A response to the Editorial, ITA Link
Sun, 14 Nov 1999, 04:49 pmWalter Plinge19 posts in thread
A response to the Editorial, ITA Link
Sun, 14 Nov 1999, 04:49 pmHaving just perused the Link, I have been moved to make a few comments on
some topics raised in David's editorial.
Firstly, let me clear up a slight misapprehension that a number of people
have about "Riders to the Sea". The very intense twenty minutes that we
performed at the festival was NOT an excerpt. That's the play, just that
twenty minutes and no more! That was the script that Synge wrote, that was
the script that I got hold of, that was the script that Ralph
Vaughan-Williams set to music (in about twenty years I may have the guts to
do the opera at Dramafest). The fact that such a short piece can gain its
reputation as one of the seminal classics of Irish Theatre is a testament
to the genius of Synge.
That aside, let me add my weight to David's cry to encourage more of the
classics. David and I may be part of a biased and exclusive club. I can't
remember any other time a 'classic' has won either the Finley or the
Dorothy Barber. An understanding, or at least appreciation, of the past is
vital to any art form. How can we be expected to create new and vibrant
work if we cannot learn from the successes, and failures, of the past. It
may perhaps just be a side effect of living in a society that has no
history.
In fact, I may go even one step further than David, not only would I like
to see a few more of the 'classics', I would heartily welcome more of the
'foreign' classics. Apart from the odd Moliere or even Chekhov's 'The
Bear', when was the last time anyone in Perth did one of the European
'classics'?
What is it about the Perth scene that we are so damned Anglocentric?
Why will no one even try something in translation?
As far as I can see, the Perth Amateur repertoire consists entirely of
plays written:
a, in the last fifty years,
b. in the English language,
c. by authors who are either English, American or Australian.
The very occassional Shakespeare and Moliere are exceptions that tend to
prove the rule.
Why us this so?
This is my challenge to everyone out there who reads this, tell me, why is
it so?
Paul Treasure
some topics raised in David's editorial.
Firstly, let me clear up a slight misapprehension that a number of people
have about "Riders to the Sea". The very intense twenty minutes that we
performed at the festival was NOT an excerpt. That's the play, just that
twenty minutes and no more! That was the script that Synge wrote, that was
the script that I got hold of, that was the script that Ralph
Vaughan-Williams set to music (in about twenty years I may have the guts to
do the opera at Dramafest). The fact that such a short piece can gain its
reputation as one of the seminal classics of Irish Theatre is a testament
to the genius of Synge.
That aside, let me add my weight to David's cry to encourage more of the
classics. David and I may be part of a biased and exclusive club. I can't
remember any other time a 'classic' has won either the Finley or the
Dorothy Barber. An understanding, or at least appreciation, of the past is
vital to any art form. How can we be expected to create new and vibrant
work if we cannot learn from the successes, and failures, of the past. It
may perhaps just be a side effect of living in a society that has no
history.
In fact, I may go even one step further than David, not only would I like
to see a few more of the 'classics', I would heartily welcome more of the
'foreign' classics. Apart from the odd Moliere or even Chekhov's 'The
Bear', when was the last time anyone in Perth did one of the European
'classics'?
What is it about the Perth scene that we are so damned Anglocentric?
Why will no one even try something in translation?
As far as I can see, the Perth Amateur repertoire consists entirely of
plays written:
a, in the last fifty years,
b. in the English language,
c. by authors who are either English, American or Australian.
The very occassional Shakespeare and Moliere are exceptions that tend to
prove the rule.
Why us this so?
This is my challenge to everyone out there who reads this, tell me, why is
it so?
Paul Treasure
Director's Dilemma
Wed, 17 Nov 1999, 09:43 amPaul Treasure wrote:
-------------------------------
Well, if you want the real answer it boils down to one thing...
ARRANT COWARDICE!!!
-->I'm familiar with that ;-)
As an actor of a specific body type, I have a loathing for directors that cast according to looks not talent/ability. Unfortunately, with this play that is exactly the way I ended up casting.
-->Actually, I quiet understand this feeling (even tho' I have not directed myself) as I have sometime thought that certain actors would look good in a certain part (or at least better than the one chosen.) From a driector's point of view, you have to work with what you're given and (as I recall) your choice wasn't extensive.
I hate ringing up people and telling them that they didn't get a part anyway, but how do you tell an actor who gave what was quite possibly the best audition of the afternoon that you haven't cast them because they wouldn't have "looked" right with the rest of the cast.
-->Heh he - Know that feeling in other capacities, and it's possibly one of the nicest "Thanks, but no thakns" replies I've had Paul. You work with what you get, that's the director's dilemma. If you get TOO many auditioning - Great - Pick and choose - If you don't get enough - What do you do? Work with what you've got.
Sincerely [and I mean this] Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa!
Don't hate me
-->Can't do that, you're too nice to hate ;-)
Jeff "Can't Hold a Grudge After That" Watkins
-------------------------------
Well, if you want the real answer it boils down to one thing...
ARRANT COWARDICE!!!
-->I'm familiar with that ;-)
As an actor of a specific body type, I have a loathing for directors that cast according to looks not talent/ability. Unfortunately, with this play that is exactly the way I ended up casting.
-->Actually, I quiet understand this feeling (even tho' I have not directed myself) as I have sometime thought that certain actors would look good in a certain part (or at least better than the one chosen.) From a driector's point of view, you have to work with what you're given and (as I recall) your choice wasn't extensive.
I hate ringing up people and telling them that they didn't get a part anyway, but how do you tell an actor who gave what was quite possibly the best audition of the afternoon that you haven't cast them because they wouldn't have "looked" right with the rest of the cast.
-->Heh he - Know that feeling in other capacities, and it's possibly one of the nicest "Thanks, but no thakns" replies I've had Paul. You work with what you get, that's the director's dilemma. If you get TOO many auditioning - Great - Pick and choose - If you don't get enough - What do you do? Work with what you've got.
Sincerely [and I mean this] Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa!
Don't hate me
-->Can't do that, you're too nice to hate ;-)
Jeff "Can't Hold a Grudge After That" Watkins
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···