the monologue-formatted story (Okay, it's time for me to hit "copy" on monologue so I don't keep having to re-type it.), you get a lot of emotion, and it can be powerful, but it doesn't feel like it quite... means as much? I guess what I'm trying to say is while monologues are nice, I'm trying to boil it down to that whole "show, don't tell" mantra -- all the monologues are doing is telling you. In that sense, it's almost better to read the plays than to see them, because then you can make sure you get the most out of the story (even if you lack some of the emotion that might be present in a performance), which is the overarching feeling I got out of The Laramie Project's excerpts.
Who knows; I might just think this way because I haven't seen either of the former performed ever.
And now, I get to show you how un-cultured I am. :P I've only seen The Vagina Monologues here, and I was going to say it ruined it for me (Still not a good performance, though. You can't cast EVERYONE. One monologue should not be split up between five people. I mean, people make memorizing easier by cutting down lines, but this is ridiculous; everyone only says, like, two sentences.), but after reading it, I really can honestly say I just don't want to read about puffy vaginas, I don't want to imagine that obnoxious Jewish Queens accent (because I always think of that woman on Seinfeld that always says "You gotta see the bay-bee!"), and I don't want to hear about a "connoisseur" of vaginas. Don't get me wrong, I like vaginas, but I don't need to, like...
...Never mind. All I'm saying is, sure, writing's fine, but to have something just for the sake of having it and trying to make people uncomfortable and then be all, "Oh, but it's so great! Embrace weirdness/yourself/vaginas/it's a social experiment!" and all that crap is just annoying.
But, okay, yeah, writing. I feel like I've been fairly critical, but I do have a lot of respect for monologues. They're hard as hell to write. I've only really ever written one that I've liked, and that was luck-of-the-moment inspiration. From an acting standpoint, though, they're not *that* tough, I just suck at memorization, so they're a bit difficult for me, at first. :P
And, these plays are not necessarily bad plays, by any means. They're good. I think I would like NOM, and be blown away by LP, if it were done right. I liked the consistent narrator in NOM, but the other characters seemed a bit out of place at times. LP was certainly more polished with all its' characters, but that could also be attributed to our copy of the former being a draft script.
So, what did we learn, kids? I liked the narration, I really like the character development (I'm a big fan of that, sometimes too big. Haha), monologues are indeed impressive and hard to write, but... Not my thing. I want dialogue to do all the work for me, yes, and all these plays gave me a really good window into natural language, but this format probably isn't for me.
ADDENDUM:
EDIT: I added annotations to the video. Heh
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
