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:

SCENE 6

ORPHEUS, from the water pump.

ORPHEUS: Eurydice?
Eurydice!

SCENE 7...

Aaaaare youuuu ssserious.


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!)