# Altering a playwright's intentions



## Spikesgirl (Apr 15, 2008)

*Re: Patrons*


Van said:


> Well... Guess what it wasn't the Smoking that everyone's talking about, read this.
> http://www.oregonlive.com/performance/index.ssf/2008/04/theater_review_a_violent_inven.html
> If you don't want to read the whole thing just scroll down to about the 6 or 7th paragraph. You'll see what everyone in town is talking about.......




Many a times I've wanted to hurl something at a columnist. Are you sure it was an accident?

Seriously, great review though. We did "Streetcar" in the same old traditional way and it would have been great if our SD had stretched a little more. Just goes to prove what you can do with some 'thinking outside of the box"

Char5lie


----------



## derekleffew (Apr 15, 2008)

Spikesgirl said:


> ...it would have been great if our SD had stretched a little more. Just goes to prove what you can do with some "thinking outside of the box"...


I'm not sure I agree. I wonder about setting _Streetcar_ in a mental asylum, thus turning it into a "memory play" (it isn't _Glass Menagerie_, after all!) is a proper interpretation of Mr. William's work. I'm particularly disturbed by the "...add in a doctor watching silently from the front edge of the stage and a recurring apparition of Blanche's long-dead husband..." I wish I could see the production, as it is one of my favorite plays. Van, kudos to your staff for making bold choices; I'm just not sure I agree with them.

In his Production Notes for _Merrily We Roll Along_, a show in which the story is revealed in reverse chronological order, Sondheim states "in no circumstance is the order of the show to be reversed or altered." Must now playwrights include the phrase "No characters are to be added or deleted, or scenic locales altered"?

Please discuss.


----------



## Spikesgirl (Apr 15, 2008)

You got it, Big D. My argument would be that if they did not change any lines, but merely the location, I don't think it adversely effects the show. if the director is re-writing the script (and we've had a few that have tried) or alter the necessary action in any way, then you have a problem.

As for adding characters, I have never really seen the need for it as they just take up space for the most part unless someone adds dialog to explain them. At the college where I used to work, it was common practice for the director to add actors/actresses to the cast in an attempt to boost the FTES (the money we receive from the state - it's based upon enrollement). Then we would have people milling around the set - when we did "Streetcar" they created all these characters (our walls were 2/4 frames with scrim stretched over them and painted, so that you could see outside when necessary) just to walk by on occasion. It was effective, but also distracting at times.

Once we were going to tackle "Equus" and because of our college setting, the director voiced his intention of leaving out the nude scene. Lawyers wrote back and said the scene stays in or the rights will be pulled - we ended up doing "Agnes of God" instead.

If the playwright states that nothing can be changed, then it can't. however, I don't think that a set design is or should be written in concrete. The university has a director that is restaging "Forum" to Aruba - now that's stretching it farther than need be, but I've seen worse...much worse.

Char5lie


----------



## Van (Apr 16, 2008)

OOOO I like this discussion! We had a bit of these discussions during the process of bringing this little block buster to the stage. Here's my take on it:
I don't feel Jon changed anything. I think it should be said that not a line or character was added or removed. This is a major sticking point for many of us at Artists Rep., we do not change or alter text ever. The Dr. is not an "added character" in the original script the Dr. and the Nurse come in at the end of the play and take Blanche off to the funny farm. All Jon did was to "re-stage" the play. Now the Dr. sits in a chair watching the action, observing Blanche as she re-lives the series of events that has brought her to this place. Now I think we've all heard of doing "Hamlet in the 23rd century" and I don't think it changes the "Intent" of the playwright. I feel that what Jon has done in this particular production is pay homage to Williams legacy. Bringing in elements of the plawrights life, is a valid artistic statement, IMHO. Many may not know that Williams sister was commited to an asylum, as were a great many women in the 18 and 1900's, many for no other reason than their husbands wanted to get rid of them < re. _Gas Light_> Wiliams sisters committal haunted him for the rest of his life. I feel Jon has made an attempt to see how Williams must have imagined his sisters years of incarceration, constantly re-living the the memories / horror / pain / embarrasment of being carted off to the rubber room. 
Anyway, That's my two cents worth. I'm happy to discuss it further. Oh and BTW we had a bit of a discussion today about the pure Brecht-ian expiriemce of opening night, never have I been so aware of being an audience member, of being such a "willing participant" of the theatrical expirience as I was last Friday went that plate went astray. Even after 25 + years we can still learn something or get a new expirience out of this silly thing we call theatre.


----------



## Logos (Apr 16, 2008)

I feel that I have something to add to this debate as I am a playwright.

I do not consider many of the aspects of my work totally untouchable except my intent. Lines can be altered to suit actors and the setting can be changed but if what I am saying is changed then o leap out claws extended with my favourite attack wombat at my side to defend my work.

The setting is part of an artistic decision and if it can be justified in terms of the playwrights intent then go for it. There must be change and different focus or our industry will stagnate.

I have only seen a couple of times where I really hated what was done and could find no justification for it.

I saw a Romeo and Juliet in which the whole play was palced in the future and the Montagues were aliens. The director even made them speak gibberish instead of Shakespeare when they talked amongst themselves. Occasionally ego tramples all over ART.

Van: I wasn't aware of the detail about William's sister. "Suddenly Last Summer" has just dropped into even sharper focus.


----------



## Spikesgirl (Apr 16, 2008)

Logos said:


> I feel that I have something to add to this debate as I am a playwright.
> 
> ###
> 
> ...


----------



## Grog12 (Apr 16, 2008)

Van said:


> OOOO I like this discussion! We had a bit of these discussions during the process of bringing this little block buster to the stage. Here's my take on it:
> I don't feel Jon changed anything. I think it should be said that not a line or character was added or removed. This is a major sticking point for many of us at Artists Rep., we do not change or alter text ever. The Dr. is not an "added character" in the original script the Dr. and the Nurse come in at the end of the play and take Blanche off to the funny farm. All Jon did was to "re-stage" the play. Now the Dr. sits in a chair watching the action, observing Blanche as she re-lives the series of events that has brought her to this place. Now I think we've all heard of doing "Hamlet in the 23rd century" and I don't think it changes the "Intent" of the playwright. I feel that what Jon has done in this particular production is pay homage to Williams legacy. Bringing in elements of the plawrights life, is a valid artistic statement, IMHO. Many may not know that Williams sister was commited to an asylum, as were a great many women in the 18 and 1900's, many for no other reason than their husbands wanted to get rid of them < re. _Gas Light_> Wiliams sisters committal haunted him for the rest of his life. I feel Jon has made an attempt to see how Williams must have imagined his sisters years of incarceration, constantly re-living the the memories / horror / pain / embarrasment of being carted off to the rubber room.
> Anyway, That's my two cents worth. I'm happy to discuss it further. Oh and BTW we had a bit of a discussion today about the pure Brecht-ian expiriemce of opening night, never have I been so aware of being an audience member, of being such a "willing participant" of the theatrical expirience as I was last Friday went that plate went astray. Even after 25 + years we can still learn something or get a new expirience out of this silly thing we call theatre.



Here's my question Van....Do we as rank and file audience members know that Williams sister was commited? Do we need to know that for the script to be effective? The answer to both is no. Now do we need to know that for this particular production of the show to be effective? I can't answer that because I didn't see it.

Here's another example: I did a production of Glass Menagerie last year where the actor who played Tom added a little...flamboyance to his accent when he was monolouging to pay homage to the fact Williams was gay and most people believe the "movies" Tom was staying out so late at were in fact gay clubs/bars/hangouts. Not a single person picked up on the fact.
I lit the thing and was told this 2 months after it closed.

When are we making choices for ourselves as members of the theatre and when are we making chocies for the audience?


----------



## porkchop (Apr 16, 2008)

Grog great point on choices for ourselves over audiences. 

I think that some artistic liberty must be allowed. The playwright's intent must stay intact but there isn't going some changes from production to production you lose the need to designers at all instances. In this thread we're talking about changing the scenic instances, but in a production this year we used sound primarily to put an element of magic into a show were it wasn't written in, it is also arguable that you could change the whole mood of a play with lighting. This is the point of design, to fit the play with the vision of the director and the interpretation of the actors.


----------



## Van (Apr 16, 2008)

Grog12 said:


> Here's my question Van....Do we as rank and file audience members know that Williams sister was commited? Do we need to know that for the script to be effective? The answer to both is no. Now do we need to know that for this particular production of the show to be effective? I can't answer that because I didn't see it.


 
No we don't need to know these to to enjoy this particular re-telling of this particular script. 


Grog12 said:


> Here's another example: I did a production of Glass Menagerie last year where the actor who played Tom added a little...flamboyance to his accent when he was monolouging to pay homage to the fact Williams was gay and most people believe the "movies" Tom was staying out so late at were in fact gay clubs/bars/hangouts. Not a single person picked up on the fact.
> I lit the thing and was told this 2 months after it closed..


This is the part where the Art of our business comes into play. Did you get the fact that he was playing his part a bit fay because of previous critical review or academic speculation ? No, you didn't but perhaps some other members of the audience did. Again, one of the wonderful things about this form of art is the fact that 300 people can watch a performance and walk away with 300 different impressions of what they saw. 


Grog12 said:


> When are we making choices for ourselves as members of the theatre and when are we making chocies for the audience.


 
Again part of the ART that we do. We get to make those choices. IMHO Theatre is not about doing exactly what the playwright _might have_ intended, there is no way we can know exactly what the Bard meant to say when he wrote Merchant of Venice; All Jews are bad?, Peoples perception of jews in the 14 hundreds is bad ?, Money lenders in general are bad ? If it where our responsibility to simply reproduce the same artistic material over and over and over what would be the point of going to the theatre, when we could just go to a Britney Spears lip sync event and hear the studio produced version of her songs. What would be the point of re-making Dawn of the Dead if it didn't mean finding new and iventive ways of re-telling the story with a new twist, or uncovering some hidden statement not well conveyed in the original production. We keep producing High School Musical all over the country in the exact same way all over the country because people have gotten lazy they don't necessarily want to challenge their expectations as an audience member.
These are the choices we, as Artists make. It is the sole responsibility of the Director to determine the the tone, and intent of the production of a play, it is the sole responsibility of the Audience to interpret the intent and determine whether or not the "company" got it right.


----------



## Spikesgirl (Apr 16, 2008)

Grog12 said:


> Here's my question Van....Do we as rank and file audience members know that Williams sister was commited? Do we need to know that for the script to be effective? The answer to both is no. Now do we need to know that for this particular production of the show to be effective?
> 
> ###
> 
> ...



###

How would the audience know if this was in homage to Willimas or just that the actor playing Tom was normally 'that way'? This is a character choice made by the actor to get into the character's head. It doesn't really matter to anyone except the actor. To him, it is a necessary part of the process (or so I'm told - I'm not an actor)

Are we not at some point audience members as well as members of the theater community? And how do you make choices to suit every audience member? Each one has a personal frame of reference by which he or she is going to view the play and interpret each character. The best you can do as a SD or director is to choose what feels right to you and then to present the play as honestly as possible. You will never strike the right chord with everyone in the theater, so you do the best you can. If that means a reinterpretation of the set, that's great. Some go too far, some don't go far enough, but neither would keep me, as an audience member, from attending a show.

Char5lie


----------



## Grog12 (Apr 16, 2008)

Van said:


> No we don't need to know these to to enjoy this particular re-telling of this particular script
> This is the part where the Art of our business comes into play. Did you get the fact that he was playing his part a bit fay because of previous critical review or academic speculation ? No, you didn't but perhaps some other members of the audience did. Again, one of the wonderful things about this form of art is the fact that 300 people can watch a performance and walk away with 300 different impressions of what they saw. .


One of the proffesors on campus, who is openly gay, and is rather sensitive to such choices couldn't pick it out. I doubt anyone else did.

> Again part of the ART that we do. We get to make those choices. IMHO Theatre is not about doing exactly what the playwright _might have_ intended, there is no way we can know exactly what the Bard meant to say when he wrote Merchant of Venice; All Jews are bad?, Peoples perception of jews in the 14 hundreds is bad ?, Money lenders in general are bad ? If it where our responsibility to simply reproduce the same artistic material over and over and over what would be the point of going to the theatre, when we could just go to a Britney Spears lip sync event and hear the studio produced version of her songs. What would be the point of re-making Dawn of the Dead if it didn't mean finding new and iventive ways of re-telling the story with a new twist, or uncovering some hidden statement not well conveyed in the original production. We keep producing High School Musical all over the country in the exact same way all over the country because people have gotten lazy they don't necessarily want to challenge their expectations as an audience member.
> These are the choices we, as Artists make. It is the sole responsibility of the Director to determine the the tone, and intent of the production of a play, it is the sole responsibility of the Audience to interpret the intent and determine whether or not the "company" got it right.



Here's what I'm really striving at. I believe that choices must be based in the script. There's a lot of theatre failing right now because of "concepts". These concepts are usually based out of the directors or designers own life expierences...."I remember leaving home to go to college so I know how Tom felt and he would have worn pink!" Or..."Hey lets do an anti-bush Mother Courage!"

The only blue print we have is the script. All the information to tell the story is there and yes by all means is open for interpreation. Too often though people aren't digging through the script or are adding personal expiernce to a perfectly good piece of literature.


Look as a learned man of the theatre I really like Van's production don't get me wrong. Especially in this age of DVD extras its a great way to play to the audience. Also most of the questions I'm about to pose aren't really directed towards Van and the production but as a means to get others thinking about why we make choices...

What does the doctor being on stage the whole time add to the script other than a bit of historical knowledge? Is the confrontation between Blanche and Stanley any more or less compelling with the doctor sitting there the whole time?

When Blanche is carted off is there less of an impact becuase the doctor has been there the whole time?

How does this affect the scenery? Do we do a typical set? or do we add a more steril feeling because we're in the hospital? What about haze?

Are we making this choice because we want it to have more of a memory feel? Or are we making it because of Williams sister?

How many references to doctors are there in the script?


----------



## Logos (Apr 16, 2008)

Spikesgirl said:


> I feel that I have something to add to this debate as I am a playwright.
> ###
> You too? What is your field? Mine, for some reason, ended up being children's theater and 'mythical (i.e. ghost)' plays. Hope your publishers pay better than mine have.
> ###
> ...




I mostly write adult theatre. There's a catologue on my website. Interestingly enough I seem to make more money (not a lot though) from my unpublished work that I promote myself, than from my published work.

You mention Becket, the estate of Samuel Becket insists that his plays are produced exactly as written. I have heard of a girls school in England who did "Waiting for Godot" with an all female cast who were stopped part way through the run by the copyright holders.
There was a professional production of "Footfalls" that resulted in the director and actor being told that no future production of a Becket play that involved either of them would be approved. The changes they made to the script and concept were a little strange but not that far off. I believe that that restriction has now been lifted.

So now where are we. Presumably after the 75th anniversary of Beckets death there may be a sudden onslaught of wierd productions of Becket plays. I still stand by my earlier statement that ego often swallows ART. It becomes too easy for the concept to overcome the play.
Van I have to say that in the case of your Streetcar that it sounds great and I don't think that I would have a problem with it. I feel deeply for the actor involved in the incident mentioned in the review. It must have been gutting.


----------



## gafftaper (Apr 17, 2008)

Your starting to sound like a bunch of actors! 

I saw the partially finished set for Streetcar a few weeks back when we held our Pacific North West C.B. Convention. Although it was not yet done, I found the padded walls and dirty floor tile nicely disturbing. I definitely got the feel that this was a particularly psychologically twisted version. I would love to see the show... although I think one should probably wear a helmet.


----------



## Van (Apr 17, 2008)

We are thinking of handing out catchers mitts pre-show.


----------



## Marius (Apr 17, 2008)

Just putting in my $.02, but as a TD my view on such things is almost always from a practical standpoint. One example was a production of The Rimers of Eldritch I did a few years ago. The designer wanted there to be about 20 doors on the stage that could all open by themselves to underscore the moment in the show when the town had the choice to stop lying about who raped the main character, and then close again when that choice was not made. Unfortunately budgetary constraints killed the idea, so the designer decided to make three large(12'X4') luan doors that we flew over the set. At the appropriate moment he wanted them to raise up and pivot as if they were opening. I got one of them rigged to do the move, but it never really made much sense, and would have required getting three more crew members to make the gag work. Ultimately I sat down with the designer and director and point blank asked them if they thought the audience would get what was happening. They finally conceded that all it did was confuse the audience, and we cut it. As it was the most frequent question I was asked was what were the three Hershey bars hanging over the set. The moral of the story is, IMHO, if the audience won't get it, then it probably doesn't need to be there.


----------



## Spikesgirl (Apr 17, 2008)

gafftaper said:


> Your starting to sound like a bunch of actors! .



Ouch, Gaff, now that hurt, with or without the helmet. 

I think my whole feelings on reinterpretations of sets can boil down to one of my favorite lines from "Jurassic Park" - "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." If it is something that enchances the show, go for it - whether the audience picks up on it or not doesn't really come into play. An informed and observant audience member might, but as long as the set doesn't 'hurt' the text or the playwright's intent, then a new set can be exciting and thought provoking.

(Logos) I mostly write adult theatre. There's a catologue on my website. Interestingly enough I seem to make more money (not a lot though) from my unpublished work that I promote myself, than from my published work.

I will have to check out your offerings. We are always looking for new plays at the theater (I'm on the artistic committee, responsible for setting the season). It always makes me laugh when people say that they want to write for a living - I tell them to get a full time job to support their writing habit because I sure ain't retiring on what I'm making writing.

Char5lie


----------



## Logos (Apr 17, 2008)

My writing helps increase my debt load. I insist on producing my own plays. I invariably lose money and can get no funding from the Government. I am however on the track of a private sponsor.


----------



## derekleffew (Apr 17, 2008)

Logos said:


> ...I insist on producing my own plays...


Is this so you can oversee the production values/preserve your artistic vision or for some other reason? Seems to me to be an odd stance for a playwright to take. 

How are you ever going to become a famous playwright if you are the only one allowed to produce the plays you've written? 

It's all about franchising, my friend. McDonald's, actually Ray Kroc, learned that back in the '50s.

Back to topic. Would YOU allow a very minor character you've written to appear only at the end to be onstage the entire show just watching the action?


----------



## Logos (Apr 17, 2008)

I shall rephrase.

Because no-one else will produce my plays for the first time. I do it. It gives me the opportunity to reshape and rewrite without fighting with another Director. I also pay a lot of attention to my actors and what they have to say. I have built a small ensemble of actors who understand what I am doing and help. The work then goes out to my UK publisher and/or on my web site.

Back on topic: I would not do that myself, BUT, if the director and creative team insisted that it fit their vision and could justify it I would not withdraw the permission. To be honest, if my Publisher issued performance rights to someone it would be extremely unlikely that I would ever find out. So essentially I would have to grit my teeth and hope.

One of my plays was recently translated into greek for a performance in Athens. I've seen a video but I don't speak greek. I have no idea what they've done to it.


----------



## Spikesgirl (Apr 18, 2008)

derekleffew said:


> Back to topic. Would YOU allow a very minor character you've written to appear only at the end to be onstage the entire show just watching the action?



I know this was address to Logos, but yes, I would if that's what the designer wanted - unless it would alter the dialog or 'surprise ending' - I've written a couple plays like that, so that character couldn't be exposed until the very end or the play would make no sense.

Tony, as for having something translated into another language - how were you with that. I did one children's play that illustrated three different styles of theater (Elizabethan, Comedia, and Bunraku) - I could see someone trying to translate the Iambic pentameter portion into something else - that would be a hoot.


Charlie


----------



## gafftaper (Apr 18, 2008)

I guess I don't see the big deal of restaging a show. It's one thing to alter an author's words. It's an entirely different thing to stage it in a different location to give it a different take on the same words. No matter how accurate you try to be to the script... every show is altered by the artistic design of the production staff as well as direction. So every show will be altered somewhat... unless you insist on being there to direct it yourself. Now if you took a show and put it in a setting that somehow contradicted the general message or made a drama into a comedy in order to purposefully change the meaning of the story or berate the author... that would be to far. But I've got no problem taking a small character and having them on stage the whole show.



Spikesgirl said:


> I mostly write adult theatre. There's a catologue on my website.



Watch it Char5lie... there are a lot of young people who hang out around here and we try not to talk about things that are inappropriate for their fragile ears.


----------



## Grog12 (Apr 19, 2008)

Here's where I agree and disagree with you at the same time gaff my man. I think restaging/creative interpratation is a good thing. But it must have basis in the script. That doesn't mean it has to be a word for word recreation, what it means is if the word blood is mentioned 52 times there's a reason for it and its something we should explore.


----------



## Logos (Apr 19, 2008)

Spikesgirl said:


> (Logos) I mostly write adult theatre. There's a catologue on my website. Interestingly enough I seem to make more money (not a lot though) from my unpublished work that I promote myself, than from my published work.



This was me originally Gaff. I should perhaps rephrase to say I don't write childrens theatre. My work is however suitable for over 15's. One of my plays that deals with bullying, sexual harrassment and both female and male rape is a bit mature. It's a mystery called "Rick" and is available on my website.
Relevant to what you and Gaff are talking about Grog12 that plays is set in Adelaide and contains a number of local references. If a company based in the US for example wished to alter those references to make the play work in their community and bring it's message close to home I would approve although I would prefer to read the changes before the show opens. If the changes altered the motivations or intent of any of the characters I would probably argue about it though.

Char5lie, I worried when my play was translated into greek and I actually would prefer not to know what changes were made. I don't speak Greek and will likely never find out.
The play was a very English Murder mystery spoof very silly and I really can't see how many of the cultural references could possibly translate.


----------



## Marius (Apr 19, 2008)

This may be a bit of a thread jack, but since we're on the subject of alterations how do y'all feel about gender blind casting? Most of the schools I've worked in have had a lack of male actors, so many times women have been cast in male roles. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. And what say ye scribes on the subject?

Rick T.


----------



## derekleffew (Apr 19, 2008)

Didn't Edward Albee attempt to stop a production of _Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?_ with an ALL MALE cast?

On the same point, _The Odd Couple_ was revised by Neil Simon in 1985 for a female cast (Sally Struthers and Rita Moreno starred).


----------



## Spikesgirl (Apr 19, 2008)

gafftaper said:


> Watch it Char5lie... there are a lot of young people who hang out around here and we try not to talk about things that are inappropriate for their fragile ears.




Not me, Gaff - I'm strictly a 'G' and very mild 'PG' girl myself and mostly write for children's theater. The most outragous play I wrote was about a woman giving birth in a bathroom who ended up being a ghost who was looking for someone to help her pass over. I think it even had two curse words in it! I'm not an edgy girl.

Tony - now why would they take a play that needs a specific locality to make the jokes work and change the location? That's my arguement with the college's current produciton of "Funny Thing Happened" - they are setting it in Aruba. That's when a set make a difference! 

Big D - we did the all-girl "Odd Couple" and folks liked it just fine. The school wasn't quite as lucky with their all-female version of "Treasure Island" Long John just sorta has to be a guy.

Rick - We've blind casted for years - have to in a college (and now community) setting. We have to take who comes to auditions or hunt like made for someone - hence our two week casting woes for a suitable 'Ethan' in "Full Monty'. We did "Glass Menagerie" with a black mother and Asian sister. We did ''Night Mother" with an Asian mother and Hispanic daughter. They were the best for the parts.

Cheers!

Char5lie


----------



## LD4Life (Apr 19, 2008)

Sorry to interrupt the thread jack, but I thought I would throw my two cents in about interpretation. I think that some very meaningful artistic decisions can be made when it comes to altering the setting of the play that can actually deepen the audience's take of the show. For example, I worked on a production of Antigone that was set post-apocalyptic and it was the only time that I have ever seen so many people in the audience so excited about Sophocles. I think times like this can be very beneficial to the theatre and are, in fact, what theatre is all about.


----------



## Logos (Apr 19, 2008)

Spikesgirl said:


> Tony - now why would they take a play that needs a specific locality to make the jokes work and change the location? That's my arguement with the college's current produciton of "Funny Thing Happened" - they are setting it in Aruba. That's when a set make a difference!
> Big D - we did the all-girl "Odd Couple" and folks liked it just fine. The school wasn't quite as lucky with their all-female version of "Treasure Island" Long John just sorta has to be a guy.




Char5lie: The play I am talking about possibly changing the location of doesn't rely on location for any of the humour or the drama both of which are present despite the rather heavy topic, it is a play about people not about places and the charcters would, I hope, ring true in any locale. It's on my website "Rick" it's called. Read it, you might find it interesting.
I hope the Greeks didn't change the locale of my play "Murder at Doom Manor" but I'll never know as I don't speak Greek.
If the action/humour relies totally on the locale. i.e. "Forum" or "Guys and Dolls" or "Murder on the Orient Express" you can't make changes to the locale and still make it work. Can you imagine "Guys and Dolls" in Beijing or Bombay.

With regard to trans gender casting.
Samuel Beckett's estate (once again) has consistently refused permission for anyone to do "Waiting for Godot" with female casts.
I once saw a production of "Twelfth Night" which was a total gender reversal production. All the males played by women and all the females played by men. It was horrible but that was because the director had also set it in the eighties drug and night club scene and it simply didn't work. Thelma Houston and the Bee Gee's for the sound track and almost constant mirror balls and rug references.
My plays? Some of them wouldn't work and some of them would. I think I would leave that up to the good sense of the Director. (Hmmm)


----------



## Logos (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm kinda sorry this one has died. It was very interesting. I guess everyone has said what they want to say.


----------



## Grog12 (Apr 22, 2008)

Logos said:


> I'm kinda sorry this one has died. It was very interesting. I guess everyone has said what they want to say.


Agree to disagree and all that....

I agree Logos intellectual conversation about theatre is stimulating. I don't get nearly enough of it.


----------



## Spikesgirl (Apr 22, 2008)

It was a fun discussion and really forces one to think about choices. 

Another question - and I'm not sure how to word think succinctly, so bear with me. 

A set designer sees a show and then 'designs' the basically same set and passes it off as his original design. When similarities are pointed out, he brushes them off as both of them seeing a common theme. Is it okay to 'borrow' another designer's set as your own or should you, to the best of your ability, just design from the script and your own gut feelings? When should you use the set design (groundplan) in the back of the script?

I'm just curious...

Char5lie

P.S. Tony - haven't read "Rick" yet, we have a show in dress and starting rehearsals on the next one - next break though, I'm there...


----------



## derekleffew (Apr 22, 2008)

Such a good question, however worded, that I've started a new thread here. 

I don't think the current topic is dead yet--we haven't heard from a number of people. I'm sure it's unfair for me to judge, but I feel setting _Streetcar_ in an asylum forces it to become a "memory play" and that's not how I feel Mr. William's wrote it. I think it comes down to how much is interpretation and how much is imposing one's "concepts" onto a work.


----------



## derekleffew (Apr 22, 2008)

Grog12 said:


> ...I agree, Logos. Intellectual conversation about theatre is stimulating. I don't get nearly enough of it.


But you're in a "bastion of learnin'" in the great intellectual state of FL. How could you NOT have stimulating cerebral discussions about theatre within those ivy-covered walls? Or are you too busy fighting off the alligators?

I think you're more concerned over which is better, Strand or ETC.


----------



## Grog12 (Apr 22, 2008)

> I agree, Logos*; i*ntellectual conversation about theatre is stimulating. I don't get nearly enough of it.




derekleffew said:


> But you're in a "bastion of learnin'" in the great intellectual state of FL. How could you NOT have stimulating cerebral discussions about theatre within those ivy-covered walls? Or are you too busy fighting off the alligators?
> I think you're more concerned over which is better, Strand or ETC.


grand-MA trumps both.

Having spent three years in graduate school, and the past year working in a graduate school, I have rarely had a cerebral discussion about theatre.

Most of the time it's belly-achin' about the director/other designers/proffessors/ insert your favorite belly-ache here.

Seriously the question of whether or not we should do something is usually related to budget and schedule concerns and not artistic ones.


----------



## derekleffew (Apr 22, 2008)

Grog12 said:


> ...Seriously the question of whether or not we should do something is usually related to budget and schedule concerns and not artistic ones.


It's a shame you left Las Vegas then, where it's _never_ about money, _always_ only about the art!


----------



## Grog12 (Apr 22, 2008)

derekleffew said:


> It's a shame you left Las Vegas then, where it's _never_ about money, _always_ only about the art!


Actually I'm speaking more to the two graduate programs I've been exposed too more than geographical location.

Look I know Vegas is either top dollar theatre or $50 to create the entire thing. There really is no middle ground.

One of the things lacking in education (IMHO) is the critical eye. We as educators want our students to have anything and everything they want. Yet at the same time we're not teaching them to be critical enough to say "This does not serve the show." Part of this stems from learning by doing. If I, as a student, see what my mistakes look like on stage, then I know not to make them again. As a lighting designer that can sometimes be fixed quite easily.

As a costumer or a scenic designer that's not always the case. If you make a choice that serves your overall sense of what the show is supposed to be (i.e. your ego) and it detracts from the show, that can't always be fixed in an afternoon.


----------



## Logos (Apr 22, 2008)

Actually this is a hijack and probably another thread but in the pro world do you ever find that performers are often shocked and surprised by hearing an intelligent discussion about the artistic and intellectual background of a play taking place amonst the crew.
A lot of old school performers seem to see us a knuckle dragging neanderthals who wouldn't know an idea even if it jumped up and slapped us around a bit.
Any thoughts?


----------



## Van (Apr 22, 2008)

Logos said:


> Actually this is a hijack and probably another thread but in the pro world do you ever find that performers are often shocked and surprised by hearing an intelligent discussion about the artistic and intellectual background of a play taking place amonst the crew.
> A lot of old school performers seem to see us a knuckle dragging neanderthals who wouldn't know an idea even if it jumped up and slapped us around a bit.
> Any thoughts?


 
What's a Neanderthal ?


----------



## Logos (Apr 22, 2008)

It's a pre modern human type. We (modern man) are essentially Cromagnon. This means we have large prefontal lobes and stand erect. Our arms generally reach to just below waist level. 
Neanderthaler man was probably co existant with early cromagnon. the frontal lobes were smaller, affecting the types of cognition he was capable of, and neanderthal did not stand erect and had longer arms than cromagnon.
It is believed that Neanderthal man died out about 50,000 years ago.
The term neanderthals has often been used to refer to those who are of a slighly lesser intellect and tend to rely on brute strength rather than intelligence.

Having of course dropped right into your irony trap and answered your rhetorical question I am now covered with confusion and will retire quietly.


----------



## derekleffew (Apr 23, 2008)

Logos said:


> ...The term...has often been used to refer to those who are of a slightly lesser intellect and tend to rely on brute strength rather than intelligence...


Just like stagehands! See the glossary term: "neckdown".


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Apr 23, 2008)

Ah CB...satisfying my daily needs for both humor and intellectual discussion.


----------



## Van (Apr 23, 2008)

Oh but Logos you missed one of my favorite issues surrounding Neanderthal Man. Is it pronounced NE -and -er-thal or Ne-and-er-tal ? 
Originally named for the Neander valley, in which many of their remains and former caves were found. Since the the Neander valley is in Germany Many argue that the proper pronunciation is with a silent "H". 
As for Stature and brain capacity; The original discovery of Neanderthal remains sparked the "Ape Caveman" stereotype that we now identify in modern culture, stooped shouldered, dull witted, bow legged ape men, clubbing their potential wives over the head and dragging them off to the bushes. As it turns out the Original discovery was of an approximately 60 year old male who was wracked with degenerative arthritis and numerous broken healed bones. Neanderthal Mans brain capacity was also almost a 1/4 more than modern humans, though it's difficult to project exactly how this related to intelligence, base line brain volume is a standard by which we tend to classify a species < especially human ancestors> as intelligent or not. 
I have to say that I do agree with your observation that many an artistic / administrative type has walked in on and been amazed by some of the intellectual conversations going on in the production office. People tend to walk into the office that Rusty and Tyler and I share when we are in the middle of political, religious, or esoteric theatrical discussions. Heck not to long ago we were discussing Neanderthals, Native Americans, and human distribution across the globe. 
It's that classic adage about judging a book by its cover. People tend to forget that lot of us techs went to "Liberal Arts" colleges, and that we actually had to pass other classes besides "Push a box 101".


----------



## Logos (Apr 23, 2008)

I have to say that having studied German in my youth I pronounce it "Neandertaler" in my head.
The brain volume of Neanderthal was certainly larger than ours but it is inescapable that the frontal lobes were smaller, if not non existant. 
From the barbaric period that a pre frontal lobotomy was a standard treatment for certain mental ilness we are aware that that tends to remove certain intellectual choice making abilities from us. While we do not know how a race with natural lack of frontal lobes will respond it seems that they may be more instinctive.
I was not aware of the issue of the older arthritic male discovery. Thanks for the heads up I will research further.
The issue of brain volume is an interesting one. Based on brain volume are Dolphins and Whales more intelligent tha we are or do they have different intelligence? 
How about elephants?


----------



## Van (Apr 23, 2008)

I have to say that I find it odd that Neanderthals had smaller frontal lobes. The Frontal lobes in humans are actually an outgrowth of the Olfactory centers of the brain, we lose an acute sense of smell and gain a modicum of self control. I don't think that the absence of a large frontal area necessarily indicates a "lesser intelligence" It my however indicate, if I may paraphase your comments, that these individuals posessed a strong instinctual drive, and possibly were much more in touch with thier Genetic memmory. I do subscribe to the theory that Neanderthals and early modern humans most likely interbred. I've seen certain treatments of Neanderthal facial re-constructions that would pass for almost modern looking humans < I keep thinking of some of the extras in the movie The Name of the Rose. now there were some Neanderthal features!> 

If you go by measurement of Frontal Lobes as proof of intelligence then I believe the Crow / Raven whatever should be by far the most superior intellectual on the planet. In comparison to the rest of thier brain thier frontal lobe / olfactory areas are huge.


----------



## Logos (Apr 24, 2008)

Do you know (and this is a legend) that there is a strong suggestion that Neanderthaler may have survived into what are loosley described as historic times (ie last 4000 - 6000 years) in Spain. 
I am not suggesting that they were of less intelligence after all they certainly discovered fire and were tool users and had a form of visual art. Neanderthal burial sites have contained recognisable sculptures of a female figure. I suspect they were of different intelligent and as you say more in touch with a genetic or race memory.
Didn't I read somewhere that someone is trying to trace Neanderthal genetic strains in modern man. That supports the cross breeding theory.


----------

