tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post3627492656414613972..comments2023-12-20T17:20:22.032-05:00Comments on 99 Seats: What & Why99http://www.blogger.com/profile/11955916620902994495noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-2196631470874646442009-10-17T08:20:54.547-04:002009-10-17T08:20:54.547-04:00Posted this comment originally in response to a po...Posted this comment originally in response to a post on this on Don Hall's blog, but here's the essence of my opinion:<br /><br />The reason people never ask Why about a play is because the Why for writing a play should be a given, ideally. I.e.: "This story is tremendously important to me and wouldn't leave me alone until I got it out of my head and onto paper, and ideally also onto a stage where it can connect with my fellow humans."<br /><br />The hard part is owning up to the possibility that the story that was so tremendously important and meaningful to you, only resonates with about .000001% of the human race in general.<br /><br />Yeah, I'm definitely in the "reaction to any piece of art is deeply personal and subjective," camp. Don't assume that what you see as trite was equally trite to the writer- one man's trash=other man's treasure, etc. I think that if one really has an artistic hardon for a project, one has to get really good at saying "fuck off" to the certain percentage of people it doesn't connect with that feel the need to actively attempt to convince you it's pointless and stupid.<br /><br />To sum up: the Why question is indeed one that shouldn't be asked in the writing groups 99 attends, because if a playwright's truly been inspired by a story, unless he's completely spineless you will NEVER be able to convince him that it's not worth it to try to get it onstage. The groups he attends are right to internally shrug and at least help the guy craft his play about fluffy bunnies (or whatever) as skillfully as possible. Trying to convince the guy that the fluffy bunnies play is a stupid idea seems to me like a spectacular and frustrating waste of time on the part of the people doing the convincing, doomed to eventual failure. Let him write his play and try to get it produced, or get it produced and then see how it flies with an audience. Then he'll find out who he connects with- and he'll have a much better sample size of opinions than just a 5-10 person writer's group with their own subjective tastes and biases.Ednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-16973948130619541862009-10-14T14:30:04.228-04:002009-10-14T14:30:04.228-04:00The first questions that I ask are: why should we ...The first questions that I ask are: why should we care about the characters (or about watching them)? What is the script trying to say? Of all the stories that could be told, why tell this story?<br /><br />For me, those are the most important questions about every script we read. <br /><br />When I'm evaluating scripts, everything else is secondary. <br /><br />Now granted, that will never guarantee a great play, there's a lot of shitty plays about important issues and ideas--but if we can't answer the why, there's no sense in us producing it. <br /><br />There's a lot of really bad scripts about great ideas, but I don't know many great scripts that can't answer the "why". There's a lot of really well written and polished scripts that have nothing to say.<br /><br />We may not think it matters, but a lot of us are also clueless as to why audiences don't love our work.<br /><br />(Note, I think a writer being able to answer and the script itself being able to answer the why are two different things.)Tony Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02141675073979325374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-86349365971804553712009-10-14T13:41:14.342-04:002009-10-14T13:41:14.342-04:00But there's an audience before the "audie...But there's an audience before the "audience" I'm assuming you're talking about: the audience of gatekeepers at the theatres. It's their job to decide what is a worthy What before any audience sees it at all.<br /><br />That's where the danger lies. But we're already there. It's one thing for me to sit in a writers' group and say, "God, haven't we already heard enough stories about X." It's another thing for an artistic director to say that about a script.<br /><br />Part of what stymies this conversation to is that we leave the Why and the Who out of the equation. Why are you (or me, or anybody) writing about X? And, in a perfect world, Who is the audience that you want to see it. Without a grasp on those issues, it's all just talk.99https://www.blogger.com/profile/11955916620902994495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-43243929577127219202009-10-14T13:33:10.108-04:002009-10-14T13:33:10.108-04:00"who gets to be the judge of what is a worthy..."who gets to be the judge of what is a worthy "what" and what is not a worthy "what"?"<br /><br />The Audience.RLewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01902713893262869164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-67136615704559211122009-10-14T13:11:09.666-04:002009-10-14T13:11:09.666-04:00@RLewis
But everything has a "what" and...@RLewis<br /><br />But everything has a "what" and who gets to be the judge of what is a worthy "what" and what is not a worthy "what"? I just think it's dangerous is all.joshcon80https://www.blogger.com/profile/13493227172042089467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-71362118480982531902009-10-14T12:59:15.790-04:002009-10-14T12:59:15.790-04:00"Does there need to be another reason?"
..."Does there need to be another reason?"<br />As an audience member, I'd say: YES. Definitely. Always.<br /><br />Why this play now? is the most important question to ask of any play. The theater is a place of Ideas, if you don't have one, you could write for film/tv, but even there having something to say is coming more paramount. And it doesn't mean that something can't be funny as hell.<br /><br />Isn't this what we're talking about when discussing the writer's Voice? As in, what does this writer have to say that is worth my time, attention and the price of admission. It's the What, and if you ain't got a What, who should even care about your How?RLewisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-19552415755369035352009-10-14T11:03:10.458-04:002009-10-14T11:03:10.458-04:00I think funny is a style thing and I do think we n...I think funny is a style thing and I do think we need more funny plays. With your play, at least for me, underneath the funny and the silly, is a very real experience that we don't see a lot of onstage. And that should be the guiding factor. NOT for playwrights, who write the story they want to write, but for theatres and audiences: have I seen this story? Do I know this story? What's new here? That's what was great about Raisin and 'Night, Mother: when they were new, they were new. Sometimes I think that all of our theatre is stuck hovering somewhere between 1981 and 1986.99https://www.blogger.com/profile/11955916620902994495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-54041504707942847972009-10-14T10:55:42.501-04:002009-10-14T10:55:42.501-04:00Touche. Good points, all.
Well, my answer will al...Touche. Good points, all.<br /><br />Well, my answer will always be, "Shut up. GOD."<br /><br />I mean, I could go into the reasons why people should produce "MilkMilkLemonade", and there are many, but the real reason is because it's funny. Does there need to be another reason?joshcon80https://www.blogger.com/profile/13493227172042089467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-55118080581284182002009-10-14T10:38:27.445-04:002009-10-14T10:38:27.445-04:00I think a playwright should be able to answer the ...I think a playwright should be able to answer the question of "Why this play now?," at the very least for themselves. Because an audience has to answer it, too. I'm not advocating for only "serious" plays, though. That's when you get into questions of style and the "how."99https://www.blogger.com/profile/11955916620902994495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-29950475868003679762009-10-14T09:44:14.457-04:002009-10-14T09:44:14.457-04:00God knows I complain about plays focusing only on ...God knows I complain about plays focusing only on boring rich white folks all the time. It's a bore and a big problem.<br /><br />That said, I think it's dangerous to ask "why?" If the play is good then why not? Not every play has to be about genital mutilation or the crisis in the Middle East, does it?<br /><br />The director who worked on the first iteration of my play asked the question, "Why this play now?" It was kind of a retarded question because:<br /><br />1. It's a comedy, and it's always a good time for comedy.<br /><br />2. Although not explicitly political or deep or anything, it's a play about four 15 year old girls questioning things like mortality and the universe and justice and love and God for the first time. Just because it's about teenage girls doesn't make it trite.<br /><br />It reminds me of an interview with Kate Whoriskey about taking over The Intiman, where I had my first professional gig in theater. I wish I could find it, but Whoriskey makes these bold statements about how theater got small and plays be about epic things and how she wanted to bring more international artists to Seattle and take more of the Intiman's work to New York and blah blah blah. It kind of made me barf. Suck it, "Raisin in the Sun"! eat shit, "'Night Mother"!<br /><br />On the other hand, I feel you on the dearth of diversity in subject matter. I really, really do.joshcon80https://www.blogger.com/profile/13493227172042089467noreply@blogger.com