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>-/======/--------
crgwllmsWed, 12 Sept 2001, 12:42 am
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 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>-/======/--------
Patrick AbbottMon, 17 Sept 2001, 08:00 pm
RE: Theatre is a team effort
"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....
crgwllmsTue, 18 Sept 2001, 04:39 am
RE: Theatre is a team effort
Thanks, Patrick, for your input. This has been a long debate carried over from another post, and it's great to get someone else's opinion. Here are my thoughts on each of your comments.
>>Patrick wrote:
-------------------------------
>>Craig, what exactly is your point
Um...I thought I was being obvious? Extreme, perhaps; not popularly supported, apparently; even misguided, it's possible. But do I really need to make my point of view any clearer? Surely not?
>> and where does the beauty of theatre...
(...by which, in context, I was referring to the collaborative process of many creative inputs; the whole being more than the sum of the individual parts...including, but not limited to, the writer)
>> ...fit into some idiot director aspiring to be another John Bell bastardizing someones work for his own vision?
I think I have said before, I'm not talking about idiots. If you want to include them in your argument, then I must agree that they will probably stuff things up. But that's why we call them idiots (!).
However, my argument refers to capable directors, who should be allowed to take whatever liberties they intelligently feel are vindicated.
John Bell is a famous and successful director of his own company who has gotten where he is by exactly this vision that you seem to discredit him for. If he has a reputation for bastardizing others' work, then he also has a reputation for bold and innovative directing, style, and interpretation; and my point (see above) is that perhaps the two are linked and therefore justified?
>>That a writer should abandon his work once it has been written to the whiles (sic) and whims of a director.
Once the writing process is complete, the writer abandons it anyway. Gives it to a publisher or an editor or a director or a reader, who all do different things with it, beyond the writer's control. The director's job is to have these "wiles and whims" and act upon them, upon which we subsequently judge him or her.
>>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.
No, I believe if a director was unhappy about a script, he probably wouldn't want to produce it.
But I also believe he should be allowed to interpret a stage production as he feels fit, and if this vision impels him to chop and change, then yes, he should feel free. It's not a function of happiness. It's a director's privilege as part of the creative chain.
>>I just hope you don't take yourself too seriously...
<8>-/=====/----------
>>... and ever try to write anything.
Too late.
>>"Shall I compare thee to a ....Sunday Morning
Thou art more beautiful than the scented aroma of roasted coffee and burnt toast"
This is great. You have interpreted and rewritten a piece of text, to emphasise a point. Do you do the writer a disservice? No, because we are immediately reminded of the original poem, which has withstood the test of time and many other parodies more or less successful than yours. Do we criticise your "chops and changes"? No, because not only do we appreciate the humourous effect and the irony you are trying to convey, but actually you have not in any way bespoiled the original intent of the lines...they still say what the writer intended. Shakespeare could have said "Shall I compare thee to - a pretty rose, a cup of mead, a gentle bird, a perfect sky..." His point was that there was nothing worthy of comparison, that whatever he wrote was inadequate to convey his feelings.
Your interpretation and editing of this script has provided a small, concise performance which is relevant in the context of this debate, conveys a mood for your character, and supports your artistic vision of the argument.
Sonnet 18 is also an amazingly good choice because it is both the best known and the least well interpreted of his sonnets. Many people take it at face value to be a beautiful love poem, and on many levels it works this way. There is also a simultaneous level of parody, where he pokes fun at the popular love poems of the day, which made such grand claims and compared lovers' features to elements of nature or professed eternal beauty, which Shakespeare cleverly exposes as ridiculous.
But, if you carefully consider the point in his final lines:
"But thy eternal summer shall not fade...when in eternal lines to time thou grow'st...so long lives this, and this gives life to thee..."
he is stating that the very act of putting his feelings into words has made his lover immortal...his power as a writer has expressed her beauty long after the physical form has decayed, and future readers will always discover beauty in his words. He is, in fact, praising the beauty of his own sonnet, which is beautiful beyond any comparison, unlike human beauty, which like nature, is impermanent. (see also sonnet 17 and 19 for the same thread).
So even Shakespeare is acknowledging that an idea in writing withstands all and does not diminish; yet the interpretation can be varied and disparate. Most people choose to remember (ie: they edit) only the first lines of this poem, and it is frequently applied as an ode to a lover. Yet it serves this purpose well and no one complains, least of all the writer because that intention was implicitly contained in the sonnet form.
Were more people aware of the meaning of the closing quatraine, it would no longer be as appropriate because the emphasis is not on lovers at all, but on poets.
Because this popular editing occurs, there has been a subtle shift of interpretation, no less valid, but creatively significant.
Which, I believe, is my point.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/-------------
>>Patrick wrote:
-------------------------------
>>Craig, what exactly is your point
Um...I thought I was being obvious? Extreme, perhaps; not popularly supported, apparently; even misguided, it's possible. But do I really need to make my point of view any clearer? Surely not?
>> and where does the beauty of theatre...
(...by which, in context, I was referring to the collaborative process of many creative inputs; the whole being more than the sum of the individual parts...including, but not limited to, the writer)
>> ...fit into some idiot director aspiring to be another John Bell bastardizing someones work for his own vision?
I think I have said before, I'm not talking about idiots. If you want to include them in your argument, then I must agree that they will probably stuff things up. But that's why we call them idiots (!).
However, my argument refers to capable directors, who should be allowed to take whatever liberties they intelligently feel are vindicated.
John Bell is a famous and successful director of his own company who has gotten where he is by exactly this vision that you seem to discredit him for. If he has a reputation for bastardizing others' work, then he also has a reputation for bold and innovative directing, style, and interpretation; and my point (see above) is that perhaps the two are linked and therefore justified?
>>That a writer should abandon his work once it has been written to the whiles (sic) and whims of a director.
Once the writing process is complete, the writer abandons it anyway. Gives it to a publisher or an editor or a director or a reader, who all do different things with it, beyond the writer's control. The director's job is to have these "wiles and whims" and act upon them, upon which we subsequently judge him or her.
>>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.
No, I believe if a director was unhappy about a script, he probably wouldn't want to produce it.
But I also believe he should be allowed to interpret a stage production as he feels fit, and if this vision impels him to chop and change, then yes, he should feel free. It's not a function of happiness. It's a director's privilege as part of the creative chain.
>>I just hope you don't take yourself too seriously...
<8>-/=====/----------
>>... and ever try to write anything.
Too late.
>>"Shall I compare thee to a ....Sunday Morning
Thou art more beautiful than the scented aroma of roasted coffee and burnt toast"
This is great. You have interpreted and rewritten a piece of text, to emphasise a point. Do you do the writer a disservice? No, because we are immediately reminded of the original poem, which has withstood the test of time and many other parodies more or less successful than yours. Do we criticise your "chops and changes"? No, because not only do we appreciate the humourous effect and the irony you are trying to convey, but actually you have not in any way bespoiled the original intent of the lines...they still say what the writer intended. Shakespeare could have said "Shall I compare thee to - a pretty rose, a cup of mead, a gentle bird, a perfect sky..." His point was that there was nothing worthy of comparison, that whatever he wrote was inadequate to convey his feelings.
Your interpretation and editing of this script has provided a small, concise performance which is relevant in the context of this debate, conveys a mood for your character, and supports your artistic vision of the argument.
Sonnet 18 is also an amazingly good choice because it is both the best known and the least well interpreted of his sonnets. Many people take it at face value to be a beautiful love poem, and on many levels it works this way. There is also a simultaneous level of parody, where he pokes fun at the popular love poems of the day, which made such grand claims and compared lovers' features to elements of nature or professed eternal beauty, which Shakespeare cleverly exposes as ridiculous.
But, if you carefully consider the point in his final lines:
"But thy eternal summer shall not fade...when in eternal lines to time thou grow'st...so long lives this, and this gives life to thee..."
he is stating that the very act of putting his feelings into words has made his lover immortal...his power as a writer has expressed her beauty long after the physical form has decayed, and future readers will always discover beauty in his words. He is, in fact, praising the beauty of his own sonnet, which is beautiful beyond any comparison, unlike human beauty, which like nature, is impermanent. (see also sonnet 17 and 19 for the same thread).
So even Shakespeare is acknowledging that an idea in writing withstands all and does not diminish; yet the interpretation can be varied and disparate. Most people choose to remember (ie: they edit) only the first lines of this poem, and it is frequently applied as an ode to a lover. Yet it serves this purpose well and no one complains, least of all the writer because that intention was implicitly contained in the sonnet form.
Were more people aware of the meaning of the closing quatraine, it would no longer be as appropriate because the emphasis is not on lovers at all, but on poets.
Because this popular editing occurs, there has been a subtle shift of interpretation, no less valid, but creatively significant.
Which, I believe, is my point.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/-------------
Patrick AbbottTue, 18 Sept 2001, 09:14 am
RE: Theatre is a team effort
"Most people choose to remember (ie: they edit) only the first lines of this poem, and it is frequently applied as an ode to a lover. Yet it serves this purpose well and no one complains, least of all the writer because that intention was implicitly contained in the sonnet form."
Thank you for your inciteful reply Craig, but once again you missed the point by justifying my alteration of the opening lines of Sonnet 18, or, actually I think you proved my point. If you cannot interpret or fail to understand the writers work as written, leave well enough alone and find something else. I guess my arguement is purely out of respect for someones work. But thank you for your reply nevertheless.
Patrick
Thank you for your inciteful reply Craig, but once again you missed the point by justifying my alteration of the opening lines of Sonnet 18, or, actually I think you proved my point. If you cannot interpret or fail to understand the writers work as written, leave well enough alone and find something else. I guess my arguement is purely out of respect for someones work. But thank you for your reply nevertheless.
Patrick
Walter PlingeTue, 18 Sept 2001, 10:29 am
RE: Theatre is a team effort
"Once the writing process is complete, the writer abandons it anyway. Gives it to a publisher or an editor or a director or a reader, who all do different things with it, beyond the writer's control. The director's job is to have these "wiles and whims" and act upon them, upon which we subsequently judge him or her."
Look, sorry Craig, I know I said I wouldn't comment further on this matter, but you are beginning to contradict your own arguments.
To expect a writer to abandon his/her work, IS to break down the "team effort".
Writers never abandon their work, just as a mother doesn't abandon the baby once its born. The writer may never have any further physical involvement in the script's production, but that is the point of writing specific directions and dialogue - so that there is always a reference to the writer's intentions.
If a director ever acts on "whim", then the director is lousy at his/her job. Directing is a discipline, as is any other aspect of creative production. That means working within set parameters. Anyone can work outside the parameters, but it doesn't necessarily result in commendable work.
Look, sorry Craig, I know I said I wouldn't comment further on this matter, but you are beginning to contradict your own arguments.
To expect a writer to abandon his/her work, IS to break down the "team effort".
Writers never abandon their work, just as a mother doesn't abandon the baby once its born. The writer may never have any further physical involvement in the script's production, but that is the point of writing specific directions and dialogue - so that there is always a reference to the writer's intentions.
If a director ever acts on "whim", then the director is lousy at his/her job. Directing is a discipline, as is any other aspect of creative production. That means working within set parameters. Anyone can work outside the parameters, but it doesn't necessarily result in commendable work.
crgwllmsTue, 18 Sept 2001, 06:16 pm
RE: Theatre is a team effort
Patrick, I enjoyed your alteration of Sonnet 18, and believe it has merit of its own which justifies its existence. That's all.
It demonstrates both of our points at the same time, depending on what light you shine on it.
Glynn - I don't see that there is a contradiction. I stick by my metaphor of "passing the baton". Each new runner is responsible for taking it in a new direction, and the previous contributor must let them run - it's out of their hands. Individuals can still be valued, and the team is still judged as a whole, but the starters have no control of how the race will end.
The writer might design the track, but the director crosses the line, and if he chooses to do so riding a wild tiger, only the audience can judge whether he should be disqualified, or whether he has made an improvement to the sport.
Now that what I've written here has been taken and interpreted by many, it's probably a good point to abandon it and see where it ends up.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/======/------------
It demonstrates both of our points at the same time, depending on what light you shine on it.
Glynn - I don't see that there is a contradiction. I stick by my metaphor of "passing the baton". Each new runner is responsible for taking it in a new direction, and the previous contributor must let them run - it's out of their hands. Individuals can still be valued, and the team is still judged as a whole, but the starters have no control of how the race will end.
The writer might design the track, but the director crosses the line, and if he chooses to do so riding a wild tiger, only the audience can judge whether he should be disqualified, or whether he has made an improvement to the sport.
Now that what I've written here has been taken and interpreted by many, it's probably a good point to abandon it and see where it ends up.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/======/------------