Theatre is a team effort
Wed, 12 Sept 2001, 12:42 amcrgwllms6 posts in thread
Theatre is a team effort
Wed, 12 Sept 2001, 12:42 amI've been thinking more about the discussion on whether scripts and stage directions should be altered or not...
Writers for theatre realise (or should) that theatre is a group effort, where they are only the first runner in a relay that is out of their hands once they pass the baton.
If they want complete and total control, they should write a novel. Theatre writers can't afford to be that precious. Things are gonna change beyond their control, and that's part of the beauty of theatre. And when things do change, that doesn't make the writer any less a part of the process...it's just that we should perhaps get a more realistic view of where they stand from the start.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that a good script is vital. I can watch bad actors perform a good script and still be somewhat engaged. And the best actors find it hard going to save a bad script. But what I'm talking about is the interpretation, and how much freedom should be given to directors to cut, paste, and rearrange lines & stage directions.
Take for instance, the thousands of interpretations that have been done of Shakespeare. Setting it in every time & location from outer space to Nazi Germany; rewriting the language into modern speech; adapting the plot and characters and putting them in a completely new context (eg West Side Story); or the fantastic production at the Festival of Perth a few years ago (Richard III, I think?) with only 4 actors in the cast and they played it as toddlers in a nursery with their toys.
Stage directions didn't account for much in those radical interpretations, and it would be hard to argue that they were staying true to the writer's original concept. We applaud these productions for the bold changes they have made, and call it original. Yet we can still also marvel at the quality of the writing - the fact that changes are made only draws attention to the power of the good story told well.
Of course it can be screwed up. I'm not denying that. In fact, there are so many links in the chain from writer to director to designer to actor to technician to audience...etc...that the odds are stacked against us every time. And isn't that the magic of theatre, when it all works?
So it makes less sense for a writer to be precious about their part in the process, or for us to place them on such a pedestal. If anyone wants to have complete control over their work, they have to work solo, or not work in theatre - write a book instead.
The bottom line is, Is it entertaining? If it can connect to an audience in some quality way, doesn't that justify any changes made along the way?
Does anyone remember the 24 hour Play project done for Artrage about 3 years ago? A team of writers had 12 hours to write original short plays which were given to teams of directors who had 12 hours with their actors before the performance took place that evening?
Of maybe 10 or 12 plays written this way, two or three were interesting experiments, and the rest were bloody fantastic! It struck me at the time, and I still believe it now, that part of the raw success was the perfect realisation of "team effort" and being prepared to "let go". The writers played their part, then had to hand it on, their job was done. The directors could change and shape it the best way they could, and then they too had to relinquish control. No notes, no tweaking - a one off performance. And then the actors took control of their part, onstage. And even then they had to let go and trust the process - this was one take, warts and all, no repeats to hone the performance. Spontaneous decisions were made once it got in front of an audience, the final link in the chain.
Nobody could be precious and demand more credit than anyone else. Everyone had to accept that changes were going to be made. The time constraint meant those fiddly concerns were overlooked for the good of the play, and the audiences were definitely the winners.
I know, I start on a topic and I write an encyclopaedia. Feel free to cut/paste/interpret it as you will.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/======/--------
Writers for theatre realise (or should) that theatre is a group effort, where they are only the first runner in a relay that is out of their hands once they pass the baton.
If they want complete and total control, they should write a novel. Theatre writers can't afford to be that precious. Things are gonna change beyond their control, and that's part of the beauty of theatre. And when things do change, that doesn't make the writer any less a part of the process...it's just that we should perhaps get a more realistic view of where they stand from the start.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that a good script is vital. I can watch bad actors perform a good script and still be somewhat engaged. And the best actors find it hard going to save a bad script. But what I'm talking about is the interpretation, and how much freedom should be given to directors to cut, paste, and rearrange lines & stage directions.
Take for instance, the thousands of interpretations that have been done of Shakespeare. Setting it in every time & location from outer space to Nazi Germany; rewriting the language into modern speech; adapting the plot and characters and putting them in a completely new context (eg West Side Story); or the fantastic production at the Festival of Perth a few years ago (Richard III, I think?) with only 4 actors in the cast and they played it as toddlers in a nursery with their toys.
Stage directions didn't account for much in those radical interpretations, and it would be hard to argue that they were staying true to the writer's original concept. We applaud these productions for the bold changes they have made, and call it original. Yet we can still also marvel at the quality of the writing - the fact that changes are made only draws attention to the power of the good story told well.
Of course it can be screwed up. I'm not denying that. In fact, there are so many links in the chain from writer to director to designer to actor to technician to audience...etc...that the odds are stacked against us every time. And isn't that the magic of theatre, when it all works?
So it makes less sense for a writer to be precious about their part in the process, or for us to place them on such a pedestal. If anyone wants to have complete control over their work, they have to work solo, or not work in theatre - write a book instead.
The bottom line is, Is it entertaining? If it can connect to an audience in some quality way, doesn't that justify any changes made along the way?
Does anyone remember the 24 hour Play project done for Artrage about 3 years ago? A team of writers had 12 hours to write original short plays which were given to teams of directors who had 12 hours with their actors before the performance took place that evening?
Of maybe 10 or 12 plays written this way, two or three were interesting experiments, and the rest were bloody fantastic! It struck me at the time, and I still believe it now, that part of the raw success was the perfect realisation of "team effort" and being prepared to "let go". The writers played their part, then had to hand it on, their job was done. The directors could change and shape it the best way they could, and then they too had to relinquish control. No notes, no tweaking - a one off performance. And then the actors took control of their part, onstage. And even then they had to let go and trust the process - this was one take, warts and all, no repeats to hone the performance. Spontaneous decisions were made once it got in front of an audience, the final link in the chain.
Nobody could be precious and demand more credit than anyone else. Everyone had to accept that changes were going to be made. The time constraint meant those fiddly concerns were overlooked for the good of the play, and the audiences were definitely the winners.
I know, I start on a topic and I write an encyclopaedia. Feel free to cut/paste/interpret it as you will.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/======/--------
RE: Theatre is a team effort
Mon, 17 Sept 2001, 08:00 pm"Theatre writers can't afford to be that precious. Things are gonna (sic) change beyond their control, and that's part of the beauty of theatre."
Craig, what exactly is your point and where does the beauty of theatre fit into some idiot director aspiring to be another John Bell bastardizing someones work for his own vision?
That a writer should abandon his work once it has been written to the whiles and whims of a director. Do you seriously believe that if a director is unhappy about the written words on the page he should feel free to chop and change it.
"We applaud these productions for the bold changes they have made, and call it original."
Of course you're entitled to your opinion I just hope you don't take yourself too seriously and ever try to write anything.
"Shall I compare thee to a ....Sunday Morning
Thou art more beautiful than the scented aroma of roasted coffee and burnt toast"
P
crgwllms wrote:
-------------------------------
I've been thinking more about the discussion on whether scripts and stage directions should be altered or not...
Writers for theatre realise (or should) that theatre is a group effort, where they are only the first runner in a relay that is out of their hands once they pass the baton.
If they want complete and total control, they should write a novel. Theatre writers can't afford to be that precious. Things are gonna change beyond their control, and that's part of the beauty of theatre. And when things do change, that doesn't make the writer any less a part of the process...it's just that we should perhaps get a more realistic view of where they stand from the start.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that a good script is vital. I can watch bad actors perform a good script and still be somewhat engaged. And the best actors find it hard going to save a bad script. But what I'm talking about is the interpretation, and how much freedom should be given to directors to cut, paste, and r....
Craig, what exactly is your point and where does the beauty of theatre fit into some idiot director aspiring to be another John Bell bastardizing someones work for his own vision?
That a writer should abandon his work once it has been written to the whiles and whims of a director. Do you seriously believe that if a director is unhappy about the written words on the page he should feel free to chop and change it.
"We applaud these productions for the bold changes they have made, and call it original."
Of course you're entitled to your opinion I just hope you don't take yourself too seriously and ever try to write anything.
"Shall I compare thee to a ....Sunday Morning
Thou art more beautiful than the scented aroma of roasted coffee and burnt toast"
P
crgwllms wrote:
-------------------------------
I've been thinking more about the discussion on whether scripts and stage directions should be altered or not...
Writers for theatre realise (or should) that theatre is a group effort, where they are only the first runner in a relay that is out of their hands once they pass the baton.
If they want complete and total control, they should write a novel. Theatre writers can't afford to be that precious. Things are gonna change beyond their control, and that's part of the beauty of theatre. And when things do change, that doesn't make the writer any less a part of the process...it's just that we should perhaps get a more realistic view of where they stand from the start.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that a good script is vital. I can watch bad actors perform a good script and still be somewhat engaged. And the best actors find it hard going to save a bad script. But what I'm talking about is the interpretation, and how much freedom should be given to directors to cut, paste, and r....