So much more complete, watching it rather than reading it (or reading it and then watching it... difficult to say which). The motions of the characters unify their personalities in a way that their dialogue and monologues did not do for me on the page. Watching Troy tell a story about leaving home or wrestling with Death was much more dynamic than simply reading it, especially in parts with repetition of lines or ideas. They flowed with his character onstage very well, but on the page just did not separate the undertones of similar text. Because of that, it is tempting for me as a playwright to add many stage directions, but that can take away from the production, and limit the visual, if there are too many stage directions in the script. Trying to pin it in too much could have the opposite effect and cause the scene to loose that dynamicism of movement. Striking the balance will be an interesting process.
Watching the play, there were a couple times that I lost lines because of the dialect combined with speed or overlap. It was not enough to wish that the dialect speech was not there, but it was nice to be able to read the lines and catch all of what was being said. Hearing the speech also helped to ground me in the time and place in a way that simply reading it could not do. I do not know if this was related to dialect or not, but the actress who played Rose, while I liked her acting, I did not like her inflection on some of the lines. It could have been a combination of dialect and emotion, or even character. I think it was that her voice went up at the end of many lines that it didn't seem like it fit with. However, I couldn't really pin it down.
Transformations can also be more striking/apparent on stage than on the page. Corey returning as a Marine, for example, was clear in the book. However, seeing him with the changed mannerisms, posture, and speech patterns on stage brought out the change so much better.
In addition to change, I could also see parallels more (partly because I'd read the script before seeing it, but also partly from watching the physicality of some scenes). What stuck out most for me was Troy's insistence that Corey call him "sir." In the scene with their first major argument where this comes out, Troy stalks around Corey like a drill sergeant. In a way, it made perfect since for Corey to join the Marines. He was used to that environment, control, and discipline. Even by leaving and joining the Marines, he could not escape the influence of his father. It was a very nice parallel that I completely missed in the book.
On a side note, I got the the play a couple minutes late, so I got to watch the play from the back of the theater, where I could see the entire action, framed by the stage, and from about the middle, so I could see into the doorway and windows and such. However, after intermission, I took my seat in the far left front row! It was a huge difference. I missed the encompassing unity of the visual, and I couldn't see into the doorway anymore. However, the near presence of the actors was rather incredible also, and seeing their focus and their characters from close by was an entirely different, but great, experience also. I thought it was a really cool contrast to see both ways. :)
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Recomposing Mozart?!
Just the play Amadeus. Don't worry.
I was surprised by how long he continued revising the ending of his play. It would seem like when your script is performed by IAN MCKELLEN and TIM CURRY!, it would be fairly finished. It shows such devotion to the progression of the play, not just the play itself, to continue revising the climax for new productions (and within one production as well). It is also surprising how different the characters are through the revisions. Salieri especially changes dramatically depending on whether he is stalking Mozart's apartment pretending to be a deadly apparition counting down the days to his death, dragging the Requiem from a dying Mozart to turn out as his own, or begging forgiveness and acknowledgment of the wrongs he committed against Mozart. The all fit with the play and different aspects of the character (which is amazing unto itself), but they conclude with a different person, if you will.
Considering all the nuances that a certain scene will provide for the entire play seems to be one of the most important aspects of the revisions from Amadeus. It is incredibly interesting reading about this shifting within the work. However, it does seem like editing a 10 minute play (or even 10 minutes of a larger play even if the overall plot does shift around) would revolve around a little bit different of a motive. Editing for a ten minute play (which is what I will do for my final performance), an author does not have to connect it into former character development or set up for a change or edit earlier in the script. It is most immediate, and I feel like much of my editing might focus on accentuating the immediacy of the 10 minute, streamlining the revelations to set up quickly and wrap up accurately.
In Amadeus, I was a little surprised at their shifting of music. In the theatrical version, the author seemed to mostly use Mozart's Kyrie, while the film switches it to the Confutatis. While reading the scene from the play, I pulled up the Kyrie on my iTunes and played it, to get a feeling of what it might be like with sound. Since sound is so crucial to a scene like this (and a play like this, as the author admits himself), it looses much of its impact read, although it still maintains much, which is quite the feat.
I now even more officially need to watch Amadeus.
I was surprised by how long he continued revising the ending of his play. It would seem like when your script is performed by IAN MCKELLEN and TIM CURRY!, it would be fairly finished. It shows such devotion to the progression of the play, not just the play itself, to continue revising the climax for new productions (and within one production as well). It is also surprising how different the characters are through the revisions. Salieri especially changes dramatically depending on whether he is stalking Mozart's apartment pretending to be a deadly apparition counting down the days to his death, dragging the Requiem from a dying Mozart to turn out as his own, or begging forgiveness and acknowledgment of the wrongs he committed against Mozart. The all fit with the play and different aspects of the character (which is amazing unto itself), but they conclude with a different person, if you will.
Considering all the nuances that a certain scene will provide for the entire play seems to be one of the most important aspects of the revisions from Amadeus. It is incredibly interesting reading about this shifting within the work. However, it does seem like editing a 10 minute play (or even 10 minutes of a larger play even if the overall plot does shift around) would revolve around a little bit different of a motive. Editing for a ten minute play (which is what I will do for my final performance), an author does not have to connect it into former character development or set up for a change or edit earlier in the script. It is most immediate, and I feel like much of my editing might focus on accentuating the immediacy of the 10 minute, streamlining the revelations to set up quickly and wrap up accurately.
In Amadeus, I was a little surprised at their shifting of music. In the theatrical version, the author seemed to mostly use Mozart's Kyrie, while the film switches it to the Confutatis. While reading the scene from the play, I pulled up the Kyrie on my iTunes and played it, to get a feeling of what it might be like with sound. Since sound is so crucial to a scene like this (and a play like this, as the author admits himself), it looses much of its impact read, although it still maintains much, which is quite the feat.
I now even more officially need to watch Amadeus.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Funny?
I do admit, reading these was not especially funny for me. They were entertaining, and I can see how they could be funny performed right, but I only chuckled at very few lines outright. Maybe this is a side effect of comedic scripts, especially if they're short. You might really have to see them in order to appreciate the humor. That said, I thought some were more funny than others. I liked the Duet for Bear and Dog, as I thought it characterized the dog really well, and the Bear also to an extent. However, I do wish it focused a little more on the bear and the dog. To an extent, I think that She, the Man and the Woman took up too much time from the others. From this, perhaps I should try making things talk that "shouldn't" and/or giving things personality that "don't" for a comedy some time. It reminds me of "Sylvia," which I haven't seen, but have heard about.
I also liked the situation and ideas in Aimee and The Philadelphia. Perhaps I'm more into situational comedy then, for these short plays. These ludicrous situations, versus Anything For You, which I didn't find as funny. It came across in the script as slightly more dramatic and awkward. Although, performed, it could be very different.
Perhaps it is the more wild characters, such as the Bear and Dog, or Madge and Larry, that are appealing to me. There actions can make so much sense for their situation or character, while in "real life" the are incredibly crazy. To an extent, the characters in The Philadelphia fit that too. They are "normal people" who are in crazy places or situations. However, their responses make so much sense. If their situation were to actually happen, I can see people doing that.
This is actually something I find most funny and would include in a comedy if I were to write one. When a normal person is in an implausible state or situation, and they still react like you would expect a "normal person" to, I find it a strong source of comedy (if it is set up as such. It can also be used in drama, I think, but that's another "can of worms," or "or basket of apples," or "jar of peanut butter," or whate'er you will). When a character can keep their personality and "human-ness" despite situations that are not normally associated with them (they are a Dog, they are a Vampire, they think that expressing love will bring about the demise of the United States of America...), it combines the unexpected with something that should be predictable, but really isn't until after you hear it or see it. It makes sense, and connects the believable with the incredible. I think this mix can form some of the strongest, most surprising comedy.
I also liked the situation and ideas in Aimee and The Philadelphia. Perhaps I'm more into situational comedy then, for these short plays. These ludicrous situations, versus Anything For You, which I didn't find as funny. It came across in the script as slightly more dramatic and awkward. Although, performed, it could be very different.
Perhaps it is the more wild characters, such as the Bear and Dog, or Madge and Larry, that are appealing to me. There actions can make so much sense for their situation or character, while in "real life" the are incredibly crazy. To an extent, the characters in The Philadelphia fit that too. They are "normal people" who are in crazy places or situations. However, their responses make so much sense. If their situation were to actually happen, I can see people doing that.
This is actually something I find most funny and would include in a comedy if I were to write one. When a normal person is in an implausible state or situation, and they still react like you would expect a "normal person" to, I find it a strong source of comedy (if it is set up as such. It can also be used in drama, I think, but that's another "can of worms," or "or basket of apples," or "jar of peanut butter," or whate'er you will). When a character can keep their personality and "human-ness" despite situations that are not normally associated with them (they are a Dog, they are a Vampire, they think that expressing love will bring about the demise of the United States of America...), it combines the unexpected with something that should be predictable, but really isn't until after you hear it or see it. It makes sense, and connects the believable with the incredible. I think this mix can form some of the strongest, most surprising comedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)