For my class in Makers of Modern Theater, I have expanded to include Peter Brook, Tadashi Suzuki, Augusto Boal. There is a definite lack in the area of contemporary theorists, especially non-white, non-male theorists.
Nevertheless, I set my class to exploring Brook's concepts of Deadly Theater, Holy Theater, Rough Theater, and Immediate Theater.
One of my students embraced the idea of Deadly, as in "deadly dull" theater, and applied it heartily (quoting Brook) to Shakespeare. Then the student went on to say that Shakespeare was older than dirt and it was time to move past that shit.
I wish I had a chance to work with that student with Shakespeare.
Even though Brook found much of the lauded Shakespeare to be deadly, he himself made a name creating Rough/Immediate productions of Shakespeare's plays. I think that Shakespeare is so often done badly, it's hard for anyone to appreciate it. But people pretend, because they don't want to be thought "stupid".
Showing posts with label scripts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scripts. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Monday, September 13, 2010
play reading
I am teaching two theater classes currently: Introduction to theater, and Development of Drama from the Greeks to Moliere.
In both classes, at different levels, we are discussing how to read a play, and how to see a play.
It is a lot of work to actively read a play.
When reading a play, one must be simultaneously actor, director, designer- all in the mind's eye as one reads the dialogue and stage directions.
When reading an older play, there is also the challenge of putting the play into historical context, and looking for connections to the current era- connections and/or disconnects.
It's a challenge. And I'm not sure how close this literary exercise is to actual theater.
In both classes, at different levels, we are discussing how to read a play, and how to see a play.
It is a lot of work to actively read a play.
When reading a play, one must be simultaneously actor, director, designer- all in the mind's eye as one reads the dialogue and stage directions.
When reading an older play, there is also the challenge of putting the play into historical context, and looking for connections to the current era- connections and/or disconnects.
It's a challenge. And I'm not sure how close this literary exercise is to actual theater.
Monday, August 24, 2009
choosing scripts
It has been said that 80%-- or 90%, depending on who is speaking-- of directing is casting the play. I would agree that a great percentage of good directing is selecting the right actor for the role AND the right combination of actors for the production.
However, even before casting, the director must consider the script. Most of the time I have had the luxury of choosing my own scripts. Most directors have at the very least the option to accept or decline the assignment of directing a particular script.
I prefer to work with excellent scripts. Of course, who doesn't? It is more fun and more rewarding to work with great material. However, I think we often overlook another reason: much of the directing work is done for you by a great playwright. Characters are rich, conflicts are strong.
I am most interested in theater as a collaborative art. I believe in the excellence of ensemble over salesmanship of star power. This also influences my selection of scripts.
When I am looking at scripts for a relatively large cast-- 10, 15 or more-- I look for meaty roles for all characters. This is one reason I often choose Shakespeare: even relatively small roles are often rich and juicy.
With a large cast with a number of newer actors, I will often look for a play that has a group of characters that work together. This might be the Elders of Thebes of the Chorus in Antigone, or the street urchins of Oliver Twist. This strategy allows newer actors to get up there on the stage, while still providing the safety of being one of the crowd. In these character groups, however, it is important that the group has action. Being part of a group that are essentially stage decorations does not give the new actors a chance to develop character, goals and focus.
For me, a good script has a great story, strong conflict, engaging characters.
However, even before casting, the director must consider the script. Most of the time I have had the luxury of choosing my own scripts. Most directors have at the very least the option to accept or decline the assignment of directing a particular script.
I prefer to work with excellent scripts. Of course, who doesn't? It is more fun and more rewarding to work with great material. However, I think we often overlook another reason: much of the directing work is done for you by a great playwright. Characters are rich, conflicts are strong.
I am most interested in theater as a collaborative art. I believe in the excellence of ensemble over salesmanship of star power. This also influences my selection of scripts.
When I am looking at scripts for a relatively large cast-- 10, 15 or more-- I look for meaty roles for all characters. This is one reason I often choose Shakespeare: even relatively small roles are often rich and juicy.
With a large cast with a number of newer actors, I will often look for a play that has a group of characters that work together. This might be the Elders of Thebes of the Chorus in Antigone, or the street urchins of Oliver Twist. This strategy allows newer actors to get up there on the stage, while still providing the safety of being one of the crowd. In these character groups, however, it is important that the group has action. Being part of a group that are essentially stage decorations does not give the new actors a chance to develop character, goals and focus.
For me, a good script has a great story, strong conflict, engaging characters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
